The URL can be used to link to this page

04-30-19 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 5:30 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Televised Special Meeting NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, April 30, 2019, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." SPECIAL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Presentation commemorating the 10 Year Anniversary of the Don Burnett Bridge Recommended Action: Receive presentation commemorating the 10 Year Anniversary of the Don Burnett Bridge POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. Page 1 1 April 30, 2019City Council AGENDA STUDY SESSION 2.Subject: Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery/Funding Strategy and Library Expansion/Funding Strategy Recommended Action: Receive update and provide comments regarding a.) City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy including potential funding, and; b.) Library Expansion Strategy including potential funding. Staff Report A - Civic Center Master Plan Background B - City Hall Project Cost Summary C - Vallco Town Center Development Agreement D - Handbook of Architectural Design Competitions (AIA) E - Interim City Hall Options F - Construction Schedule for New City Hall & Library Expansion 3.Subject: Study Session on the FY 2019 - 2024 Proposed Capital Improvement Program with Funding Options Recommended Action: Receive 5-year Capital Improvement Program options regarding projects and funding and provide comments. Staff Report A - Option 'A' 5 -year CIP 190425 B - Option 'B' 5-year CIP 190425 C - Option 'C' 5-year CIP 190425 D – Other Projects E - 5-year CIP Project Narratives F – Open City Hall Survey Results REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF ADJOURNMENT Page 2 2 April 30, 2019City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx? page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during Page 3 3 April 30, 2019City Council AGENDA consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 4 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5364 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/22/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:4/30/2019 Title:Subject: Presentation commemorating the 10 Year Anniversary of the Don Burnett Bridge Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/30/2019 1 Subject: Presentation commemorating the 10 Year Anniversary of the Don Burnett Bridge Receive presentation commemorating the 10 Year Anniversary of the Don Burnett Bridge CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/25/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™5 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5325 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:4/17/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:4/30/2019 Title:Subject: Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery/Funding Strategy and Library Expansion/Funding Strategy Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Civic Center Master Plan Background B - City Hall Project Cost Summary C - Vallco Town Center Development Agreement D - Handbook of Architectural Design Competitions (AIA) E - Interim City Hall Options F - Construction Schedule for New City Hall & Library Expansion Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/30/2019 1 Subject: Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery/Funding Strategy and Library Expansion/Funding Strategy Receive update and provide comments regarding a.) City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy including potential funding, and; b.) Library Expansion Strategy including potential funding. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/25/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™6 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 30, 2019 Subject Update regarding City Hall Design/Delivery/Funding Strategy and Library Expansion/Funding Strategy Recommended Action Receive update and provide comments regarding a.) City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy including potential funding, and; b.) Library Expansion Strategy including potential funding. Civic Center Master Plan Background On October 16, 2018, Council adopted Resolution No. 18-102 amending FY 18/19 Operating Budget to appropriate $4,087,000 to Public Works as follows: Description Appropriation Architectural design services for a New City Hall $3,500,000 Architectural design and other services as needed for an Interim City Hall $500,000 Addition of one 3-year Limited Term Project Manager in the Department of Public Works $87,000 Total Appropriations $4,087,000 A summary of events preceding these most recent authorizations is included in Attachment A. On September 19, 2018, the Cupertino City Council adopted the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan including resolutions to certify the E nvironmental Impact Report and associated General Plan Amendments. In addition, the City Council introduced and conducted the first reading to adopt a Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Vallco Property Owner LLC (Developer), as well as introduced and conducted the first reading for ordinances to amend the Municipal Code and the Zoning Map. On October 2, 2018, the Cupertino City Council conducted the second readings, adopted the DA and amended the Municipal Code and the Zoning Map. The DA included a number of community benefits for the City had the Developer chosen to construct a project on the site that conformed to the Tier 2 option established in the Specific Plan. One of the community benefits included in the Development Agreement 7 was a one-time payment of $30M from the Developer to the City (In-Lieu Payment), or for the Developer to construct a core and warm shell building for a New City Hall, conforming to the preferred alternative from the Civic Center Master Plan. The lowest total, all-inclusive estimate with contingencies and a $300,000 allowance to facilitate a competitive design process is $70.5M. Attachment B shows how these numbers are determined as well as other cost options that may be considered depending on which location is desired for an interim City Hall. If Developer funds of up to $31M warm shell construction were to be realized and $7M-$12M of other savings made possible by working with the Developer, costs to the City had the potential to be lowered to $27 .5M from $32.5M. With the referendum Certification of Sufficiency received on December 18, 2018 for the Vallco Specific Plan DA, the potential to proceed and receive those community benefits are currently undetermined. The Developers commitment and the City’s responsibilities to the New City Hall schedule and construction prior to the recent referendum is included as Attachment C. Status of New City Hall Design The design of a New City Hall has not started. Staff completed an evaluation of various options for an interim City Hall and is now ready to begin the design process of a New City Hall as authorized in October 2018. As a goal of a New City Hall is to be a focal point of the community, staff will be proceeding with an architectural design professional selection process with two main goals. These goals include a process that generates a wide range of new ideas in the approach to a design and secondly to broaden public discussion about the design as well as about the New City Hall project. The proposed process will be a multi-stage selection process that will include a design competition and will follow the Handbook of Architectural Design Competitions published by The American Institute of Architects (Attachment D). The architect selected at the end of the competition will be recommended for award of the New City Hall architectural design contract after a contract is successfully negotiated. The first stage of this proposed process will be a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from interested firms. In this stage, interested architectural firms will provide background and relevant experience of their firm as well as introduce the project team and their qualifications. A selection committee comprised of the City Manager, Director of Public Works, Director of Administrative Services, Director of Information Technology and the Building Official will evaluate the proposals and select up to the top six firms for interviews. From the six firms interviewed, the top three firms will be selecte d to participate in a design competition with New City Hall requirements provided. Each 8 firm will receive a $50,000 stipend to develop a conceptual design that meets the predefined requirements. A five-member panel will then evaluate the three concepts. The City Council may select panel members from a cross section of the community. Panel representation may include:  City Representative – Director of Community Development  Neighborhood Representative  Planning Commission Representative  Chamber of Commerce Representative Also to be included on the panel will be a Professional Advisor (PA). The PA will be a licensed architect selected by the City. The PA will be responsible for planning, organizing and running the design competition. To ensure an unbiased evaluation, the PA selected will be objective facilitator of the panel, have no other interest in the project, as either a designer, an investor or an employee of the City. The PA does not necessarily need to be selected the Public Works Department. Concurrent to the panel receiving presentations and reviewing the conceptual designs provided by the three selected architectural firms, the City may elect to survey Cupertino residents on their preferred concept. The panel recommendation and survey results (if applicable) will be presented to the City Council for a final decision. The selection process will take approximately four months. Logistics of Maintaining City Hall Operations During the construction of a New City Hall, the existing City Hall will need to be vacated and relocating staff to a temporary facility will be required. Staff explored the following four options for an interim City Hall: 1. Relocate to Monta Vista Recreation Center 2. Relocate to a New Service Center Administration Building 3. Relocate to leased space in Cupertino 4. Relocate to modular buildings on Library Field RFQ Interviews Design Competition 5 Member Panel Evaluation/Survey Residents City Council Decision City Hall Design Timeline 9 The existing square footage of City Hall is approximately 20,770 sf, and houses up to 115 employees. It was assumed that the same number of employees and departments would need to be accommodated in an interim facility or facilities. Four potential interim City Hall alternatives are summarized with pros and cons in Attachment E and costs associated with the alternatives are in Attachment B, both are summarized in the table below: Interim City Hall Alternatives Costs Pros Cons Monta Vista Community Center $2.49M Location and cost to improve may enhance City owned property. Inadequate parking Relocation of existing programs and lowest cost option. New Service Center Admin Building $13.74M Minimize sunk costs, use of City owned property and valuable City asset upon completion of City Hall. Desire to improve the Service Center and highest cost option. Portables in Library Field $3.82M Proximity to City Hall. Loss of field use for up to 3 years, loss of sunk costs and no improvements to City owned space and congestion. Leased Space $3.77M No impact to programming at Monta Vista Community Center or Library Field. Loss of sunk costs and no improvements to City owned space and lease space availability. In all four alternatives, due to extensive infrastructure requirements necessary to support their operation, it is proposed to relocate City Channel operations to modular buildings located adjacent to Community Hall. Accompanying these buildings would be another building that would accommodate City Council and staff preparation for ongoing meetings that would continue to occur in Community Hall. For the 5-year CIP study session that follows this presentation, the construction of a New City Hall and providing for an interim City Hall is included as Option “A”. Condition of Existing City Hall The replacement of the existing City Hall is due to the current condition of the existing City Hall and the need for more community meeting space. There are currently $6.1M of 10 high priority health and safety improvement needs at the existing City Hall. This includes $4.1M in improvements and $2M1 in additional funding for an interim City Hall to relocate staff while the work is being completed. Work includes a seismic retrofit to current building code, an emergency generator replacement, a new heating, ventilation and air conditioning system upgrade, roof replacement, installation of a new electrical switchboard and electrical system replacement, lighting and lighting system upgrades, a new larger elevator, and accessible improvements. Completion of this work would not increase the usable area of the building and no new community meetings spaces would be created. For the 5-year CIP study session that follows this presentation, this work is included in Option “B”. While this work is being completed, other less serious health and safety improvements and efficiency changes are also needed and should be completed when the building is vacant. This work includes office renovation/interior improvements, relocation of the permit center to the main floor, additional mechanical -electrical-plumbing system upgrades, ceiling and window replacements and site/civil/landscaping improvements. Overall usable area of the building would increase approximately 10% due to more efficient use of existing space. The additional dollars to complete this work is $16.9M plus $4.1M in high priority work and $2M for an interim City Hall for a total of $23M. Attachment B provides the cost breakdown. For the 5-year CIP study session that follows this presentation, this work is included in Option “C”. Library Expansion Strategy On July 15, 2015, the City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The plan approved a preferred alternative for the Library, which included a 130-seat addition to the Program Room with direct access from the exterior of the library. The Library expansion requires 33 additional parking stalls which would be included in the 118 underground stalls at the New City Hall. If the New City Hall is not constructed or if the Library Expansion precedes the New City Hall, additional parking would be required. The least expensive option for additional parking would be to construct a surface parking lot on the east side of Library Field at a cost of $1,500,000. The total cost of the preferred “Perch” library addition and required parking is estimated at $10.05M and is detailed in Attachment B. If both the New City Hall and the Library Expansion were to proceed to construction, the ideal construction phasing would be to start the Library Expansion project immediately following the construction of the New City Hall. This sequencing may avoid the additional $1.5M temporary parking area as the New City Hall underground parking would be available to offset the contractor staging area needed for the Library Expansion 1 Total costs for Interim City Hall are $2.5M, $0.5M in existing budget appropriations and $2M in new appropriations 11 construction. If simultaneous construction is desired, the temporary parking area would be required. For the 5-year CIP study session that follows this presentation, a Library Expansion is included in all Options “A, B & C”. Schedule for New City Hall The design for the New City Hall, as outlined in the above selection process, is anticipated to be complete by February 3, 2021. Anticipating future Council authorizations and no other issues, construction could begin by August 9, 2021 and be complete by October 31, 2023. The Library Expansion, if phased to begin immediately a fter the New City Hall is constructed, would begin design December 13, 2021 with construction complete by November 29, 2024. A detailed schedule of both the New City Hall and the Library Expansion is provided in Attachment F. Sustainability The existing City Hall has several systems that are not energy efficient. Most notable are the heating & cooling systems and the building envelope. Consequently, much more energy is expended per square foot for the existing City Hall as compared to a newer building. The New City Hall, per the Civic Center Master Plan, will be LEED Silver rated. Silver rated buildings are more efficient than non LEED rated buildings and considerably more efficient than buildings built under the 1964 building code that applied when City Hall was first constructed. Fiscal Impact Currently $3.5M has been authorized for the design of a New City Hall. In proceeding with this design, it is estimated that an additional $67M of funding authorization will need to be made in the future. Current capital reserves total $30M. If all capital reserves were to be allocated to the New City Hall project and the majority of all other capital projects are not funded, an estimated $37M of outside revenue will be needed for a New City Hall. Debt financing utilizing certificates of participation (COP) are likely the most advantageous for this needed funding, however other options as presented in the April 2, 2019 study session may be utilized. A $37M COP would cost approximately $455,000 to originate and would incur an estimated annual debt service amount of $2M assuming a 4% annual borrowing cost. To support this annual debt cost, a .25% increase in the transactional use tax and/or a 2% increase in the transient occupancy tax should be considered. The Library Expansion amount of up to $10.05M would be in addition to the funds needed for a New City Hall and will also require an outside source of revenue. A general obligation bond (G.O.) that would need to be affirmed by a 2/3 community vote may be the most appropriate. A G.O. issuance of this amount would cost approximately $276,000 to originate. G.O. payments would be supported by a parcel tax and not the general fund. 12 Other revenue opportunities, include but are not necessarily limited to, an increase in utility user tax and/or a new parcel tax or other options as presented in the April 2, 2019 study session may also be investigated. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works Michael Zimmermann, Capital Improvement Program Manager Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: Attachment A - Civic Center Master Plan Background Attachment B – City Hall Project Cost Summary Attachment C – Vallco Town Center Development Agreement Attachment D – Handbook of Architectural Design Competitions (AIA) Attachment E - Interim City Hall Options Attachment F – Construction Schedule for New City Hall & Library Expansion 13 Civic Center Master Plan Background In July, 2015 the City Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan (CCMP), with a preferred alternative that included a new 40,000 square foot City Hall with an Emergency Operations Center and basement level parking to accommodate approximately 118 vehicles. The City Council also adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study. In August 2015, Council considered whether to fund an architectural services agreement. Council did not approve the architectural services agreement in the amount of $5.5 million (included the “perch” addition to the library) and directed staff to provide more information on financing options for implementing the master plan. In October, 2015 Council received the Report on Lease Financing which was considered and discussed by Council in November 2015. Council directed staff to 1) explore options for a maximum cost of $40 million (financed plus cash). 2) explore options of leasing 40,000 square feet, and 3) explore possibility of building the proposed project for half the cost. In December 2015, staff reported to Council that it was not possible to build the project for a maximum of $40 million. At the Work Program study session on February 20, 2018, the City Council indicated that they were not in favor of moving forward with the design of a new City Hall at that time, and instead directed staff to continue to evaluate alternative construction an d finance mechanisms to reduce the overall cost of the Civic Center Master Plan implementation. The total cost estimate of $69,150,000, was all inclusive of construction costs, demolition and removal of existing building, design, City staff cost, testing and inspection, construction management, community outreach, relocation, lease, and furniture, fixtures and equipment. Total, all-inclusive estimate with contingencies, as presented to the City Council in February 2018, was $69,150,000. On April 3, 2018, the City Council considered a major renovation of City Hall, however did not pursue that option and directed staff to spend 5-7 months to explore other designs/general concepts for a New City Hall and to look at other potential cost saving solutions, still preserving the new 40,000 square foot building as the preferred alternative. The CCMP called for the design to meet the following criteria:  Complement that of the Library and Community Hall and to project the Cupertino Civic Center as a locus of civic pride with enhanced civic identity and public interface that greatly improves the experience of the place; the architectural 14 expression will represent the City’s contemporary civic identity and express the community’s civic values of open engagement with the government.  Accommodate staff of up to 102;  Include an Emergency Operations Center function;  Include a public service center for permits, licenses and other business transactions;  Provide adequate meeting space for staff to conduct city business, and allow for flexible scheduling for evening and weekend use by the public;  Provide larger meeting and program space for public activities and events during mid-week and weekend days and evenings;  Design the building with high sustainability goals including to meet at least the LEED Silver standard and the Cupertino Climate Action Plan, with resource efficient systems that reduce consumption and minimize building maintenance costs. The current City Hall building, as indicated to the City Council in April of 2018, has the following deficiencies that are estimated to now total $22 million:  Building does not meet existing Life Safety building codes, much less Essential Facility code to support EOC.  Building can be braced to meet seismic requirements.  Heavy tile roof  Electrical Service and distribution systems are at end of useful life, at capacity and need full replacement. Parts not available.  1960’s era boiler and emergency generator need replacement.  Generator should not be within building. Parts not available.  Air handler, boiler, chiller equipment needs replacement. HVAC controls out- dated and do not work properly. Parts not available.  Communication and data systems will be difficult to maintain over time due to age and capacities.  Building configuration is inefficient and non-compliant  ADA accessibility issues with toilet rooms and elevator  Employees lack work and meeting space  EOC and Lobby spaces inefficient  Interior doors and finishes need updates and replacements  Abundant walled offices create inefficiencies and reduce natural lighting  Building is energy inefficient  Building envelop needs insulation and better energy windows.  Building is space inefficient  Building space remodel likely to gain 10-15% in usable office space. 15 At the November 5, 2018 study session to discuss the Citywide building condition assessment project, City Hall was described as requiring up to $13 million of expenditures over the next 10 years. These expenditures are necessary to keep the building from failing and to make other improvements that would be facilitated while the building is vacant during the work. 16 ATTACHMENT B Revised 4/22/19 INTERIM CITY HALL OPTIONS Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Interim City Hall @ Monta Vista Recreation Center Notes Interim City Hall @ New Service Center Admin Bldg Notes Interim City Hall in Protables on Library Field Notes Interim City Hall in Leased Space Notes Interim City Hall Design 500,000 1 2,235,882 3 500,000 1 350,000 Temporary City Channel & Council Offices 300,000 2 300,000 2 300,000 2 300,000 2 Renovation/Construction - Interim Facility 1,663,377 3 11,179,410 3 3,000,000 4 3,092,000 5 Telecom Service (phone, internet, Data)24,000 6 25,000 7 24,000 6 24,000 6 TOTAL 2,487,377$ 13,740,292$ 3,824,000$ 3,766,000$ Notes: 1) Authorized by Council 10/16/18 5) Assumes a 2-year duration + $750,000 for T.I.'s & Relocation 2) Assumes modular trailers next to Community Hall (Bartos Report)6) Telecom Service assumes $1,000 per month lease from external provider 3) Bartos Report March 2019 7) Service Center Telecom - extend existing fiber optic to new building 4) 22 trailer x $100,000/trailer + site work, utilities IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING CITY HALL NEW CITY HALL 615,000 2,609,090 RFP and Design Competition 300,000 Construction Contingency 260,910 Design of New City Hall 5,300,000 Construction Management 410,000 Warm Shell 30,000,000 Project Management 205,000 Tenent Improvements / FF&E 21,260,000 4,100,000 Construction Contingency 5,000,000 1,250,000 Project Management 1,700,000 6,336,870 Construction Management 4,450,000 Construction Contingency 633,680 SUBTOTAL 68,010,000$ Construction Management 900,000 Project Management 350,000 9,470,550 LIBRARY EXPANSION 13,570,550 743,000 Design 986,190 4,458,000 Construction 5,976,908 668,700 Contingency 597,691 891,600 Construction Management 657,460 668,700 Project Management 328,730 7,430,000 Permanent Surface Parking Lot 1,500,000 21,000,550$ TOTAL 10,046,979$ Design of Priority 1 Health & Safety Imps Priority 1 Health & Safety Imps. Priority 2 Imps. Health & Safety w/ Priority 2 Imps. Subtotal Subtotal Priority 2 Subtotal Priority 1 Design of Priority 2 Reliability/Resilence TOTAL Design of Priority 3 Comfort & Eff. Construction City Hall Priority 3 Comfort & Eff. Construction Contingency Construction Management Project Management Other Subtotal 17 Attachment C Timing of Developer’s Commitment to New City Hall Construction If Developer commences construction or installation of “Project Specific Work” for the SB 35 Project, then Developer shall pay City within 30 days following City’s demand therefor an amount equal to 50% of the reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by City in connection with the design and planning for the New City Hall, not to exceed Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). “Project Specific Work” is defined as work that is specific to either the SB 35 Project, a Tier 1 development project, or the Tier 2 Project under the Development Agreement, contemplated to be work beyond the Project Neutral Work. This would most notably be work associated with a building permit, such as a foundation permit or other construction associated with vertical infrastructure. “Project Neutral Work”, as defined in the DA, includes demolition, rough grading, make- ready utility work, offsite work, excavation and shoring, and such other work as the parties may mutually agree is Project Neutral Work. Developer’s Scope of Work for Core and Warm Shell Building As part of the core and warm shell construction to be delivered by the Developer, the following items will be included:  Concrete one level parking garage with shotcrete walls included and furnished with code minimum fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system and lighting.  The New City Hall building will be core and shell (warm shell box) where the box will consist of building envelope and roof.  Mechanical units will be provided on the roof and will be stubbed into the building for distribution under tenant improvement scope performed by City.  All utilities, including fire stand pipes, will be stubbed in to the building and will be distributed as part of the tenant improvement work.  Electrical panels will be provided and electrical services will be brought from the existing transformer connection location point into the building to a location to be shown in the construction drawings.  The exterior envelope will be either wood frame with stucco and glass windows or metal stud framing with stucco and glass windows.  The building will be designed to Essential Facility seismic codes.  Store front doors will be provided. All exterior doors and hardware will be provided.  All utility connections from the existing connection points to be brought into the building to a location to be shown in the construction drawings. 18  The site work in the construction zone is included to have standard landscaping with irrigation and the parking lot to be asphalt, and concrete sidewalks commensurate with existing improvements. Any damage will be restored to original state.  The civil and structural portions of the building will be designed by the City to LEED Silver.  Roofing will be an industry standard roofing material.  Roof will be designed and built to allow for solar panels to be installed by the City. The City’s obligations for the New City Hall project, as identified in the DA are the following:  City will be responsible for designing, preparing construction documents and obtaining all necessary discretionary approvals and building permits for the New City Hall.  The target budget (not including Design Deviations) for the work to be completed by the Developer for the core and warm shell New City Hall, consistent with the criteria established in the Civic Center Master Plan, assuming commencement of construction within 24 months, is Thirty One Million Dollars ($31,000,000)  City will commence design work within 30 days following the effective date of the Development Agreement for the Tier 2 Vallco Town Center Specific Plan (Effective Date). Thereafter, City will diligently proceed with any discretionary and ministerial approvals for the New City Hall, including any required architectural approvals, preparation of construction documents and permitting, including demolition, tree removal, make-ready utilities, excavation and building permits. The City shall complete all approvals and acquire permits for the New City Hall within 21 months of the Effective Date, subject to extensions that may occur per the DA.  In order to allow for Developer’s timely construction of the New City Hall, City shall vacate the Existing City Hall and deliver possession of the Existing City Hall site to Developer for construction within 24 months of the Effective Date, subject to extensions that may occur per the DA.  If the City does not meet the above scheduled deadline, the Developer has the option to provide the In-Lieu Payment to the City instead of constructing the New City Hall. If Developer elects to proceed with development of the Tier 2 of the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan, the Developer shall complete the New City Hall core and shell construction and deliver a Warm Shell New City Hall to the City within thirty six (36) months after the date that the City provided the approved building permits and relinquished the site to the Developer. 19 If the City’s construction plans, specifications and drawings for the New City Hall deviate from the New City Hall Criteria and the deviations increase the cost to construct the New City Hall, the Developer will pay the cost of the design deviations not to exceed Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000). Any design deviations that increase the New City Hall costs above the deviation cost allowance will be the responsibility of the City. 20 21 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 2 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Copyright 2010 The American Institute of Architects Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................3 Preface ..........................................................................................4 1 Appropriate Conditions for a Competition .................................8 2 Key Stakeholders ...................................................................16 3 Competition Types .................................................................28 4 Running a Competition ...........................................................32 5 Entering a Competition ...........................................................40 6 Post-competition Activities .....................................................46 Appendix Appendix A ................................................................................50 Appendix B ................................................................................55 Appendix C ................................................................................59 Appendix D ................................................................................61 Appendix E ................................................................................63 Resources and References ........................................................64 22 3 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Acknowledgements ThE AmERICAn InSTITuTE of ARChITECTS is grateful for the time and effort dedicated to the process of revising and expanding the AIA handbook of Architectural Design Competitions. At the request of 2007 AIA President RK Stewart, fAIA, members of the Committee on Design and members of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee of the AIA Board of Directors have provided the work necessary to bring this update to fruition. The original efforts of the Committee on Design were led by Peter Lizon, fAIA, with the assistance of Samuel Gardner, AIA, and Etienne Louw, Assoc. AIA. Later contributions were made by committee leaders David Brems, fAIA, David Greenbaum, fAIA, Thomas howorth, fAIA, mike mense, fAIA, Louis Pounders, fAIA, michael Ross, fAIA, Carol Rusche-Bentel, fAIA, and Anne Schopf, fAIA. members of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee who contributed their time and experience include: michel Ashe, fAIA, fredric Bell, fAIA, Leslie Thomas, AIA, Ralph Lerner, fAIA, michael Lischer, fAIA, R. Kent mather, fAIA, Bonnie Staiger, hon. AIA, Enrique Woodroffe, fAIA, and Peter Kuttner, fAIA. Leadership and support for this important project were provided by David Proffitt, AIA, who was Secretary of the Institute from 2006 to 2008 and acted as a leading proponent of the revised version of the handbook. Staff support was provided throughout by Kathleen Lane, Assoc. AIA. 23 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 4 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Preface Design excellence is often the result of a well-planned and clearly executed design competition. Since founding the organization more than 150 years ago, members of the American Institute of Architects have taken a keen interest in architectural competitions. As early as 1870, with the “Schedule of Terms,” the AIA has issued guidance that defines fair conduct and a judicious process for selecting designs and architects through the competition process. The AIA’s previous edition of the handbook of Architectural Design Competitions was published in 1988. While not wholly outdated, that document needed to be revised in view of the proliferation of the new varieties of competition types and because competitions have become more visible and common. As architectural practice has grown to be more global and as the collaborative nature of the profession’s work has become more linear, the competition model demands a more sophisticated methodology. This current edition draws upon the previous document and other literature as it explains how the metrics and process can be organized and how design competition has evolved. one only has to look at continental Europe’s history and booming construction in Asia, or our global u.S. practices, to see how the need for design competitions has grown proportionally. now that the competition process is more segmented, with varying models and “structural systems,” it is time to again offer guidance on organizing and executing competitions. This publication identifies the components of a well-run design competition and offers best practices for achieving success and top-quality architecture. 24 5 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Growing complexity This updated handbook has been developed by architects and others for those interested in learning more about competitions and their proper procedures. The first section discusses the competition process and the appropriateness of particular competition processes for particular projects. The next section discusses the key stakeholders in the process of competitions. The third section discusses the different types of competitions. The final three sections discuss the actual competition process and recommended activities within that process. The first hurdle is to determine if the competition process is the appropriate way to solicit design submittals. understanding needs, aspirations, and vision, whether as a sponsor or designer, is critical in deciding whether to move forward with a competition process. This revised handbook is organized and designed to assist in facilitating those decisions. This process, however, once begun, is not so much different than in the past. The competition sponsor must run competitions carefully and judiciously. The Institute, as in the past, recommends that sponsors inform themselves thoroughly about the detailed procedures, methods, and techniques needed to run a successful competition. Competitions have become more complex. It is often necessary for the sponsor or benefactor of the competition to rely heavily on other parties, such as an advisory board and certainly a professional adviser, probably the most significant addition to the competition process since the guidelines were last published. The adviser guides the sponsor through the entire competition process, with the team constructed as a three- or possibly four-legged stool: the sponsor, the adviser, the jury, and often staff acting as the legs. If an advisory board is utilized, it is also directly available to the sponsor for advice. 25 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 6 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The well-run design competition requires: j A conscientious sponsor j A competent professional adviser j A thorough and carefully written program j Complete graphic and other illustrative materials j fair and precise rules governing the competition j Clear submission requirements j A realistic schedule j A qualified jury j Appropriate prizes and/or stipends j Arrangements for publicizing the winning design The Institute’s distribution of these guidelines is advisory and informational. however, these new guidelines are created with a dual purpose. The experienced or novice sponsor may view the variations of competition practices described in this document as a checklist from which to choose. The guidelines also serve the novice, and perhaps the more experienced architect or designer, to better acquaint themselves with differing processes within the competition world. however, after this checklist or analysis is completed, it is the sponsor who must decide the appropriateness of any particular competition structure for the given building or project type. 26 27 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 8 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Appropriate Conditions for a Competition It is important to determine first if the design competition method is the appropriate process for procuring design services. understanding the needs and aspirations of the project is critical in deciding whether to move forward with a competition. Sponsors, in particular, must be aware of the trade-off between design competitions and more traditional design procurement procedures. Advantages of the competition method There are many advantages to the competition method for the sponsor. A properly run design competition is a good way to: j Generate a wide range of new ideas in the approach to a design j Enhance the credibility of the sponsor j uncover new talent who might not ordinarily be approached in the traditional process j Attract the attention of the press and the general public to the needs being addressed j Broaden public discourse about design, as well as about the specific project j Increase exposure for the sponsor At the same time, there are also advantages for the architect. A well-organized design competition, with selection based on ideas rather than past portfolio, presents the opportunity to: 28 9 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs j Procure new work of high caliber j Gain exposure j Increase experience for younger architects j Acquire expertise in a new market or building type Disadvantages of the competition method Architects bring creativity to design regardless of the method of selection. however, some projects favor particular approaches for selecting a designer or design team. The more traditional procurement approach, including a request for qualifications, a request for proposals, possible references checks, and interviews, may favor expertise or long- term involvement (which are critical components in some cases) over more diverse ideas. Specifically, the design competition method presents some disadvantages: j Limited interaction with the users of the building or other stakeholders in the success of the project j Lack of multiple-step iterations that help the client team understand the process j minimal opportunity to get public participation in the design process in a meaningful way j Little exposure to the trade-offs and alternatives considered in reaching a solution j minimal realistic budget control j Winning competitors who prove to not have the necessary skill or staff to complete the project j Difficulty in addressing very complex program requirements in a limited time frame many new forms of design competitions have evolved to address some of these issues, such as interim design reviews, two-stage competitions, and independent cost estimating. however, some architectural projects will still be better served by a more involved design process, which includes greater participation and evaluation of alternatives in a consensus-building setting. other projects will profit from fresh and often dramatic new ideas that may be generated by a competition. Informed sponsors must decide if the competition method fits their need. 29 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 10 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Appropriate conditions Projects most appropriate for a competition are those that are best served by opening the design challenge to a wide range of talent that will submit a broad array of design concepts for evaluation by recognized experts. once the sponsor is satisfied that the competition method meets the needs as a selection process, the sponsor must ascertain that the project itself and the organization of the competition are established under appropriate conditions. Design competitions can be used for a wide range of design opportunities, such as residential housing, office buildings, libraries, museums, art galleries, courthouses, schools, and public spaces. In each case, the sponsor must consider if the project: j Requires a wide degree of design exploration j Is on an important or unusual site j features a type of structure that deserves a fresh examination by the design community j might greatly influence subsequent design work for the project type or its location j Will generate additional public interest with positive benefits. inappropriate conditions Projects that do not guarantee fair and equitable treatment for all competitors violate a central principle of design competitions. Even if the competition method is selected, and the specific project conditions are appropriate, there are other conditions that might interfere with a good competition. from the sponsor’s perspective, inappropriate conditions would interfere with the ability of the competition to provide a worthy winner. from the architect’s point of view, an improperly run design competition can waste time and money and harm his or her reputation. 30 11 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Both the sponsor and the architect must consider that projects may be inappropriate for competitions when any of the following conditions exist: j Short schedules: There must be adequate time to plan, organize, manage, and judge a competition j Project without adequate funding: Although the expense of holding a competition is a modest one relative to total project costs, initial funding is essential j Project for which an adequate development budget is not available: A project where the sponsor hopes that a design chosen in competition will either help raise funds or generate sufficient interest to make eventual construction possible is time-consuming and seldom successful j Project for which the sponsor does not offer sufficient prizes j The sponsor is unwilling to establish a qualified jury j The sponsor has not appointed a professional adviser j Project without a sound and adequately developed program A design competition should not be held to search for programmatic needs but rather to discover different ways of addressing such needs. Design competition Variables Just as every program and site is unique, there are many variables to design competitions. Eight specific variables are identified in this section. They describe a continuum of criteria which should be considered carefully in determining the kind of competition that is appropriate for a specific project. The third section of this handbook describes nine specific different competition types that have become more common over the years. Each of those nine types can be described to some extent by the variables listed here. After determining that both the design competition method and the conditions are right, the sponsor still needs to design the correct kind of competition. 31 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 12 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Similarly, designers need to decide if it is the correct kind for them to enter. size of project The size of the project affects the competition type. Small projects or simple programs lend themselves to competitions that can be open to many designers, including students and architects with less experience in the project genre. Smaller projects might be more open to out-of-the box solutions and may be held to shorter schedules. Smaller projects are sometimes held by the sponsors as ideas competitions, with prizes rather than the building commission as the reward. Larger facilities or more complex programs are more often limited to invited participants, due to the expense of the process and the product and the need for longer time frames. Larger projects often require robust design teams that include engineers and constructors. Qualifications When the sponsor of the project wants the widest exposure, or ideas that are the widest ranging explorations, the competition could be open to anyone, including students and other stakeholders. The disadvantage to a sponsor is the questionable constructability of the final solution, while an architect might question the financial logic of competing against such small odds. however, the novice might delight in the opportunity for exposure. Size of project Small–simple Large–complex Qualifications Anyone–student Architect Selectivity open call Invite Compensation no compensation honorarium–fee Jury composition Stakeholders Expert–celebrity Stages in competition Single 2- or 3-stage Adviser engaged no Yes Product expected Concept Comprehensive 32 13 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs more commonly in competitions for specific buildings, the qualifications require that the entrant be an architect, with the implication that the final award will be the commission for the project. The sponsor has the assurance of a highest level of competency, and the architect can look forward to better odds and a greater ultimate reward. selectivity There is a wide range of selectivity that can be applied. A general open call to architects, announced in the professional press, government solicitations, or other approaches, is the most common, and could elicit hundreds of entries with a wide range of quality. If the sponsor is primarily interested in exposure or press, or wants ideas alone, this is quite popular, but the competition brief must be up-front about the goals, if the architect is to determine whether the effort is worth it. At the other end of the spectrum is the limited competition, with invited participants only. many institutions now sponsor these limited events with the same list of celebrity designers over and over, with the belief that these names will attract attention and donations. In some cases it is effective, while in others it limits the flow of new ideas. In other instances, the complexity of the project naturally limits competition to those firms with ample resources for the work or expertise in the building type. compensation The sponsor needs to decide what compensation, if any, will be offered to entrants and winners to achieve the desired participation. Potential entrants, for their part, should decide for themselves whether the possible rewards justify expending their efforts. many competitions have been unpaid, with only the promise of a job in the distant future, which has been enough for some architects. In other instances the purse is sweetened with prize money, providing first, second, and third place prizes for example, as deemed appropriate by the sponsor. As the expectation for more elaborate final products increases (including models, renderings, digital simulations, etc.), or as the projects grow more complex (requiring engineering and cost estimates), the need to consider carefully the appropriate compensation becomes particularly critical. There has been a trend toward an honorarium for the four to six firms asked to move forward in developing their submissions. This is a major expense for a sponsor, but it must be stated that most honoraria only tend to cover one-third to one-half of the expense that the architect might incur, so the decision cannot be taken lightly on a large elaborate project. 33 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 14 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Jury composition The composition of the jury affects the outcome for the sponsor and the strategy of the architect. Some clients or institutions form the jury from their own stakeholders, with board members, staff, local community leaders, or local politicians on the selection committee. In this case they are favoring specific understanding of the particular project and its community in picking a winner. other groups bring in outside experts or designers of some renown to give greater visibility to the competition and to pick the winner based on larger trends and ideas in the greater design community. stages in competition The classic competition is done in a single stage. The call for entries goes out, a program brief is provided to those who inquire, and the final design concepts are submitted on the date required. for the sponsor the logistics are simple, and for the architect the rules are clear. however, some of the shortcomings noted in the other variables are not addressed. new hybrids have evolved in staging competitions. To address the advantages of open versus limited competition, some two-stage procedures include an open first stage, similar to a request for qualifications (RfQ), which requires some background and relevant experience rather than any design work. from this open stage a limited group is selected, but a much wider group of architects is provided an opportunity without incurring an inordinate expense. frequently the first stage is not funded, but the select finalists are provided a stipend. Another form of two-stage competition tries to address the lack of participation by staff or stakeholders in the design process. In this approach, with an invited smaller group of competitors, there is a preliminary design presentation of concepts to elicit early feedback. Then, better armed with feedback, the teams complete their submissions. 34 15 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Adviser engaged Those who run competitions are well-intentioned, but the whole endeavor is fraught with pitfalls. While there are many competitions with no advisers, it is recommended that all competitions have a professional adviser and an advisory board. In smaller or student competitions that adviser might be a volunteer faculty member or a local architect, but it is important that the adviser take the position seriously. In larger competitions, sponsors should engage a professional adviser, backed by an appointed advisory board, as an essential part of a successful enterprise. Architects should recognize the risk of entering a competition without an adviser. Product expected finally, it cannot be stressed enough how important it is to be both clear and realistic about the expectations for the final product. Concept plans, sketches, and study models are appropriate products for small projects, ideas competitions, and broadly open events. When the sponsor requires a comprehensive final product, the requirements must also be very clear. If submission elements such as engineering reports, cost estimates, elaborate models, and video fly-throughs are all expected, it should be stated at the outset. A comprehensive product is usually only realistic if the competition is limited, the time frame is longer, and the stipend is calculated to attract the desired participation. (See Appendix B for enumeration of possible submission elements.) 35 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 16 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Key Stakeholders This handbook recognizes the importance of each stakeholder in the competition, including: j People and institutions considering sponsoring a competition j Consultants acting as advisers j Sponsor’s staff who are managing the process j Jurors invited to help with the competition for stakeholders in the architectural profession, we envision this guide as a service to the AIA membership, including: j Architect members considering entering a completion j Architect members invited to advise or jury j Chapters and other components managing a competition competition sponsor The role of the sponsor is crucial to the success of a design competition. no competition can take place until the sponsor provides the project, the organization, and the financial resources to make it possible. The sponsor’s decisions will, to a large extent, determine the success or failure of the competition process. A design competition must be governed by an impartial and carefully developed set of procedures. When a sponsor holds an architectural design competition, it obligates itself to running the competition in accordance with the procedures set forth in the competition program. Prize money, fees, and honoraria must all be awarded based on competition rules. The sponsor is also responsible for the accuracy of the statements it makes about the competition project. In return, the sponsor should expect all other participants—professional adviser, jurors, and competitors—to honor the rules and perform to the best of their abilities. 36 17 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Professional Adviser A capable and conscientious professional adviser is essential to a successful competition. As a consultant to the sponsor, the adviser is the individual who is most directly responsible for planning, organizing, and running a design competition. The adviser’s responsibilities fall into four key areas: j Program: Develop rules and working documents explaining what the content and conduct of the competition will entail, including announcements, rules, instructions, program information, and reports j organization and structure: Plan, organize, and manage a competition to attract a wide array of outstanding solutions for the sponsor’s stated design problem j review: Assist in selecting a highly qualified jury capable of exercising sound judgment j General oversight: Conduct the competition so that all competitors receive fair and equitable treatment These major duties require that the professional adviser serve as an impartial liaison among sponsor, jury, and competitors. To ensure fairness, the adviser must be an independent architect or entity who is capable of objectively approaching a competition. The adviser must have no other interest in the project, either as a designer, an investor, or an employee of the sponsor. characteristics of a professional adviser To ensure the proper running of a design competition, a sponsor must enlist the services of a competent professional adviser, delegate the necessary authority, and provide whatever managerial support is needed to plan and organize a successful competition. Because the quality of a competition can be traced directly to the capability of the adviser, the sponsor should select an independent architect experienced in professional practice who demonstrates the following: j Respect of peers and the profession j Previous experience as an adviser, juror, or competitor, or comparable knowledge j understanding of the objectives of the competition tradition 37 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 18 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................j Technical knowledge of the competition process j Belief in the value of the specific competition project j Sensitivity to the sponsor’s goals, attitudes, and circumstances, and the ability to respond to them constructively j Ability to translate the sponsor’s intentions into architectural competition procedures j Experience with group or committee clients and consensus building j Availability j Ability to write succinctly and clearly j managerial competence concerning operational logistics j Personal integrity and fairness selecting a professional adviser A sponsor can draw up a list of potential adviser candidates by asking for suggestions from the local architectural community or from other architects with whom a relationship exists. or, an announcement soliciting inquiries can be made in the professional press. for a design competition to be successful, the sponsor and adviser must establish a close rapport based on mutual respect and open communication. Therefore, after a list of candidates is prepared, the sponsor may want to conduct interviews to assess the degree of personal, aesthetic, and organizational compatibility developed with each candidate before making a selection. compensation Professional advisers will expect to be compensated for their services. The amount of compensation will vary in accordance with the amount of work a competition requires. Both adviser and sponsor should realize, however, that planning and directing even a small competition require a considerable amount of time, and the demand on an adviser’s services will be extensive, encompassing a competition from beginning to end. Whether the adviser receives a fixed fee, a monthly retainer, or hourly compensation is for sponsor and adviser to negotiate. frequently, an adviser will receive hourly compensation on a time and materials basis, and a daily fee for work-related overnight travel. An agreement concerning the reimbursement of expenses must also be reached. 38 19 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Compensation for the professional adviser is usually one of the most important investments a sponsor makes. Good professional advice may mean the difference between a well-run competition and an embarrassing, even harmful experience. Accepting the position In accepting the position of adviser, an architect assumes the task of conducting a design competition under conditions that are fair to sponsor and competitors. This is no small responsibility. It requires that the adviser allocate a sufficient amount of time to the necessary tasks. Even relatively small competitions may entail an extensive assignment. Therefore, an architect should only accept the position of adviser with the understanding that it requires a significant professional commitment. Planning the process Every competition requires a number of critical decisions, particularly in the planning stages. A good adviser must be aware of all the facts and convey them with accuracy and assurance. The adviser should establish a detailed schedule for the competition to follow, with the responsibilities of both the sponsor and the professional adviser clearly delivered. During the course of a design competition, the professional adviser should be involved in the following tasks: j Determining the feasibility of holding a competition j Examining the sponsor’s preliminary program, site, and budget to assure that they are sound j Suggesting an appropriate competition format j Planning the overall procedures j Scheduling the order of events j Preparing a budget for the competition j Writing the procedural rules j Preparing and testing the project program 39 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 20 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................j Writing the submission requirements j helping select the jury j Securing from the jurors an endorsement of the competition program j Recommending appropriate specialist consultants, if needed j Planning for logistics and handling j Writing a competition announcement Given the great number of tasks the adviser is expected to perform, a single individual of authority within the sponsor’s organization should be designated as the adviser’s principal point of contact. Such an individual can be of vital assistance to both the sponsor and the professional adviser throughout a competition. In some cases, for larger competitions, the sponsor may need to provide the adviser with staff support from within the organization. Additional duties of the adviser, which might benefit from staff support, include: j Screening registrants for eligibility j Distributing programs j Answering questions from competitors j Checking designs for compliance with program requirements j Displaying the entries for jurors j Submitting a report to the jury j Assisting the jury j Reporting to the sponsor along with the jury j Installing a public exhibition of submitted designs j Assisting in public relations 40 21 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs j Assuring that proper payments are made j Assembling an archive of the competition j Returning or disposing of the entries j Remaining available for post-competition tasks Sufficient funding and authority to hold a competition one of the responsibilities of the adviser to the public and to the profession is to ensure that a sponsor has both the funds and, in the case of a public agency, the authority, to hold a design competition. The adviser should be satisfied as to the fiscal responsibility of the sponsor. Both advisers and sponsors should realize that their reputations can be enhanced or discredited by the way in which a competition is managed. ethical responsibilities Should the sponsor fail to honor the commitments it has made in holding a competition, it is likely that the professional adviser will be informed. If the situation remains unresolved, the adviser may be prevented from carrying out the responsibilities of the position, and the competition may be endangered. If a condition of the professional adviser/sponsor agreement is that the sponsor is obligated to honor all contractual and program agreements, then the professional adviser may exercise the recourse of terminating the agreement and disaffiliating from the competition should the sponsor fail to fulfill such agreements. The agreement between adviser and sponsor may also require the sponsor to notify the competitors, jurors, and consultants to the competition that the professional adviser is no longer affiliated with the project. Such contractual arrangements should be considered by the sponsor early in the planning process as a tangible commitment to holding a properly conceived and managed design competition. 41 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 22 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Developing a competition program The success of an architectural competition depends largely on the care with which its program is formulated and written. It is the professional adviser’s responsibility to develop a program that is tailored to a specific design subject while considering the interests of both sponsor and competitors. (See Appendix A for detailed considerations.) competition Jury In an architectural competition, the function of the jury is to examine all design submissions with respect to the sponsor’s program of requirements, review and evaluate the competitors’ designs, and recommend which should be selected. The use of a qualified jury adds expert judgment to the competition selection process. It also furnishes the sponsor with a level of architectural advice that is not available in commissioned work. If the sponsor feels strongly that an architectural problem requires a design exploration by many professionals, then the selection of the best solution should be made by experts in the appropriate field. Architects are willing to enter competitions to the extent that they can be confident in the ability of juries to judge their work fairly and fully. The quality of the jurors thus helps determine the quantity and quality of submitted designs. commitment to the competition process The task of judging numerous architectural designs is extremely demanding. A great amount of work and responsibility is compressed into the two to three days in which jurors customarily meet. Architects and others who agree to become jurors must have a commitment to the competition process and an interest in the subject that calls forth a particular competitive effort. Architects who serve on a competition jury should have no vested interest in the sponsor’s project or in any of the competing firms. only as independent professionals can their objectivity be assured. obligations of the jury Jurors should regard the competition program as a contractual document binding equally on them as it is on competitors and the sponsor. for the jurors as well as the competitors, the competition program and the professional adviser’s answers to competitors’ questions define the design problem that the competition is expected to answer. 42 23 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Thus, it is a jury’s obligation to abide by the program in judging all submitted work. It is essential that before agreeing to serve, prospective jurors devote an appropriate amount of time to a careful examination of the draft version of a competition program, paying special attention to the objectives of the program, composition of the jury, dates established for judging, and the tasks and authority assigned to the jury. A prospective juror should sign a letter of acceptance only after being satisfied regarding all aspects of a competition program as well as the sponsor’s commitment to carrying them out. It is also at this point that his or her name may be publicly announced as a member of the jury. When a competition program imposes independent criteria, such as a mandatory budget or an energy-use limitation, jurors should consider even more carefully the invitation to serve and satisfy themselves that the sponsor is able to obtain reliable information concerning the special conditions. In addition to checking for compliance with the project program, professional consultants may also be able to make a valuable contribution to the evaluation of entries. By accepting the position, jurors agree to abide by the rules of a competition. In effect, they pledge they will: j have no contact with any of the competitors j Devote themselves fully to the task of evaluating entries on the days established for judging j Respect and maintain the anonymity of the submissions, when anonymity is a part of the requirements j Abide by the requirements of the competition program in evaluating the competitors’ entries j Refrain from interjecting considerations in addition to or contrary to those specifically described in the program j make every effort to arrive at a consensus regarding the selection of a winner j Submit a report explaining their decision(s) most jurors expect to be compensated for their time. At a minimum, their travel, lodging, meals, and expenses should be paid by the sponsor. 43 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 24 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................methods of jury selection Various methods of jury selection have been used in architectural competitions: j Sponsor selection j Delegation of selection process to the professional adviser j Delegation to a committee for recommendations or outright selection j Selection by a recognized professional body of architects after consultation with the sponsor or professional organization j A combination approach in which the sponsor or professional adviser names a juror, an architectural society names another, the invited competitors may vote for one, and the sponsor and the professional society together might name two more methods of jury selection vary based on the type of architectural competitions. for international competitions that receive the approval of the International union of Architects (uIA), the uIA appoints one of the jurors, and the rest are appointed by the sponsor or adviser. The uIA guidelines specify that there be an odd number of jurors, that the number not exceed seven, that they represent different nationalities, and that the number of jurors from the host country must always be a minority. The AIA suggests that a design competition jury be appointed by the sponsor in consultation with a professional adviser. The AIA does not normally select competition jurors. however the jury is selected, the goal is to assemble a small group of highly-qualified people capable of exercising sound judgment. 44 25 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs composition of the jury Design competition juries should be small enough so members can readily exchange views, individually and collectively, formally and informally. A minimum of three jurors permits an opportunity for different points of view to be examined, while a maximum of seven preserves informality. more than that number diminishes the jurors’ opportunities to communicate with one another. Competition juries may be composed of architects, architectural historians, scholars, other design professionals, and consultants from relevant fields. Experience indicates that a majority of jury members in an architectural competition should be architectural professionals with substantial knowledge and skill. This practice helps to ensure that informed judgments are made regarding the merits of the competitors’ proposals. Architects are in the best position of any discipline to understand the drawings and visualize the finished product indicated in the graphic material submitted by other architects. In addition, experienced architect-jurors can quickly determine if a particular design is technically and economically buildable. Where the skills of such design disciplines as city planning, urban design, landscape architecture, structural engineering, or interior design are required, individuals from these disciplines should be on the jury. non-design consultants may also serve. Competitions with specialized purposes such as the use of certain building materials or the exploration of particular themes such as energy conservation should have specialized juries. Similarly, different types of buildings such as hospitals, schools, churches, libraries, theaters, and museums require people familiar with the particular requirements of such structures. Librarians, theater directors, curators, school principals, and hospital administrators may all make excellent jurors. Their participation helps to ensure that specific needs or issues will be considered. Jury members who are representatives of the competition sponsor may help ensure that all building needs are properly met. In competitions where a public agency is the sponsor, one or more jurors may be chosen to represent the department’s or public’s interest in a project. neighborhood residents, building industry representatives, eventual users of the new building or structure, social scientists, patrons of the arts, and public officials may serve this function. Design professionals frequently find that such jurors have a more detailed knowledge of local conditions and culture than many architects can expect to possess. 45 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 26 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The jury chair Competition sponsors may either appoint a jury chair or leave the selection to the jurors. In either case, the primary function of the chair is to ensure that the jury’s deliberations proceed fairly and orderly. After a winner is selected, the chair also supervises the writing of the jury report. In some situations, sponsors may decide to appoint a nonvoting chair to a competition jury. freed from the task of determining and arguing the merits of personal preferences, an appointed, nonvoting chair may be in a better position to manage the jury’s group process so that all points of view concerning the merits of different submission are heard. Such a nonvoting chair may be selected from the staff of the sponsoring organization. Whatever type of chair is employed, members of the jury should understand and agree to its use. The evaluation process A jury’s selection of award winners is made by a progressive elimination of entries. At some points during the deliberations, elimination decisions may be made by voice vote, at others by written ballot. Each jury should determine its own voting procedures. more important than how votes are tallied, however, is the exchange of views that takes place during a jury’s deliberations because the decisions a jury makes grow out of that dialogue. In the early stages, a jury will find it useful to focus on the elimination of those schemes that are clearly not of sufficient quality to merit further consideration. After a complete review of all designs, agreement concerning the elimination of inferior submissions is fairly easily obtained. The closer the jury comes to determining potential winners, however, the more demanding the process becomes. Before examining those entries that deserve serious consideration, a jury may want to reconsider the criteria it is applying. Some criteria for judging the quality of entries will be apparent in the competition program, but additional, mutually discerned criteria may be developed during the course of a jury’s deliberations. on occasion, a jury’s discussion of the value of different approaches may suggest the re-examination of a previously discarded scheme. As the jury reduces the number of entries to those requiring serious consideration, the members are advised to enter into a structured discussion of the merits or shortcomings of each remaining design. 46 27 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs After the field is reduced to three or four potential prize winners, a detailed examination of these remaining designs should be made, with strengths and weaknesses carefully compared and the workability of the intended structures confirmed. When all issues have been thoroughly discussed, the jury should select the first-prize winner and rank the remaining designs. In the unlikely event a jury decides that none of the submissions meets the expectations of the sponsor, it may be empowered by the competition program to recommend that no first prize be awarded. If the competition rules do not stipulate how prize money will be assigned in such an event, the professional adviser and the jury may make a recommendation to the sponsor. In two-stage competitions, a jury will convene on two separate occasions to evaluate submissions. At the end of the first stage, the jury’s mandate is to choose those schemes that deserve further development. Its task is to select a group of finalists who will be commissioned by the sponsor to develop their original concepts. 47 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 28 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Competition Types The many variables in developing an architectural design competition have spawned many competition types. however, there are several specific methodologies that have become popular in recent years. They are examples for readers looking to see where they fit in the process. competition Goals and outcomes j Project: This leads to the erection of a specific project on a defined site. The goal is to select the design solution that is judged to be the best and to select the architect who will be commissioned to develop the design and realize the project. j idea: These competitions are held for projects that are not intended to be built. They are useful as explorations of significant design issues but are limited insofar as they stop short of realization. nevertheless, idea competitions can stimulate interest in untried possibilities. The subjects for idea competitions should be carefully chosen. Designers are likely to be wary of entering idea competitions that promote or advance a narrow interest, that fail to benefit either the public or the profession, or whose benefits are limited because the ideas cannot be applied or realized. j Product: These competitions are generally sponsored by manufacturers interested in the promotion of particular types or brands of building materials. Designers may be reluctant to enter such competitions because they are frequently of more benefit to the manufacturers than the participants. j Prototype: These competitions are generally sponsored by corporations interested in the prefabrication of various kinds of structures. Architects may be wary of entering prototype competitions unless the prize-winning designers are appropriately rewarded and their copyrighted or patented features adequately protected. 48 29 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs competition entrants j open: These competitions are addressed to the entire national or international architectural community. They may be entered by any licensed architect. usually, open competitions permit entries for architectural designers, students, or other design professionals, provided they associate themselves with an architect. The purpose of such an association is to assure a sponsor that the design concept being offered in a project competition has come from an experienced professional and can be realized should it be selected. Idea competitions and some project competitions are even more “open.” They permit students, unlicensed architectural designers, and professionals in various design fields to enter their submissions directly. open competitions are most appropriate when all architects have an equal opportunity to be selected on the basis of design merit and the project requires the widest exploration of potential solutions made possible by an open competition. j Limited: These competitions restrict the submission of entries to a specific set of architects, such as those who reside within a specified area, are licensed to practice within a specified area, are licensed to practice within a particular state, or who satisfy other conditional requirements. Budget restrictions, a desire to make use of local talent, an awareness of and sensitivity to local or regional styles and concerns, or a small-scale project that requires a site inspection may all suggest limiting a design competition to those architects living in a specified area or with specific qualifications or expertise. j invited: Invites a limited number of designers to enter. competition format one-and two-stage competitions one-stage competitions select a winner and rank other prize-winning designs in a single sequence. The majority of design competitions are held in one stage. The requirements of a single-stage submission can be reduced or expanded in relation to the complexity of a project. for idea competitions and real projects of moderate size, a single design phase is usually sufficient as a test of the competitors’ designs. 49 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 30 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Two-stage competitions offer competitors a chance to develop further their initial designs. Those architects who are invited to participate in a second stage typically receive compensation both as a reward for their work in the first stage and as a means of paying for costs incurred in developing their more detailed second-stage entries. Two-stage competitions are advantageous because they: j Reduce the amount of work required in the original first-stage submission, thus attracting more entries j offer a venue for selecting promising concepts that can be further developed j Provide the opportunity for comments from the sponsor and jury so that suggestions can be transmitted to the competitors before they refine their designs in the second stage j Allow for more jury scrutiny of detailed development of stage-one ideas Two-stage competitions are appropriate for complete building projects. They encourage architects to undertake a broad exploration of general design concepts in the first stage, while requiring detailed design elaboration in the second. Developer/architect competitions This competition process would be similar to the one-or two-stage process but includes a developer to team with an architect. This approach enables developers to propose solutions to develop a particular site. This results in a residual land value that the developer is willing to pay to realize the project. This approach needs to be balanced with the overall public interest. These competitions normally have a more flexible program as it is in the composition of the program that the developer can achieve a competitive advantage in determining the site value. The composition of the jury and the criteria by which the winning design will be selected are important factors in this process. 50 31 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Design/build competitions This competition process would be similar to the one- or two-stage process, but includes a contractor to team with an architect. This approach enables the sponsor to review solutions that combine the elements of design and project cost. This process enters the realm of best value where a balance is sought among project design, project cost, and projected return on investment. The composition of the jury and the criteria by which the winning design will be selected is an important factor in this process. rfQ competition The request for qualifications competition is a qualifications-based process, whereby the client/sponsor solicits (either open or invited) qualifications from architects for the project at hand. no design is solicited. The selection is purely based on the qualifications presented by the architect. Conventionally, the client would develop a short list of qualified architects and conduct interviews before choosing the designer. interviews with design concepts This competition is a qualifications-based process, whereby the client/sponsor solicits qualifications from architects for the project at hand. This is followed by a second stage during which short-listed architects are requested to prepare design concepts. These concepts are presented to the client and/or jury via interviews, with the selection based on those discussions. other types of competitions The following are additional types of competitions: j International union of Architects (uIA), for which the organization has its own guidelines j hypothetical j Student: Any delivery outlined above, but limited to architecture students 51 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 32 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Running a Competition This section describes the steps typically required to run a successful competition. These are as follows: j Establishing organization and structure j Developing a competition program j Estimating expenses and determining authority establishing organization and structure once the sponsor has decided to hold a competition and determined its type, the sponsor should establish an organizational structure, along with assigned tasks, realistic schedules, and defined milestones. Envisioning the outcome of the competition as it is organized is a good way to establish a clear road map to achieve the competition’s goals. A competition can involve a wide range of individuals and organizations with overlapping tasks and responsibilities. It is important to establish a clear organizational structure that identifies who is in charge, who has responsibility for which tasks, and who is in charge of establishing and maintaining the reporting structure among the all the collaborating parties. most often, the professional adviser serves as the overall competition task leader to whom all involved entities report. The sponsor supports and supplements the work of the adviser, especially in providing financial and logistical support. The competition jury is organized under a jury leader who in turn organizes the judging criteria and process, as well as develops the evaluation structure. 52 33 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs There is a wide range of tasks and activities associated with organizing and running a competition. As each competition will have specific contexts and requirements, they cannot all be anticipated in these guidelines. however, the planning and implementing of a competition can be divided into three main task categories: pre-competition, competition, and post-competition. Pre-competition organizational tasks The sponsor and professional adviser, unless otherwise noted, most often takes the lead to: j Establish the competition guidelines and entry rules (see Appendix B for details on submission requirements) j Write the competition program (see “Developing a Competition Program” below) j Develop the competition budget (see “Estimating Expenses and Determining Authority” below) j Establish registration procedures, exhibit handling, and competition compliance protocols, which may also include obtaining fine arts insurance to protect entries j Identify and secure competition administration support spaces (offices, storage, phones, computers, printers, etc.) for staff and materials involved in the competition j Develop and coordinate the competition jury and establish the judging procedures and guidelines (jury leader along with professional adviser, facilitated by sponsor) j Establish the competition schedule and identify key milestones, including activities for the sponsor and adviser, that lead up to and follow the competition j Develop an awards structure, which can range from trophies to monetary prizes to commissions and other professional opportunities, depending on the budget j Collect, organize, and reproduce a useful project database including maps, photographs, drawings, reports, etc. j Identify support organizations and businesses such as reproduction houses, catering, photography, exhibit handling, packing, and postage 53 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 34 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................j Develop a marketing and publicity strategy for exposure of competition and results; identify individuals/entities responsible for public relations as well as venues for press releases and marketing relations j Announce the competition via appropriate and effective media venues j Establish the manner in which communications to prospective competition participants will be handled (via Web site, e-mail, u.S. mail, etc.) competition organizational tasks In this phase, some of the responsibilities extend to the members of the jury and the jury chair. The professional adviser and sponsor are still the lead for these tasks, working along with the jury representative, where noted. In the competition phase they: j Receive and respond timely to questions from prospective competition participants j Process and review competition entries, either physical exhibits or electronic submissions, for compliance, entry product labeling and handling; organize materials for jury review, etc. j Initiate jury panel and judging process, including arranging meeting(s) in a physical space or organizing jury reviews electronically (professional adviser and jury leader) j make arrangements for a blind jury process (professional adviser and jury leader) j Record jury deliberations and communicate comments and responses, as required, to facilitate analysis and selection of competition winners (jury and professional adviser) j Select winner(s) and determine awards (jury and professional adviser) j Carry out due diligence to ensure competition rules and guidelines are followed (professional adviser) j Engage publicity for winners, jury, and sponsor 54 35 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Post-competition organizational tasks The final phase of the design competition offers opportunities for celebration, organization, and collaboration. Again, the professional adviser and the sponsor work together as the lead, sometimes aided by other team members where noted, to: j Arrange awards ceremony, displays, traveling exhibits, and/or publicity to announce results j Arrange for return of all entries and follow-up communications with all competition participants j follow up to establish the legal aspects of ownership and copyright details (see “Estimating Expenses and Determining Authority” below) j Enter into potential agreements or legal arrangements for continuing professional services (sponsor and legal consultant) Developing a competition Program The competition program is especially written for two of the key participants in the competition process, the potential competitors and the competition jury. At the most fundamental level, it establishes and articulates the goals and the entry requirements for the competition. It serves as a structure for the entrant to analyze and organize his or her thoughts and responses; provides an outline for the development of designs, exhibits, and presentations; and establishes a datum with which to test the strength of the entry to meet the goals of the competition. for the jury, the program provides the criteria against which to evaluate the entrant’s successful understanding of the proposed problem, the responsiveness of the entry to meet the established competition requirements, and the completeness and creativity of the solution. The competition program must request information about the entry that will give the jury a complete understanding of the objectives and vision of the responder. In this way, the jury will be able to evaluate the entry on its own merits as well as in comparison to others. Additionally, the program can explore new trends and design directions by the manner in which the competition goals are formulated. 55 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 36 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Issues and information to include and/or address in a competition program may include (but are not limited to): j A project description, including history, goals, and competition’s physical, social, and/or economic context j Site maps, photos of existing and surrounding conditions, related reports and research, news articles, and/or previous work on this site or project j Competition and technical information including contact information, project information, technical specialists available, etc. j Exhibit and/or presentation requirements including drawings, written descriptions, and the use of other media In the end, the more completely and thoroughly the competition program is developed, the greater and more comprehensive the design response will be. (See Appendix A for more detailed considerations.) Testing the program The formulation of the competition program is ultimately the responsibility of the sponsor, with the professional adviser taking the lead of a competition committee made up of jurors, specialists, and other potential concerned parties. Critical analysis, vetting, and acceptance of the program by all interested parties assure a successful outcome for the competition. Indeed, review and approval of the program is a prerequisite for becoming a competition juror. Testing the program may require the use of specialists and/or consultants especially if the competition subject involves scientific or technological issues. Technical specialists or requirements The program may engage competitors in an exploration of fields that require respondents to engage technical experts and specialists as part of their team. It is imperative for the program to be technically sound and to base the program criteria on good science and/or current research. The professional adviser must engage the proper specialist to assist in the formulation and testing of the program so that the entries have a chance for success. 56 37 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs estimating expenses and Determining Authority Establishing that the sponsor has sufficient funds and the legal authority to hold a competition is critical to the process of initiating, organizing, and running a competition. A properly conceived and managed competition is based on a commitment by the sponsor and all assisting parties to fiscal transparency and ethical treatment of competitors. estimating the costs of a competition Working with a professional adviser, the sponsor can define all the expenses involved in initiating and running a competition to establish a competition budget. It is important to define the audience that may participate or submit entries to the competition. A broader audience makes for a greater range of entries and, in turn, affects the judging effort. The number of entries will have a direct effect on the budget. Additionally, the international reach of a competition will influence the quality of the competition, also increasing potential expenses. The cost, time, and effort involved for the sponsor in holding a design competition depend on the complexity of the architectural problem and the extent of participation that the sponsor wishes to encourage. A limited competition for a small project might be run in a few months with a modest amount of funding, while an open, two-stage competition that attracts hundreds of entries for a complex subject, such as a major public building, may take a year and require a significant investment. The costs incurred in holding a competition may include: j fees and expenses of the professional adviser including administrative facilities or offices, desks, phones, computers, etc. j Travel and/or honoraria expenses for jurors, rental space, and other jury meeting expenses j honoraria or stipends for the finalists j Prize money awarded to winning designers and possibly other finalists 57 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 38 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................j managerial and administrative expenses of the sponsor, including staff time, advertising, printing, mailing, photography, handling, insurance, storage, meeting space rental, and exhibit of entries j marketing, publicity, and press outreach There is considerable variation in cost distribution. Limited competitions may have a higher percentage of funds devoted to prize money, while most open competitions will incur higher administrative expenses. The specific level of each cash prize, stipend, or honorarium should be set by the sponsor after conferring with the professional adviser. Determining authority Along with setting up the appropriate legal framework for the competition, the sponsor must commit to protecting the intellectual property rights of the competition’s participants. Copyright protection of all products originating from the competition is fundamental to establishing the legitimacy of the sponsor and the competition enterprise in totality. copyright and intellectual property Copyright law vests the right to publish or reproduce architectural works and visual arts work in the author of the work, that is, the competitor making the submission. In order for the sponsor to make use of the submissions, the competition rules must require each competitor to permit use of the design and materials submitted to the extent the sponsor intends to use them. Legal counsel should be relied on to draft these terms as part of each competitor’s agreement that should accompany the submissions. In addition to making use of the winning design for project development, the sponsor may wish to publish or display other submissions as well. for that reason, the sponsor should consider obtaining at least limited reproduction rights of all submissions. Requiring ownership of the copyright in all submissions is likely unnecessary, however, and can be expected to meet with resistance from potential competitors. Competitors will want to be able to reuse their work for other purposes. 58 39 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs ownership of entry materials and ideas Copyright law does not apply to ownership of the submitted material itself (either hard copy or electronic files). The competition rules should state: (a) that the sponsor owns all the submitted materials, (b) which of the submitted materials the sponsor intends to retain, and (c) the method for competitors to reclaim submitted materials the sponsor does not intend to retain after the competition. Copyright law does not apply to ideas contained within the submission. In order to avoid misunderstanding, the competition rules may state that the sponsor has the right to use any ideas contained in any winning or non-winning submission. Publicity and attribution The sponsor will want to publicize the names of any competition winners and perhaps other competitors as well. The agreement each competitor enters into should give the sponsor this right, along with the right to use other background information about the competitor. Because architecture is a profession in which design capability is prized, the giving of credit in connection with work on a project or in a competition is an important issue. The AIA encourages sponsors and others to recognize and respect the contributions of competitors by identifying competitors in any publication or display of their submissions. The AIA has published Guidelines for the Attribution of Credit and other resources related to professional credit on the Institute’s Web site (www.aia.org/about/ethicsandbylaws/index.htm). 59 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 40 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Entering a Competition Design competitions are a search for the best. The architect who is awarded first prize in a design competition for a project not only may win a commission for a project but public and professional recognition as well. While the principal purpose of a design competition is to find the optimal solution to a particular building opportunity, the competition system helps both the profession and society discern ideas and talent. Whether local, national, or international in scope, competition victories help to establish an architect’s reputation. Alvar Aalto, Eero Saarinen, Arthur Erickson, Jørn utzon, norman foster, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, and Zaha hadid are among those architects whose careers were launched by competitions. American designers such as Kallmann, mcKinnell & Wood; mitchell/Giurgola; Venturi, Rauch, and Scott Brown; Geddes, Brecher, Qualls, Cunningham; Steven holl; and Daniel Libeskind have all advanced themselves through their competition work. When properly run, design competitions elevate the level of public expectation for design excellence. Such heightened awareness helps the profession offer its best, thus stimulating an improvement in architectural design generally. All architects who participate in competitions contribute to this purpose, regardless of whether or not they win. open competitions have traditionally attracted designers who see a chance to test and extend their talent. In winning a competition and the commission that may go along with it, an architect can demonstrate a superiority of design ability. meanwhile, architects and firms that do not win can add their competition designs to a record of work to show prospective clients different aspects of their thinking and portfolio. Even an experienced firm may use a competition entry in this way to increase its reputation or extend its record of achievement. 60 41 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Entering a competition can be a welcome stimulus for an architect or firm. It allows competitors an opportunity to exercise their imaginations by offering opportunities to grapple with significant design challenges. for architects who may feel constrained by the exigencies of everyday practice, competitions are an opportunity to work toward their own highest standards. Invited competitions are used to recruit the participation and challenge the skills of designers with extensive reputations. many established architects and firms enter open as well as invited competitions because they find the challenge of competing with some of the best architects in the nation or world a stimulant to their own work. Because the odds of winning are always slim, architects enter competitions with the hope that a specific design approach may prove ideal for a particular building opportunity. In the process, their convictions about design are tested, for competitions typically offer the kind of challenge few opportunities in professional practice afford. considerations for competition entrants The greatest cost to competitors is not so much a monetary one as it is an expenditure of time and energy. The commitment of both can be considerable. The first cost to the competitor is the registration fee often required of those desiring to enter. The major purpose of such a fee is to separate the serious competitors from those who are merely curious. materials and printing costs will vary according to the requirements of a particular competition. Some competitions request only a modest number of drawings while invited competitions and the second stage of two-stage open competitions usually require an extensive number of detailed drawings plus the construction of a scale model. In such competitions the competing architects are usually compensated for their exacting and time-consuming work. nevertheless, potential competitors should carefully read the competition program before deciding to enter. Estimates can then be made of the amount of time and cost that development of a competition submission will demand. 61 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 42 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................forming the competition team Architects may form associations with other individuals for the purpose of entering a competition. In general, associations are formed in four ways: j Architects with other architects or allied professionals with whom they like to work j Architects with other architects who meet eligibility requirements of limited competitions j Students or architectural designers with licensed architects to satisfy eligibility requirements j Architects with other technical professionals whose special skills may complement the development of a submitted scheme The division of labor is established by the individuals forming the association. It may involve a relatively close collaboration, or it may entail one designer or firm being responsible for the preliminary design with the associates being responsible for most subsequent work. Whatever the relationship, the individuals or firms involved should establish a clear and workable agreement at the start of their association. establishing a production schedule once a decision has been made to enter a competition, the designer should begin to plan how long it will take to develop an entry. Starting with the submission deadline and working backward, the competitor should establish deadlines for completing the following tasks: j final preparation and send-off: Double wrapping to preserve anonymity if required by the competition guidelines; retention of receipts to prove submission date j Presentation: Selecting the technique, media, composition, and graphics to ensure that the scheme speaks for itself, as the jurors rely primarily on the graphic language of the exhibits in assessing the relative value of different schemes 62 43 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs j formalization and development: Developing the concept according to the required scale, type, and number of exhibits j Analysis: Becoming familiar with the competition program; performing a site analysis; performing historical, technical or building type research; and submitting questions to the professional adviser studying the program The competition program demands careful study on the part of the competitors. All clauses, but particularly the mandatory requirements, must be read with great care. If the mandatory requirements are not met, the entry an architect submits may be eliminated from the competition by the professional adviser and never reach the jury. The competitor’s submission should match what is requested to have a chance of winning. evaluating the jury Competitors should feel a sense of trust about the jury who will be evaluating their work. With a balanced and unbiased jury, all competitors can be confident their design solutions will be seriously considered. Questions for the professional adviser It is a common practice of architectural competitions to establish a deadline for receiving questions concerning the program requirements. Although programs should be written with care, architects who study them thoroughly invariably find questions they need to have answered, if only to test whether or not a particular approach is permissible or contradictory to the stated requirements. All such questions should be submitted to the professional adviser. Experience in the united Kingdom indicates that fewer than 10 percent of all registered competitors ask questions. nevertheless, in a sample population of architects winning first, second, and third prizes, 50 percent acknowledged that they had submitted questions, writes Judith Strong in Participating in Architectural Competitions: A Guide for Competitors, Promoters and Assessors (London Architectural Press, 1976, 20). obviously, this does not mean that asking the adviser a question will necessarily improve an architect’s chance of winning. Rather, it seems to indicate that those who place in competitions have studied the competition program rigorously, as soon as possible after receiving it, and may even have considered alternative preliminary schemes, thus giving themselves more time to conceptualize, develop, and present their designs. 63 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 44 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................more than one entry on occasion, more than one of the prize-winning designs in a competition has been submitted by the same individual or team. This is especially true in idea competitions, which generally do not require the same kind of detailed submission as other types of competitions. Even in a competition for a built project, however, a design team may find that it has two interesting solutions. If the competitors’ energy and manpower and the competitions rules permit, they may decide to submit both concepts. Generally, competitions specify that only one scheme may be permitted from each registrant. In such situations, it may be possible for different members of a design team to each register so that more than one plan may be submitted. It is always wise to clarify the rules about multiple submissions with the professional adviser. copyrights and patents The competition rules governing the ownership of submissions should be reviewed. In most competitions, the sponsor retains possession of all prize-winning submissions. If original presentation materials are being submitted, the competitor should have reproductions made to document the work for the competitor’s records. unless the rules specifically state otherwise, the competitor retains the copyright in the architectural design and other materials submitted. The rules may, however, give the sponsor rights to copy or publish submissions, either on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis. Competitors should affix a copyright notice to each drawing, photograph, and model submitted. Copyright notice consists of the word “Copyright” or the copyright symbol (©), the name of the competitor, and the date of submission. To preserve the right to bring an action for infringement of a copyright, the competitor should register the work as “visual arts work” with the Copyright office (www.copyright.gov/). The registration should state that the competitor is the author of each type of content that may apply to the submission (e.g., two-dimensional artwork, technical drawing, architectural work, photography). 64 45 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Competitors may also wish to patent special features on their entries. While copyrights protect architectural works, drawings, and other visual arts work, design patents protect new and unique ornamental designs, and utility patents protect new and unique architectural configurations or systems of organization within a design. obtaining a patent may be especially relevant in idea competitions. further information can be obtained from the united States Patent & Trademark office (http://uspto.gov/). During the life of a patent, the competitor’s right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the patented feature without permission is protected. submission and return of entries Virtually all open and limited competitions and some invited competitions preserve the anonymity of competitors. When anonymity is an issue, the competitors will usually be instructed to double wrap their entries and attach a sealed envelope containing identifying data on the back of one of the panels as the sole means of identification. To avoid potential disqualification, all of these instructions should be followed scrupulously. If the entry is to be shipped rather than personally delivered, a receipt should be kept as a record. A receipt stating the date and hour of delivery may also be requested. Such receipts may be the only evidence a competitor possesses that an entry has been delivered on time. After the results of a competition are announced, those entries that have not been awarded prizes are frequently destroyed. Therefore, competitors who seek to have their entries returned should make prior arrangements with the professional adviser. 65 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 46 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Post-competition Activities notifying the submitters The winning and runner-up designers should be notified as quickly as possible after the presentation of the jury report by either the professional adviser or the sponsor. Where time, budget, and logistics permit, the professional adviser should arrange for a meeting of the jury and the winning designer. The designer, in particular, may benefit from hearing the jury’s views of specific aspects of the winning scheme. of course, such meetings are not always possible. organizations that have to go to a governing body or board of directors for final approval of the jury’s decision may not be able to notify a winning architect until after the jury has departed. During the period between the jury’s selection and the public announcement of the competition results, the prize- winning architects should be asked to regard their notification as confidential information. All competitors, including those whose designs fail to win any recognition, should receive a copy of the jury report. The report should be mailed immediately after the public announcement of the competition results. In a two-stage competition, all competitors should be sent a list of the finalists who will continue to compete in the second stage. Those designers receiving honorable mentions should also be identified. notifying the Press A press conference will frequently be called to make a public announcement of a competition’s results. The professional adviser should attend any such conference, participate in the writing of all press releases, and assist in the selection of illustrations to be distributed at the conference or mailed/e-mailed to other publications. (The adviser should try to select illustrations such as black line drawings and high-contrast photos that will be readily reproducible, particularly on newsprint.) The adviser’s involvement in these tasks will help to ensure the accuracy of all publicly disseminated information concerning: j The date the competition was first publicly announced 66 47 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs j The number of queries received j The number of designers who registered j The number of submissions received j A statistical profile of competitors’ places of residence (especially relevant for national and international events) j The names of competitors and firms whose submission are to receive recognition j The names of the jurors and their affiliations j A description of the jury’s deliberative process j The report of the jury, which presents the reasons for the selection of the winner To preserve the integrity of the competition process, an announcement of stage-one results in a two-stage competition should not include either the preliminary report of the jury or illustrations of any competitor’s work. exhibitions and symposia When provision has been made in the competition program, the professional adviser may set up a public exhibition of the drawings and models entered by competitors. for certain competitions, a traveling exhibit may also be established with a suitable catalogue or other publication. The scope of the exhibition will depend on the sponsor’s intentions, the amount of public interest or concern generated by the competition project, and the amount of space available. Exhibitions provide a fine opportunity to stimulate public consideration of architectural design. They also help to stimulate the competitive spirit of participants. Knowing that their work will be displayed along with that of their peers can be a stimulus for competitors. for all these reasons, as full a presentation as possible of the submissions should be attempted. The sponsor may also decide to hold a symposium on the competition or on the submitted designs to further disseminate information and foster constructive discussion. If a symposium is held, the professional adviser should play a significant role. 67 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 48 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Business items Arranging for the payment of jurors, consultants, and winners The professional adviser/sponsor agreement may require the adviser to act as an agent of the sponsor in approving expense reimbursements, prize money, and fees for agreed upon services. If obligated, the professional adviser should review all invoices submitted for approval prior to sending them to the sponsor, who will thereby be obligated to render payment. returning the models and drawings Shortly after the awards are announced (or post-competition exhibition is held), the professional adviser should arrange for the return of all of the design exhibits for which competitors have made prior arrangements. The competition program may announce that competitors who desire their entries returned should enclose a check inside the sealed envelope on the back of their entry to cover the sponsor’s return shipping and handling expenses. (The amount of the check should be established by the professional adviser.) Another method is for competitors to retrieve their own submissions on a date specified in the program. In a two-stage competition, submissions should not be returned until after the final judging, even if no post-competition exhibition is intended. establishing an archival record As the drawings and models are repacked and shipped back to their authors, the professional adviser should assemble the competition’s official documents, photographs, slides, sound recordings, film, videotapes, letters, and public announcements in one place. Depending on the sponsor’s interests and commitments, such archival material can form the basis for a future publication. Such a competition archive is of value to: j members of the design professions j Scholars interested in the history of design competitions j Sponsors and professional advisers of future competitions 68 69 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 50 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Appendix A The Project Program Each competitor’s design must address the requirements of the project program or risk disqualification. Therefore, one of the tasks of the professional adviser in preparing the project program is to balance requirements with the competitor’s freedom of design interpretation. Too few requirements may not adequately describe the sponsor’s needs; too many may unduly restrict the search for an imaginative solution. The project program should make maximum use of clear diagrams and drawings. floor areas, for example, can be conveniently portrayed as charts, tables or graphic areas. The following is a summary of ingredients that may be used to generate a successful project program. history and background The program should include a brief but relevant history of the project, the sponsoring organization, the immediate urban or natural environment, and the social context, if relevant. It may also include a statement of the sponsor’s interests and intentions. on occasion, sponsors may have established operational methods they would like to have respected in a new architectural design. for example, an organization composed of semi-autonomous units may want competitors to give spatial expression to such an organizational framework in their designs. Additional programmatic considerations may require a statement about the architectural character sought in harmony with neighboring structures, the surrounding topography and vegetation, or the general character of a region. objectives The program should inspire the imagination of potential competitors by a clear presentation of the competition’s objectives. What kind of character should the project display? What should it say to the community? What large organizational and architectural functions should it fulfill? What is expected of the structure during its lifetime? how will it serve the owner, users, and community? What kind of growth should be accommodated, if any? Are there any special design problems the structure should answer? What requirements are made in regard to energy use, circulation, public-private relationships, etc.? In short, what is the building for? how will it shape the lives of people who live or work in it? 70 51 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs evaluation criteria The program should establish the criteria the sponsor expects the jury to follow in evaluating the competitors’ entries. Evaluation criteria vary considerably from one competition to another. In a competition for a memorial, symbolic and aesthetic aspects may be paramount, while in a competition for a building devoted to natural science research, the functional use of space may be deemed to be of overriding importance. To make the sponsor’s intentions clear, some programs list the specific questions the sponsor seeks to have answered. other programs will state the project’s major goals or themes in more general terms to give the jury maximum freedom in its deliberations. Still other programs may attempt to assign points to specific issues or themes to articulate the relative weight the jury should give to various aspects of the submitted designs. Jurors may find it difficult to treat literally such percentage-weighted criteria. There may be too many intangibles inherent in assessing the quality of a design to warrant the strict use of such a rigid scoring system. however they are presented, the evaluation criteria should be clear to both jurors and competitors. They indicate, more than any other program element, the design values and solutions the sponsor is seeking. orientation map A small scale area plan or aerial photograph (or both), with north arrow and scale, indicating the site, environs, the principal roads and all other pertinent geographic relationships must be supplied. circulation A traffic or circulation plan of the general site area should be given. It should graphically represent the flow of automobile, truck, public transit, and pedestrian traffic. climate A weather and climate diagram or summary must be supplied to provide information on latitude and longitude. Precipitation averages and extremes should be stated on a monthly basis. Seasonal temperature, humidity, and wind data should also be provided. otherwise, the appropriate national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noAA) documents should be identified. 71 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 52 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Photographs It will usually be helpful to include photographs of the competition location, such as: aerial photos (vertical and oblique) of the site; ground level photos of the site, illustrating its main features, including key approach views; and photos looking from the site to adjacent, nearby or distant buildings, landmarks or vistas. All photos should be keyed to a location point map, which may be a copy of the general area plan or the site plan. site plan A detailed site plan at an appropriate scale must be supplied. It should show: a graphic scale and north arrow; project boundaries; topography; neighboring buildings (their uses, heights, entrances, materials, etc.); site easements, if any; trees and vegetation; sub-surface conditions (may be a separate report, if required); utilities (water, sewer, storm, gas, electric, telephone); prevailing seasonal wind directions. site visit The program may require that all competitors visit the site of a project. In invited competitions, the sponsor will make arrangements for a visit that are convenient to all, usually as part of a general orientation. In open and limited competitions, a sponsor must decide whether or not a site visit should be required of all competitors. Travel distance considerations will usually determine whether or not a mandatory requirement is advisable. If a site visit is mandatory, the sponsor should determine the means of verifying that a proper visit to the site has been made by each competitor. A sign-in book placed near the site is one possibility. In lieu of a mandatory site visit, more elaborate site information must be provided in the program. The latter method is one more frequently used. space program A detailed building or project program must include the area requirements for all operational components. It must also supply: areas listed by function and size; proximities or relationships between various departments; a description of how the building should operate, in terms of personnel and what they do; special functional considerations, such as security needs or special equipment; access requirements of workers, visitors, and service and emergency personnel; special interior climate considerations, such as climate control for documents storage, special equipment, etc. 72 53 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs special requirements A clearly stated list of special requirements may also be provided. It may include: energy performance standards; construction phasing considerations; use of natural light and ventilation; proximities to window areas by employees; lighting standards for work areas. Budget limitations Cost is nearly always one of the principal determinants of a project, including both initial capital costs and subsequent operations (or “life”) costs. In this respect, real competition projects are no different than any other building project. A competition sponsor may only have a specific amount of money available for a project. or, a limit for the entire cost of construction and operations may be established. The sponsor’s financial situation should be clearly communicated to the competitors and jury. Specifically, the cost of the project should be established as one of the following: j Budget target: Competitors are asked not to exceed a stated overall cost in their designs j Budget estimate: Competitors are asked to estimate the total cost of their designs, usually on the basis of area or volume cost assumptions j mandatory budget requirements: An absolute cost limit is established and a professional cost estimator is hired by the sponsor to check for compliance Putting limitations on the building area or volume allowed in the project program is a less explicit but potentially effective way for a sponsor to control the cost of a project. Design competitions for real projects should state their budgetary concerns. Idea competitions, product competitions, and student competitions may subordinate or disregard cost considerations to focus on design ideas. 73 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 54 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Local codes The program should contain all pertinent information regarding the codes, ordinances, and regulations of the local jurisdiction where the project is located. references It may be helpful for a sponsor to include a list of readily available information resources (articles, books, manuals, etc.) on specialized subjects pertinent to the project program. 74 55 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Appendix B The submission requirements The submission requirements serve to summarize for competitors and jury precisely what design information the competitors are to produce. Participation in a design competition requires that an architect spend a significant amount of time away from regular practice. Consequently, the professional adviser should exercise care in determining how much design information to require. The design exhibit instructions should be sufficient to explain the design without resulting in overly elaborate and unnecessary drawings. Keeping the number and detail required in the drawings to a minimum usually benefits the sponsor as well as the competitors, as it allows the architects who enter to concentrate on finding the best design solution to a problem rather than on its graphic presentation. In general, the submission requirements should: j Be clear and concise j Keep the number of exhibits to a reasonable minimum j Stress design information in preference to rendering j Restrict only what demands restriction, allowing competitors the freedom and opportunity to express their ideas but in a manner reasonably comparable to other competitors Disregard of the submission requirements by competitors is a violation of the rules. Those entries that do not follow the instructions should be disqualified from the competition by the professional adviser. The instructions should stipulate how extra materials such as an unrequested model or additional drawings will be handled. The preferred procedure requires the professional adviser to withhold from the jury the extra materials in order to maintain comparability among designs. Because many potential submission materials are available in electronic format, the requirements should specify if this is acceptable and how such submissions will be handled. 75 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 56 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Drawings The number, size, scale, and type of drawings from each competitor should be specified. This is a critical decision. The professional adviser should plan this most carefully with the sponsor. By specifying simple types of drawings and avoiding unnecessarily elaborate detail, the adviser and sponsor can ensure that the competitor’s efforts will be concentrated on searching for the best solution to a problem. The conventional types of drawings include: j Site plan j floor plans j Elevations j Sections j Isometrics j Axonometrics j Perspectives Perspectives may be required from specified points of view, either from the exterior or to illustrate important interior spaces, such as an assembly or exhibit area. Perspectives should be optically correct. models models should be kept very simple since they are costly to construct and ship. Generally, the requested model should be “mass” or “white only,” showing only overall form, not detail, colors, or materials. If transparency is an essential of a proposed design, transparent materials should be allowed. The photograph of a small model may substitute for a perspective or isometrics, particularly in an open two-stage competition. If a model is required, its precise base dimensions should be specified (including depth or thickness of base). Topographical interval should also be specified. If deemed helpful, a model of the surrounding area into which all competitors’ models can be inserted should be constructed. This allows all of the competitors’ models to be examined against a common standard and, of course, saves competitors unnecessary work. 76 57 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs models are seldom required as design exhibits in one-stage competitions or in the first stage of two-stage competitions. models are frequently used in invited competitions and in the second stage of two-stage competitions. scale The scale of all drawings and of the model is very important because scale determines the degree of explicitness sought in the design studies of the competitors. Although it will vary with the project, the scale of submissions can usually be relatively small. In general, scale should be set by the professional adviser in a way that is consistent with the sponsor’s objectives and the competitors’ design search. explanatory drawings, diagrams, or text It may be helpful to require explanatory drawings, diagrams, or text as part of the submission. Specific drawings, such as wall sections, may also be required to indicate materials and construction. Limiting the number of auxiliary exhibits and keeping them small compels competitors to focus on essentials. A special exhibit of a short text, explanatory diagrams and drawings, or a personal presentation of the design should be required when the competition focuses on a specific design element (such as passive solar design). If any feature of a competitor’s design submission has been copyrighted or patented by another party, acknowledgement of the copyright or patent should be required of the competitor. Gross area or volume tabulation Competitors may be required to furnish a gross area or volume tabulation on their drawings. This should be done according to a specified format to facilitate comparison. cost estimation Cost estimations may be required but cannot be expected to have a high degree of reliability except in more elaborate invited competitions or in the second stage of two-stage competitions. If a cost limitation is mandatory, the sponsor should hire a single consultant to perform cost estimates of all entries on a comparable basis. 77 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 58 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................methods of presentation The use of color, toning screens, overlays, etc., on the drawings should be carefully described. The sponsor and professional adviser should decide which media are best suited to helping a jury reach its decision without putting an undue burden, either in terms of time or money, on the competitors. forethought should also be given to how well the required graphics will reproduce when the designs of the winners and runners-up are published in the professional and general press. Instructions regarding the number, mounting, size, and relationships of panels and other exhibit items must be precisely prescribed. failure to comply may lead to disqualification. Anonymity In competitions where anonymity is to be protected, competitors should be instructed to submit their designs in an appropriate and convenient manner. Double wrapping is the most secure method. When the exterior wrapping is removed, a plain wrapper with no markings whatsoever encloses the submission. Identification is usually achieved by the competitor affixing a sealed envelope to the rear of a specified drawing. Inside the envelope, the competitor should enclose name, address, and telephone number. Those competitors who desire the return of their design exhibits may be instructed to place a check inside the sealed envelope to defray the sponsor’s packaging and shipping expenses, as estimated by the professional adviser. An alternative is to permit the competitors to pick up their submissions on or by a specific date. 78 59 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Appendix C Time Planning The sponsor and professional adviser should calculate the amount of time required for the following steps. note that several tasks can proceed simultaneously. 1. Preliminary discussion and formulation a. In-house discussion by sponsor b. fact finding c. Interviewing and selecting a professional adviser 2. Competition planning a. Program development b. Competition documents preparation c. Jury selection 3. Competition initiation a. Announcement in professional press and other media b. Receive inquiries and registrations c. Log registration d. Distribute program on a specified date 4. Competition operation a. Time interval for competitors to prepare designs b. Receive questions from competitors c. Prepare and distribute answers 79 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 60 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5. Receipt of entries a. Receive and record all design entries b. unpack and arrange all entries for jurors’ examination c. maintain security and anonymity, if required, of designs d. Arrange for public display, if required e. Photograph all designs for historical record 6. Jury operation a. Jury examines designs b. Selects winner 7. Announcement of winner a. Press release and conference b. Public exhibition 8. follow through a. Prepare competition publications b. Pay all bills c. Return or dispose of unpremiated designs note: When a two-stage competition is held, steps 4–6 are repeated. 80 61 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Appendix D cost estimating Guide The expense for sponsors of holding a competition may be calculated by assigning cost to the following: 1. General sponsor overhead, including the time cost of organizational personnel involved in running the competition 2. The professional adviser a. fee (time rate, contract fee, etc.) b. Expenses (office, travel, hotel, telephones, etc.) c. Clerical assistance 3. Publicity and publications a. Publicity costs b. Publications, printing (note A) c. mailing (can be contracted) d. Printing and mailing questions and answers 4. Jurors and technical consultants a. fee or honorarium b. food, travel, and lodging, as needed c. Communications allowance 81 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 62 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Exhibit space for design submissions a. Receive designs b. Storage space c. Exhibit space (note B) d. handling expenses 6. Prizes and fees (as decided by the sponsor) a. Prize schedule, including first, second, third, and honorable mention recipients (note C) b. honoraria and stipends 7. Publication of results a. Press kit b. Public exhibit c. Competition publication, such as book, catalogue, pamphlet, or other exhibit materials note A: Competitors often pay an entrance fee, which can be applied to some costs. It should typically be low—enough to discourage the idly curious, but not to pay for the competition. note B: “Sunshine” laws may require that publicly funded designs be placed on public exhibit. (This can typically be done via continuous slide projection of designs.) note c: Adjustments must be made for a two-stage competition. 82 63 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Appendix E standard forms of Agreement The “Standard form of Agreement Between owner and Architect for Special Services” (AIA Document B727) is often employed as the basis for a sponsor/professional adviser agreement. Whatever form of agreement is used, the list of typical professional advising responsibilities enumerated above in the second section under “Planning the process” should be consulted in specifying the services to be provided the sponsor. The same form of agreement may be used in specifying the duties and compensation of jurors. frequently, however, a detailed letter specifying a juror’s obligations and fee is substituted for a more formal agreement. “obligations of the jury” described in the second section above should be consulted in specifying the services jurors will provide. The contract awarded the winning architect in a project competition is often based on a standard form of Agreement Between owner and Architect, such as AIA Document B101. frequently, a copy of the owner/architect agreement is included in the competition program in order to clarify the contractual relationship the sponsor and winning architect will enter into at the conclusion of the competition. 83 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 64 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Resources and References fleig, Karl. Alvar Aalto. Scarsdale: Wittenborn & Co., 1963. fleig, Karl. Alvar Alto. new York: Praeger, 1971. These books are particularly interesting because they list all of Aalto’s competition work. Adams, Les, ed. The Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center National Architectural Competition. Birmingham, Alabama: Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority, 1969. Creighton, Thomas hawk. The Architecture of Monuments: The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Competition. new York: Reinhold, 1962. Laver, Lance. “Gerhard Kallmann and michael mcKinnell: The Boston five Cents Savings Bank, Boston, massachusetts,” in Processes in Architecture: A Documentation of Six Examples (exhibit), in a special issue of PLAn. Cambridge, massachusetts: m.I.T. School of Architecture and Planning and the m.I.T. Committee on Visual Arts, 1979. Laver’s interview with Gerhard Kallmann illuminates some of the Kallmann, mcKinnell firm’s attitudes and strategies regarding design competitions. moore, Charles W. and nicholas Pyle, eds. The Yale Mathematics Building Competition. new haven: Yale university Press, 1974. Seelig, michael Y. The Architecture of Self-Help Communities: The First International Competition for the Urban Environment of Developing Countries. new York: Architectural Record Books, 1978. 84 65 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs Spreiregen, Paul D. Design Competitions. new York: mcGraw-hill, 1979. Broad in scope, this volume is the most extensive source of information about architectural design competitions currently available. It contains hundreds of illustrations of competition-winning designs and an action plan for the expanded use of well-run design competitions in the united States. Strong, Judith. Participating in Architectural Competitions: A Guide for Competitors, Promoters and Assessors. London: Architectural Press, 1976. Written by the woman who for many years served as the coordinator for design competitions at the Royal Institute of British Architects, this book describes how the competition system works in the united Kingdom and compares British practices with those found in Europe and the Commonwealth. The Tribune Tower Competition. Chicago: The Chicago Tribune Co., 1923, reprinted as Chicago Tribune Tower Competition. Vol. 1. new York: Rizzoli, 1980. Wynne, George G., ed. Learning from Abroad #4—Winning Designs: The Competitions Renaissance. new Brunswick, n.J.: Transaction, 1981. Part of the What Makes Cities Livable? series, produced by the Council for International urban Liaison, this volume offers a brief overview of architectural competition practices in Western Europe, Australia, and Japan. UIA Guide for International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning, unESCo Regulations, 2000. 85 The AmericAn insTiTuTe of ArchiTecTs 66 The handbook of Architectural Design competitions .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Witzling, Lawrence, and Jeffrey ollswang. The Planning and Administration of Design Competitions. (funded by the national Endowment for the Arts.) milwaukee: midwest Institute for Design Research, 1986. Design Competition Manual, 1980, national Endowment for the Arts, Vision—the Center for Environmental Design and Education. Cambridge, massachusetts, 1980. Design Competition Manual II: On-site charrette. national Endowment for the Arts, Vision—the Center for Environmental Design and Education. Cambridge, massachusetts, 1982. Priest, Donald E. Design/Development Competition Guidelines. The national Association of housing and Redevelopment officials, 1994. 86 Relocate to the Monta Vista Recreation Center Rationale  Monta Vista is comprised of two main buildings.  Existing “Gymnastics” building = 10,560 sf, built in 1967  Existing Pre-K building = 2,890 sf, built in 1961  Provide 2 portables at existing city hall site for City Channel and council offices. City Channel and City Hall chambers will be more effective located in proximity to community hall Caveats:  Cost for two shipping containers for storage included as part of contingencies.  Costs to convert facility back to its current use or another use after serving as temporary city hall is not included.  City will have to designate current on street parking for city hall use only.  This location will create parking congestion and access issues during construction. Pro’s  Relocating to Monta Vista is feasible and a good portion of the improvements will be to city owned property.  Depending upon the future use of the facility some of these improvements may enhance this city owned property.  The location is convenient. Con’s  Parking is inadequate and will require most on street parking for employee parking  Requires the relocation of existing programming including the Pre-K program Relocate to the New Service Center Administration Building Rationale  Minimizes cost of construction of temporary facilities.  Assumes construction of a new Service Center Administration Building PRIOR to construction of a new city hall.  Existing Service Center Admin Building will remain in place during construction and approximately two years of occupancy by city hall staff.  City Channel / City council will occupy two portables located at the existing city hall site in this option also. Caveats  This option assumes the City commits to the City Services master plan, or a portion of it. 87  Accelerated approvals, design and construction schedules may be required to accommodate schedule of new city hall construction. Pro’s  Relocating to a newly constructed Service Center Admin Building will minimize sunk costs.  The city will be utilizing a city resource for temporary housing.  Valuable City asset upon completion of City Hall construction. Con’s  This option is dependent upon the city’s budget and desire to improve the services center.  Highest priced option Relocate to Leased Space in Cupertino Rationale  Space Required: 21,000sf  Assuming rent: $5,00 per sf/month  (21,000 sf)*($5.00/sf/mo)= $105,000  ($105,000) *12 months = 1,260,000 /year  $1,260,000/year * (3 years) = $3,780,000 Caveats The above analysis does not include costs for:  Brokers fees  Relocation (moving) services  Tenant improvements: electrical/data, etc.  Space planning soft costs  Utility costs Pro’s  No impact to existing programming at Monta Vista Recreation Center or Library field. Con’s  All lease space costs are “sunk costs” and will not result in improving the city’s overall portfolio of facilities.  Lease space availability is subject to market conditions beyond our control. This may result in higher lease rates or dividing operations across multiple locations resulting in inefficiencies and higher costs. 88 Relocate to modular buildings on Library Field Rationale  A typical “module” is 12’x40’ = 480sf  2 modules are typically combined for a building: multiple modules can be connected to create a larger building.  Budget $100,000 per 960 sf.  21,000 sf / (960sf) = 22  22 * 100,000 = $2,200,000 Caveats The above analysis does not include costs for  Site improvements including additional parking  Relocation (moving) services  Tenant improvements: electrical/data, etc.  Space planning soft costs  Utility improvements: Power, water, sewer, storm drain.  Cost to remove and repair fields  Use of the public space adjacent to the construction site may be an issue with the community. Pro’s  Temporary facilities are in close proximity to existing City Hall. Con’s  A portable village is not an attractive option since the city’s fields will not be in use for up to three years.  The cost of this facility is a sunk cost and will not add to the value of city property.  This location will create parking congestion and access issues during construction. An additional surface parking lot is most likely necessary. City Channel/Council Offices City Channel / City Council will occupy two portables located at the existing city hall site. Estimated cost includes two, 24’ x 40’ portable buildings, relocation of City Channel Operations and FF&E for 5 workstations and a conference room; $300,000. 89 ATTACHMENT F – New City Hall Design Schedule Date Activity October 16, 2018 Council approves budget appropriation to conduct RFP for Design Services April 16, 2019 Council approves Design Development Strategy May 1, 2019 Issue Request for Proposals for Professional Advisor May 22, 2019 Deadline for Proposals for Professional Advisor June 7, 2019 Select Professional Advisor July 10, 2019 Issue Request for Qualifications for Architectural Design Services for New City Hall July 31, 2019 Deadline for Statement of Qualifications for Architectural Design Services for New City Hall August 14-15, 2019 Interviews – Top six proposers August 28, 2019 Shortlist Top three proposers September 25, 2019 Design Competition Complete October 1, 2019 Council selects Design Competition Winner October 31, 2019 Contract Negotiations Complete November 5, 2019 Council awards Architectural Design Services Agreement December 2, 2019 Start Design – New City Hall March 4, 2020 Community Meeting No. 1 April 1, 2020 Conceptual Design Complete July 1, 2020 Schematic Design Complete September 9, 2020 Community Meeting No. 2 October 2, 2020 Design Development Complete for City Council Review October 20, 2020 City Council Review of Design Development – Study Session November 2020 Ballot Initiative for Voter Approved Tax Increase February 3, 2021 Construction Documents Complete April 5, 2021 Initiate Certificate of Participation April 7, 2021 Building Permit Approval anticipated April 2021 Receive Voter Approved Tax Revenue April 20, 2021 Advertise New City Hall project May 18, 2021 Bid Opening June 15, 2021 Council awards New City Hall project August 9, 2021 Start of Construction - New City Hall October 30, 2023 City Hall Complete, Opening Ceremony LEGEND Professional Advisor Selection Process Architectural Design Selection Process New City Hall Funding Process Bold City Council Approvals/Actions 90 ATTACHMENT F – Library Expansion Design Schedule Date Activity November 2020 Ballot Initiative for Voter Approved Tax Increase April 2021 Receive Voter Approved Tax Revenue July 6, 2021 Issue Request for Qualifications for Architectural Design Services for Library Expansion August 6, 2021 Deadline for Statement of Qualifications for Architectural Design Services for Library Expansion August 25-26, 2021 Interviews – Top three proposers September 17, 2021 Select Design Architect October 29, 2021 Contract Negotiations Complete November 16, 2021 Council awards Architectural Design Services Agreement December 13, 2021 Start Design – Library Expansion March 16, 2022 Community Meeting No. 1 April 8, 2022 Conceptual Design Complete July 8, 2022 Schematic Design Complete September 7, 2022 Community Meeting No. 2 October 7, 2022 Design Development Complete for City Council Review October 18, 2022 City Council Review of Design Development – Study Session February 3, 2023 Construction Documents Complete April 7, 2023 Building Permit Approval anticipated April 19, 2023 Advertise New City Hall project May 17, 2023 Bid Opening June 20, 2023 Council awards Library Expansion Project August 7, 2023 Start of Construction – Library Expansion November 29, 2024 Library Expansion Complete, Opening Ceremony LEGEND Architectural Design Selection Process Library Expansion Funding Process Bold City Council Approvals/Actions 91 ATTACHMENT F – Temporary City Hall Design Schedule Date Activity April 30, 2019 City Council selects preferred temporary City Hall Location June 18,2019 City Council adopts the budget including construction funding for temporary CH June 25 2019 Engage Consultant for Architectural Design Services July 16, 2019 Council Awards Architectural Design Services contract August 5, 2019 Start Design – Temporary City Hall October 25, 2019 Conceptual Design Complete January 17, 2020 Schematic Design Complete February 21, 2020 Design Development Complete for City Council Review March 3, 2020 City Council Review of Design Development – Study Session May 22, 2020 Construction Documents Complete June 12, 2020 Building Permit Approval anticipated June 30, 2020 Advertise New City Hall project July 28, 2020 Bid Opening August 18, 2020 Council awards Temporary City Hall September 28, 2020 Start of Construction – Temporary City Hall April 9, 2021 Temporary City Hall Complete April 12 - 30, 2021 Relocate Staff to Temporary City Hall LEGEND Architectural Design Selection Process Temporary City Hall Bold City Council Approvals/Actions 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:119-5047 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/21/2019 City Council On agenda:Final action:4/30/2019 Title:Subject: Study Session on the FY 2019 - 2024 Proposed Capital Improvement Program with Funding Options Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Option 'A' 5 -year CIP 190425 B - Option 'B' 5-year CIP 190425 C - Option 'C' 5-year CIP 190425 D – Other Projects E - 5-year CIP Project Narratives F – Open City Hall Survey Results Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council4/30/2019 1 Subject: Study Session on the FY 2019 - 2024 Proposed Capital Improvement Program with Funding Options Receive 5-year Capital Improvement Program options regarding projects and funding and provide comments. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/25/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™93 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 30, 2019 Subject Study Session on the FY 2019-2024 Proposed Capital Improvement Program with Funding Options Recommended Action Receive 5-year Capital Improvement Program options regarding projects and funding and provide comments. Background The 5–year CIP is a framework document that provides the prioritization, scheduling and funding needs of infrastructure improvement projects throughout the City for the next five years. The 5-year CIP does not include routine infrastructure maintenance efforts that will be included in the proposed FY19/20 operating budget such as the pavement management program. Many of the current and proposed projects within the 5–year CIP have been previously prioritized in recently completed master plans, audits and studies. Several of the current and proposed 5-year CIP projects reflect a continued investment in mobility and transportation that include separated bike lanes and bicycle/pedestrian trails. With the completion of the citywide building condition assessment, building facility needs have been prioritized in the 5–year CIP. Similar to the pavement management system, which required a significant capital investment, the required investment in City facilities is also important and requires a similar sized investment over the next five years and beyond. The prioritization of 5-year CIP projects was determined by four criteria – health and safety, cost savings/operating efficiencies, grant eligible and other. The recommended scheduling of the 5-year CIP considers these priorities, the dollars available in reserves and also potential new funding opportunities. As the existing City Hall and its’ replacement or renovation is a significant factor in the 5 -year CIP, the scheduling of many other projects are affected by what is decided with City Hall. Condition of Existing City Hall The existing Cupertino City Hall building was completed in 1965 and later renovated in 1986. In 2012 the building underwent a structural analysis and numerous seismic deficiencies were identified that did not meet the applicable 2010 California Building Code. The 2018 Building Condition Assessment (BCA) expanded upon the deficiencies 94 identified in 2012 and recommended $4.1M in health and safety repairs/renovations followed by another $16.9M in reliability/resiliency and comfort/efficiency projects. Health and safety requirements include but are not limited to a seismic retrofit, a new elevator, emergency generator replacement and accessible improvements. In order to complete this work or to construct a New City Hall, staff will need to be located offsite at an interim City Hall for approximately two years at an additional cost of $2M. A more detailed narrative and itemization of existing City Hall needs was provided in the City Hall Design/Delivery Strategy & Library Expansion report presented prior to this item. CIP Prioritization As mentioned above, four CIP project prioritization categories were developed by staff. Details of these prioritization categories are as follows:  Health and Safety: Projects in this category provide an immediate safety benefit or address an urgent safety concern. Example projects may include the existing City Hall seismic retrofit, bike lane projects and accessibility improvements.  Cost Savings/Operating Efficiencies: Projects in this category provide a direct cost savings either through reduced maintenance costs or water/energy savings or indirectly through operational efficiencies that result in cost savings. These projects avoid costly repairs by proactively repairing facilities before they fail and need to be repaired on a costly emergency basis. Example projects include Regnart Road improvements, Sports Center HVAC upgrades, and Quinlan Community Center front office upgrades.  Grant Eligible: Projects in this category either have partial grant funding secured, are eligible for grant funding or will be eligible when the grant program reopens. Example projects include the all-inclusive play (AIP ) area proposed at Jollyman Park and solar electric vehicle chargers at various City facilities. This category also includes projects where donations may be received such as the land to construct the Linda Vista Trail.  Other: Projects in this category provide customer service enhancements, additional programming opportunities and provide a community benefit but are not urgent needs. Example projects include an aquatics facility, new parks, and median island landscaping. Projects within each category are prioritized on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 – highest priority, 4 low priority) based on urgency, funding availability, community support, risk assessment and part of an established plan/corridor or system. 95 Development of 5-year CIP Options Three 5-year CIP options were developed for this study session. Each option is affected by the improvements completed to City Hall and the dollars either available in reserves or obtained in new debt or taxes. Option “A” replaces the existing 20,770 square foot City Hall with a 40,000 square foot New City Hall project at a cost of $70.5M (includes $2M for an interim City Hall). It also includes a $10.05M, 4,400 square foot Library Expansion, all priority “1 & 2” health and safety projects and all transportation related projects anticipated to be funded by Apple. This option does include projects of special consideration such as those that have grant or other external funding opportunities. The cumulative project list within this option requires $118.46M in new funding over the next 5 years. Current capital reserves available are $30M and up to an additional $40M is available through future authorization of a certificate of participation (COP). The balance of $48.46M would require the future authorization of $11M in G.O. bonds and an increase of taxes such as a transactional use tax, transient occupancy tax, utility user’s tax, parcel tax, or a combination thereof. A detailed Option “A” project list as well as the recommended sources of revenue to pay for the projects is provided in Attachment A. A summary of potential funding for this option is described in the below table: Option “A” Balance Cost: $118.46M $118.46M Capital reserves: $30M $ 88.46M Certificate of Participation: $40M $ 48.46M General Obligation Bond: $11M $ 37.46M Transaction & Use Tax1: $12.05M $ 25.41M Utility User Tax1: $ 8.35M $ 17.06M External Funding2: $20.70M ($ 3.64M) 1 Estimated FY19/20 through FY23/24 accumulated revenue amount. 2 Includes grant and other special revenues Option “B” renovates the existing City Hall with a health, safety improvements and renovation project valued at $23M (includes $2M for an interim City Hall). This option includes all priority “1” & “2” health and safety projects within the CIP, a 4,400 square foot Library Expansion and all transportation related projects anticipated to be funded by Apple. The cumulative project list within this option requires $71.56M in new funding over the next 5 years. Similar to Option “A”, this option does include projects of special consideration such as those that have grant or other external funding opportunities. All $30M of the available capital reserves would be used in this option. An $11M G.O. bond 96 would be recommended to fund the Library Expansion. A COP of $14.86M would also be needed. No additional revenues, such as the tax measures included in the above table would be required to service Option “B” debt. A detailed Option “B” project list as well as the recommended sources of revenue to pay for the projects is provided in Attachment B. A summary of potential funding for this option is described in the below table: Option “B” Balance Cost: $71.56M $71.56M Capital Reserves: $30M $41.56M General Obligation Bond: $11M $30.56M External Funding1: $15.70M $14.86M Certificate of Participation: $14.86M $0M 1 Includes grant and other special revenues Option “C” represents the minimum required projects to complete priority “1” health and safety requirements. This option identifies $6.1M in health and safety needs for the existing City Hall (includes $2M for an interim City Hall), all priority “1” health and safety needs within the CIP, health and safety related transportation improvements anticipated to be funded by Apple and projects of special consideration similar to the previous options. The cumulative project list within this option requires $31.5M in new funding over the next 5 years with approximately $13.2M available for additional projects without incurring any additional debt or increase in tax. A detailed Option “C” project list as well as the recommended sources of revenue to pay for the projects is provided in Attachment C. A summary of potential expenditures for this option is described in the below table: Option “C” Balance Cost: $31.5M $31.5M External Funding: $14.7M $16.8M Capital reserves: $30M ($13.2M) Available for “Other” Projects: $13.2M As “Other” projects are not included in the three options, Council has the discretion to create other options as they may direct. Attachment D represents “Other”. Attachment E is the individual project descriptions for projects included in Options “A, B and C” plus “Other” projects. Open City Hall Survey Results 97 From April 12th through April 22nd, the City received 58 responses to an online Open City Hall survey. In the survey, residents were asked how they would spend money on the City’s facilities and capital improvement projects. When asked about the City’s facilities, responses received through April 22nd allocated the most funding to:  Improving the health and safety of current facilities (23% of total budgets);  Expanding the library (22%), and  Remodeling current facilities (19%) When asked about capital improvement projects, respondents allocated the most to:  Park improvements (19% of total budgets);  Bike and pedestrian trail improvements (18%), and  Road improvements (17%). When asked if they would support additional funding options for the CIP, respondents were most supportive of:  Using transient occupancy tax (48% of respondents) and  Property tax (29%).  28% of respondents were not supportive of using additional taxes to fund the CIP. Attachment F contains the survey and a summary of the results through April 22nd. The survey was closed on April 26th. Survey responses received through April 26th were not available at the writing of this report and will be provided to Council at the study session. Sustainability Some projects, such as the New City Hall, have already completed environmental review and would result and in a more sustainable facility as compared to the existing City Hall. Other projects that have not previously reviewed for their environmental impact would be evaluated on a project by project basis depending on the specific projects being funded. As future environmental reviews are needed and completed, the impacts of the proposed projects may or may not be determined to be significant. When an environmental impact may be determined significant, appropriate mitigation measure would be required. Among the goals of many of the 5-year CIP projects is for the completed projected to be more sustainable. Fiscal Impact $30M of current capital reserves are available for projects. Option “A” would require the full use of these capital reserves plus a combination of a $40M COP, $11M G.O. bond and increases in taxes to fund debt service. Option “B” would also require the full use of capital reserves plus a combination of a $14.86M in a COP and an $11M G.O bond. However, Option “B” would not require an increase in taxes. Option “C” can be funded 98 completely with capital reserves without debt or taxes and allows up to $13.2M of additional “Other” projects to be funded. Upon receiving comments and guidance on the various options desired by Council and/or direction on including “Other” projects into one of the three options, staff will return at the May 13th budget hearing with specific projects and next steps to initiate potential funding strategies as may be applicable. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works Michael Zimmermann, Capital Improvement Program Manager Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager Attachments: Attachment A – Option “A” 5-year CIP Attachment B – Option “B” 5-year CIP Attachment C – Option “C” 5-year CIP Attachment D – Other Projects Attachment E – 5-year CIP Project Narratives Attachment F- Open City Hall Survey Results 99 Attachment A 4/25/2019 OPTION A - HEALTH & SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND NEW CITY HALL/LIBRARY EXPANSION REVENUES Prior Years New Funding Total Budget Other Financing Sources FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 COMMENTS Certificates of Participation 40,000,000 40,000,000 Transaction and Use Tax (majority vote)12,049,335 3,948,540 4,016,060 4,084,735 Transient Occupancy Tax 14% (majority vote)7,323,945 1,700,000 1,784,490 1,873,179 1,966,276 Utility User Tax 4% (majority vote)8,349,734 2,100,000 2,091,600 2,083,234 2,074,901 Parcel Tax (super majority vote)11,053,368 3,566,911 3,683,192 3,803,264 Measure B 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Apple Funding 9,775,000 5,587,800 3,787,200 400,000 Grant Funding 4,920,550 4,920,550 Beginning Fund Balance (Capital Reserve)30,000,000 30,000,000 Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 128,471,932 81,508,350 8,587,200 12,791,541 12,655,665 12,929,176 EXPENDITURES Proposal No. Priority #Category Sub Category Project Name Prior Years New Funding Total Budget Other Financing Sources FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 COMMENTS 64C 1 H&S City Hall Interim City Hall (Monta Vista Rec Center Option)500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 65I 1 H&S Other Sports Center Seismic Retrofit 400,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 1,000,000 69 1 H&S Other ADA Improvements 245,000 450,000 695,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 77 1 H&S/CS Other Regnart Road Improvements Phase 1: Sta 28+40 to 29+80 (Retaining Wall)32,500 1,150,000 1,182,500 1,150,000 36 1 H&S Other Quinlan Preschool Shade Structure 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 60 1 H&S Apple School Walk Audit Implementation 250,000 1,200,000 1,450,000 1,200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.2M A1 1 H&S Apple Bubb Road Improvements 0 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.98M A2 1 H&S Apple Junipera Serra Trail (basic design for segments between Mary Ave & Vallco Pkwy)0 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.8M A3 1 H&S Apple Mary Avenue Protected Bikeways 0 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 Funded by Apple Donation $165K 51 1 H&S Apple McClellan Rd Bike Corridor Phase 3 - Signal Intersection Improvements @ De Anza/Pacifica 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,242,800 1,500,000 Funded by Apple Donation 70 1 H&S Other BBF Entrance Road Improvements - Construction 75,000 5,500,000 5,575,000 500,000 5,000,000 47 2 H&S Other Bicycle Boulevards - Phase 2 649,000 649,000 649,000 14 2 H&S Other Memorial Park Phase 1 - Pond Demolition 35,550 1,500,000 1,535,550 1,500,000 52 2 H&S Apple McClellan Rd Bike Corridor Phase 4 - Imperial to Byrne Separated Bike Lane 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,387,200 1,500,000 Funded by Apple Donation 61 2 H&S Other Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase II (Wolfe Rd to HWY 85)0 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 76 2 H&S/Grant Other McClellan Road Bridge Replacement @ Stevens Creek (SB 1 Eligible)0 6,000,000 6,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 86 2 H&S Other Storm Drain Master Plan Implementation 117,500 2,818,000 2,935,500 715,000 315,450 1,787,550 62 2 H&S Other Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase III (HWY 85 to Foothill Expwy)0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 83 2 H&S Other Retaining Wall Repair - Cordova Rd. 0 350,000 350,000 350,000 58 2 H&S Other Junipera Serra Trail Segment #3: Wolfe Rd to Vallco Parkway 259,000 1,800,000 2,059,000 1,800,000 42 2 H&S/CS Other New City Hall 3,500,000 64,500,000 68,000,000 2,100,000 62,400,000 66 2 Other Library Library Expansion 0 10,046,979 10,046,979 986,190 9,060,789 1 1 Grant Other All Inclusive Playground ($1.448M Grant, $1.2 Local Share, $2.852 donations)30,000 5,500,000 5,530,000 4,300,000 5,500,000 SCCO Grant + Public Donations 54 2 Donation Other Linda Vista Trail (Land donation if we commit to construct)41,600 2,200,000 2,241,600 2,200,000 88 1 Grant/CS Other Solar EV Chargers (75% Reimburseable)0 827,400 827,400 620,550 827,400 TOTAL 5,486,150 118,461,379 123,947,529 14,695,550 21,476,400 68,785,000 9,541,190 11,771,239 6,887,550 FUND BALANCE 60,031,950 (165,850)3,084,501 3,968,927 10,010,553 H&S Health & Safety Grant Grant Eligible (Secured, Eligible or Opportunity) CS/E Cost Savings or Operational Efficiencies are a result of the project Other Customer Service or Programming Enhancement 100 ATTACHMENT B 4/25/2019 OPTION B - MINIMUM HEALTH & SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CIVIC CENTER EFFICIENCIES REVENUES Prior Years New Funding Total Budget Other Financing Sources FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 COMMENTS Certificates of Participation 40,000,000 40,000,000 Transaction and Use Tax (majority vote)0 Transient Occupancy Tax 14% (majority vote)0 Utility User Tax 4% (majority vote)0 Parcel Tax (super majority vote)0 Measure B 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Apple Funding 9,775,000 5,587,800 3,787,200 400,000 Grant Funding 4,920,550 4,920,550 Beginning Fund Balance (Capital Reserve)30,000,000 30,000,000 Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 89,695,550 81,508,350 4,787,200 1,400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 EXPENDITURES Proposal No. Priority #Category Sub Category Project Name Prior Years New Funding Total Budget Other Financing Sources FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 COMMENTS 64C 1 H&S City Hall Interim City Hall (Monta Vista Rec Center Option)500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 65A 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Seismic Retrofit 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 65B 1 H&S City Hall City Hall - New Elevator 450,000 450,000 450,000 65C 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Generator Replacement 250,000 250,000 250,000 65D 1 H&S City Hall City Hall ADA Improvements 800,000 800,000 800,000 65E 1 H&S City Hall City Hall new HVAC System with EMS 250,000 250,000 250,000 65F 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Roof Renovations 600,000 600,000 600,000 65G 1 H&S City Hall City Hall New Switchboard & electrical system replacement 500,000 500,000 500,000 65H 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Lighting and lighting controls replacement 250,000 250,000 250,000 65I 1 H&S Other Sports Center Seismic Retrofit 400,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 1,000,000 69 1 H&S Other ADA Improvements 245,000 450,000 695,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 70 1 H&S Other BBF Entrance Road Improvements - Construction 75,000 5,500,000 5,575,000 500,000 5,000,000 77 1 H&S/CS Other Regnart Road Improvements Phase 1: Sta 28+40 to 29+80 (Retaining Wall)32,500 1,150,000 1,182,500 1,150,000 36 1 H&S Other Quinlan Preschool Shade Structure 125,000 125,000 125,000 59 1 H&S Measure B School Walk Audit Implementation 250,000 1,200,000 1,450,000 1,200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.2M A1 1 H&S Apple Bubb Road Improvements 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.98M A2 1 H&S Apple Junipera Serra Trail (basic design for segments between Mary Ave & Vallco Pkwy)1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.8M A3 1 H&S Apple Mary Avenue Protected Bikeways 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 Funded by Apple Donation $165K 51 1 H&S Apple McClellan Rd Bike Corridor Phase 3 - Signal Intersection Improvements @ De Anza/Pacifica 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,242,800 1,500,000 Funded by Apple Donation 47 2 H&S Other Bicycle Boulevards - Phase 2 649,000 649,000 649,000 14 2 H&S Other Memorial Park Phase 1 - Pond Demolition 35,550 1,500,000 1,535,550 1,500,000 52 2 H&S Apple McClellan Rd Bike Corridor Phase 4 - Imperial to Byrne Separated Bike Lane 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,387,200 1,500,000 Funded by Apple Donation 61 2 H&S Other Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase II (Wolfe Rd to HWY 85)1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 76 2 H&S/Grant Other McClellan Road Bridge Replacement @ Stevens Creek (SB 1 Eligible)6,000,000 6,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 86 2 H&S Other Storm Drain Master Plan Implementation 117,500 2,818,000 2,935,500 715,000 315,450 1,787,550 62 2 H&S Other Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase III (HWY 85 to Foothill Expwy)2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 83 2 H&S Other Retaining Wall Repair - Cordova Rd. 350,000 350,000 350,000 58 2 H&S Other Junipera Serra Trail Segment #3: Wolfe Rd to Vallco Parkway 259,000 1,800,000 2,059,000 1,800,000 2 CS Other City Hall Renovation 3,500,000 13,500,000 17,000,000 13,500,000 Apply existing design authorization 66 2 Other Library Library Expansion 10,046,979 10,046,979 986,190 9,060,789 1 1 Grant Other All Inclusive Playground ($1.448M Grant, $1.2 Local Share, $2.852 donations)30,000 5,500,000 5,530,000 4,300,000 5,500,000 SCCO Grant + Public Donations 54 2 Donation Other Linda Vista Trail (Land donation if we commit to construct)41,600 2,200,000 2,241,600 2,200,000 88 1 Grant/CS Other Solar EV Chargers (75% Reimburseable)0 827,400 827,400 620,550 827,400 TOTAL 5,486,150 71,561,379 77,047,529 14,695,550 23,476,400 21,371,190 22,615,789 2,210,450 1,887,550 FUND BALANCE 58,031,950 41,447,960 20,232,171 19,021,721 18,134,171 Categories H&S Health & Safety Grant Grant Eligible (Secured, Eligible or Opportunity) CS/E Cost Savings or Operational Efficiencies are a result of the project 101 ATTACHMENT C 4/25/2019 OPTION C- MINIMUM HEALTH & SAFETY REQUIREMENTS REVENUES Prior Years New Funding Total Budget Other Financing Sources FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 COMMENTS Certificates of Participation 0 Transaction and Use Tax (majority vote)0 Transient Occupancy Tax 14% (majority vote)0 Utility User Tax 4% (majority vote)0 Parcel Tax (super majority vote)0 Measure B 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Apple Funding 9,775,000 5,587,800 3,787,200 400,000 Grant Funding 4,920,550 4,920,550 Beginning Fund Balance (Capital Reserve)30,000,000 30,000,000 Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 49,695,550 41,508,350 4,787,200 1,400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 EXPENDITURES Proposal No. Priority #Category Sub Category Project Name Prior Years New Funding Total Budget Other Financing Sources FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 COMMENTS 64C 1 H&S City Hall Interim City Hall (Monta Vista Rec Center Option)500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 65A 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Seismic Retrofit 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 65B 1 H&S City Hall City Hall - New Elevator 450,000 450,000 450,000 65C 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Generator Replacement 250,000 250,000 250,000 65D 1 H&S City Hall City Hall ADA Improvements 800,000 800,000 800,000 65E 1 H&S City Hall City Hall new HVAC System with EMS 250,000 250,000 250,000 65F 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Roof Renovations 600,000 600,000 600,000 65G 1 H&S City Hall City Hall New Switchboard & electrical system replacement 500,000 500,000 500,000 65H 1 H&S City Hall City Hall Lighting and lighting controls replacement 250,000 250,000 250,000 65I 1 H&S Other Sports Center Seismic Retrofit 400,000 1,000,000 1,400,000 1,000,000 69 1 H&S Other ADA Improvements 245,000 450,000 695,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 77 1 H&S/CS Other Regnart Road Improvements Phase 1: Sta 28+40 to 29+80 (Retaining Wall)32500 1,150,000 1,182,500 1,150,000 36 1 H&S Other Quinlan Preschool Shade Structure 125,000 125,000 125,000 60 1 H&S Apple School Walk Audit Implementation 250,000 1,200,000 1,450,000 1,200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.2M A1 1 H&S Apple Bubb Road Improvements 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 1,980,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.98M A2 1 H&S Apple Junipera Serra Trail (basic design for segments between Mary Ave & Vallco Pkwy)1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 Funded by Apple Donation $1.8M A3 1 H&S Apple Mary Avenue Protected Bikeways 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 Funded by Apple Donation $165K 51 1 H&S Apple McClellan Rd Bike Corridor Phase 3 - Signal Intersection Improvements @ De Anza/Pacifica 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,242,800 1,500,000 Funded by Apple Donation 52 2 H&S Apple McClellan Rd Bike Corridor Phase 4 - Imperial to Byrne Separated Bike Lane 1,500,000 1,500,000 3,387,200 1,500,000 Funded by Apple Donation 76 1 H&S/Grant Other McClellan Road Bridge Replacement @ Stevens Creek (SB 1 Eligible)6,000,000 6,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 1 1 Grant Other All Inclusive Playground ($1.448M Grant, $1.2 Local Share, $2.852 donations)30,000 5,500,000 5,530,000 4,300,000 5,500,000 SCCO Grant + Public Donations 54 2 Donation Other Linda Vista Trail (Land donation if we commit to construct)41,600 2,200,000 2,241,600 2,200,000 88 1 Grant/CS Other Solar EV Chargers (75% Reimburseable)0 827,400 827,400 620,550 827,400 TOTAL 1,499,100 31,497,400 32,996,500 14,695,550 22,827,400 2,985,000 5,490,000 95,000 100,000 FUND BALANCE 18,680,950 20,483,150 16,393,150 17,298,150 18,198,150 Categories H&S Health & Safety Grant Grant Eligible (Secured, Eligible or Opportunity) CS/E Cost Savings or Operational Efficiencies are a result of the project Other Customer Service or Programing Enhancement 102 ATTACHMENT D - Other Projects revised 4/23/19 Project Name Total Budget Aquatics Facility 50,000,000 BBF Golf Course Renovation 1,450,000 BBF Play Area Improvements 250,000 BBF Splash Pad 690,000 Bicycle Wayfinding Implementation 65,000 Capital Project Support 295,000 Carmen Road Pedestrian / Bike Bridge - Design & Construction 3,100,000 CIP Preliminary Planning & Design 625,000 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation Phase 2 5,200,000 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation Phase 3 4,750,000 Creek Infall/Outfall Restoration 480,000 Creekside Park - Design & Construction 750,000 Creekside Park Development Plan 100,000 De Anza Median Island Landscaping Phase II - Construction 1,546,500 Gymnasium Complex 35,000,000 Healing Garden - Design and Construction 1,000,000 Jollyman Park - Design & Construction 750,000 Jollyman Park Development Plan 100,000 Jollyman Park Pathway Installation 750,000 Junipera Serra Trail Segment #1: Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza Blvd 3,500,000 Linda Vista Park - Design & Construction 750,000 Linda Vista Park Development Plan 100,000 Mary Avenue Trail and Greenbelt 6,170,000 McClellan Ranch - Construct Trash Enclosure (Design Complete)100,000 McClellan Ranch - Barn Renovation 3,250,000 McClellan Ranch Preserve Stevens Creek Access 1,200,000 Memorial Park - Tennis Court Restroom Replacement 625,000 Memorial Park Phase 2 - Construction 2,500,000 Memorial Park Phase 2 - Design (Amphitheater & Trail)350,000 Memorial Park Phase 3 - Construction 2,425,000 Memorial Park Phase 3 - Design 350,000 MRP Community Garden Improvements - Construction (Design Complete)1,500,000 MRP EEC Aquatic Habitat 175,000 New Neighborhood Parks (Land Acquisition & Development)20,000,000 New Neighborhood Parks (Site Identification Study & Procurement Plan)150,000 Performing Arts Center 77,000,000 Portal Park - Design & Construction 750,000 Portal Park Development Plan 75,000 Quinlan Front Office Upgrades 700,000 Quinlan HVAC Upgrades 1,000,000 103 Project Name Total Budget Recreation Facilities Monument Signs McClellan Ranch West McClellan Ranch Preserve 200,000 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 2: Sta 36+30 to 36+80 (Retaining Wall)800,000 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 3: Sta 23+35 to 23+50 (Culvert/Outfall Replacement)925,000 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 4: Sta 7+15 to 7+40 (Retaining Wall)700,000 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 5: Sta 38+95 to 39+40 (Retaining Wall)825,000 Regnart Road ImprovementsPhase 6: Various Locations (Uphill side retaining walls)250,000 Senior Center Expansion 25,000,000 Service Center - Replacement Administration Building with EOC 16,000,000 Service Center-Shed No. 3 Improvement 1,700,000 Sports Center - Interior Upgrades 1,548,700 Sports Center HVAC Upgrades 500,000 Stevens Creek Bank Repair - South of SCB - Design & Construction 1,600,000 Stevens Creek Trail & Bridge over UPRR (De Anza Trail) 18,000,000 Stocklmeir Legacy Farm - Phase 1 Improvements 400,000 Stocklmeir House - New Sewer Lateral 100,000 Wilson Park - Design & Construction 750,000 Wilson Park Development Plan 75,000 TOTAL 298,945,200 104 C I P FY 2020 Capital Improvement Program Proposed FY 2020 Planned FY 2021-2024 PROPOSED PROJECTS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Roger Lee, Acting Director CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3266 (408) 777-3354 ~ FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO.ORG 105 Table of Contents Health & Safety Requirements ........................................................................................................... 5 ADA Improvements ......................................................................................................................... 6 All Inclusive Playground ................................................................................................................. 7 Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements - Construction .............................................. 8 Bicycle Boulevards – Phase 2 .......................................................................................................... 9 Bubb Road Improvements ............................................................................................................ 10 City Hall Renovation ...................................................................................................................... 11 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation .................................................. 12 Interim City Hall (Monta Vista Rec Center Option) ................................................................ 13 Junipera Serra Trail Segment #3: Construction of Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Pkwy .................... 14 Junipera Serra Trail – Basic Design of All Segments ............................................................... 15 Library Expansion ........................................................................................................................... 16 Linda Vista Trail (Land donation if we commit to construct) ................................................ 17 Mary Avenue Protected Bikeways ............................................................................................... 18 McClellan Rd. Bike Corridor Phase 3-Signal Intersection Improvements @ DeAnza/Pacifica .............................................................................................................................. 19 McClellan Rd. Bike Corridor Phase 4- Imperial to Byrne Separated Bike Lane ................. 20 McClellan Road Bridge Replacement @ Stevens Creek .......................................................... 21 Memorial Park Phase 1 – Pond Demolition ............................................................................... 22 New City Hall .................................................................................................................................. 23 Quinlan Preschool Shade Structure ............................................................................................ 24 Not Used ........................................................................................................................................... 25 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 1: Sta 28+40 to 29+80 (Retaining Wall) ........................ 26 Retaining Wall Repair – Cordova Road ...................................................................................... 27 School Walk Audit Implementation ........................................................................................... 28 Solar Electric Vehicle Chargers .................................................................................................... 29 Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase 2 (Wolfe Rd. to HWY 85) .................... 30 Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase 3 (HWY 85 to Foothill Expwy.) .......... 31 106 Storm Drain Master Plan Implementation ................................................................................. 32 Other Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Aquatics Facility .............................................................................................................................. 34 Blackberry Farm Golf Course Renovation ................................................................................. 35 Blackberry Farm – Play Area Improvements ............................................................................. 36 Blackberry Farm – Splash Pad ...................................................................................................... 37 Bicycle Wayfinding Implementation .......................................................................................... 38 Capitol Project Support.................................................................................................................. 39 Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Design & Construction .............................................. 40 CIP Preliminary Planning & Design ........................................................................................... 41 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation Phase 2 ................................... 42 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation Phase 3 ................................... 43 Creek Infall/Outfall Restoration .................................................................................................. 44 Creekside Park – Design & Construction ................................................................................... 45 Creekside Park Development Plan .............................................................................................. 46 De Anza Median Island Landscaping Phase II - Construction .............................................. 47 Gymnasium Complex..................................................................................................................... 48 Healing Garden – Design and Construction .............................................................................. 49 Jollyman Park – Design & Construction .................................................................................... 50 Jollyman Park Development Plan ............................................................................................... 51 Jollyman Park Pathway Installation ............................................................................................ 52 Junipera Serra Trail Segment #1: Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza Blvd. ............................. 53 Linda Vista Park – Design & Construction ................................................................................ 54 Linda Vista Park Development Plan ........................................................................................... 55 Mary Avenue Trail and Greenbelt .............................................................................................. 56 McClellan Ranch – Construct Trash Enclosure (Design Complete)...................................... 57 McClellan Ranch – Barn Renovation .......................................................................................... 58 McClellan Ranch Preserve Stevens Creek Access .................................................................... 59 Memorial Park – Tennis Court Restroom Replacement .......................................................... 60 Memorial Park Phase 2 – Construction ....................................................................................... 61 107 Memorial Park Phase 2 – Design (Amphitheater & Trail) ...................................................... 62 Memorial Park Phase 3 – Construction ....................................................................................... 63 Memorial Park Phase 3 – Design ................................................................................................. 64 McClellan Ranch Preserve Community Garden Improvements – Construction ................ 65 McClellan Ranch Preserve EEC Aquatic Habitat ...................................................................... 66 New Neighborhood Parks (Land Acquisition& Development) ............................................ 67 New Neighborhood Parks (Site Identification Study & Procurement Plan)....................... 68 Performing Arts Center .................................................................................................................. 69 Portal Park – Design & Construction .......................................................................................... 70 Portal Park Development Plan ..................................................................................................... 71 Quinlan Front Office Upgrades ................................................................................................... 72 Quinlan HVAC Upgrades ............................................................................................................. 73 Recreation Facilities Monument Signs ....................................................................................... 74 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 2: Sta 36+30 to 36+80 (Retaining Wall) ........................ 75 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 3: Sta 23+35 to 23+50 (Culvert/Outfall Replacement) ............................................................................................................................................................ 76 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 4: Sta 7+15 to 7+40 (Retaining Wall) ............................ 77 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 5: Sta 38+95 to 39+40 (Retaining Wall) ........................ 78 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 6: Various Locations (Uphill Side Retaining Wall) . 79 Senior Center Expansion ............................................................................................................... 80 Service Center – Replacement Administration Building with EOC ..................................... 81 Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvements .................................................................................. 82 Sports Center – Interior Upgrades ............................................................................................... 83 Sports Center HVAC Upgrades .................................................................................................... 84 Stevens Creek Bank Repair – South of SCB – Design & Construction ................................ 85 Stevens Creek Trail & Bridge over UPRR (De Anza Trail) ..................................................... 86 Stocklmeir Legacy Farm – Phase 1 Improvements ................................................................... 87 Stocklmeir House – New Sewer Lateral ..................................................................................... 88 Wilson Park – Design & Construction ........................................................................................ 89 Wilson Park Development Plan ................................................................................................... 90 108 (this page intentionally left blank) 109 Health & Safety Requirements 110 ADA Improvements DESCRIPTION This is an ongoing program, funded annually, to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City. Estimated Project Cost (5-year): $450,000 Location: Various Locations Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION An update of the City’s ADA Transition Plan was completed in April 2015. The plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to achieve compliance with ADA in public buildings, parks, and the public right of way. Funding level starts at $80,000 in FY2019-20 with planned increases of $5,000 per year to a maximum of $100,000 in FY2023-24. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 111 All Inclusive Playground DESCRIPTION Design and construct an all-inclusive playground at Jollyman Park. Estimated Project Cost: $5,500,000 Location: Jollyman Park Funding: Grant $1,448,000 Capital Improvement $1,200,000 Donations $2,852,000 Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Community input secured during the Parks & Recreation System Master Plan process favors having an All-Inclusive play area in Cupertino. In October 2018, the City Council unanimously endorsed applying for grant funding from Santa Clara County for an All- Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park. In December the City was notified that they were awarded a $1.448M grant for construction. This playground will replace the existing playground. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Increase of $20,000- $30,000/year to the Operating Budget due to the specialized nature and maintenance needs of the play equipment. By accepting the grant, the City agrees to construct and maintain the playground for 20 years. 112 Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements - Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct a pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access to Blackberry Park Farm and Stevens Creek Corridor Trail. Estimated Project Cost: $5,500,000 Location: Blackberry Farm Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Park & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Current access to Blackberry Farm for bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles is a narrow access road shared by all three groups. This project will fund the design and construction of the preferred alternative identified in the feasibility study. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 113 Bicycle Boulevards – Phase 2 DESCRIPTION Design and construct enhanced bike routes (Class III shared bike lanes) that provide neighborhood friendly alternatives parallel to bike network options of major City streets. Estimated Project Cost: $649,000 Location: Various Locations Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. This bike boulevard network supports families and young students wanting to reach schools, parks, and community amenities on quiet streets with low traffic volumes. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Minimal impacts (e.g. refresh striping every 3-5 years) are anticipated to the Operating Budget. 114 Bubb Road Improvements DESCRIPTION Installation of protected bike lanes, sidewalks, a new crosswalk with a pedestrian refuge median island and pedestrian activated flashing beacons and revised lane striping. Estimated Project Cost: $1,980,000 Location: Bubb Road Funding: Apple Donation $1,980,000 Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Apple has offered the City funds to complete these pedestrian and bicycle improvements in order to enhance safety along the section of Bubb Road, between the UPRR Railroad Tracks and Stevens Creek Blvd. Improvements to this section of Bubb Road are included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. Up to an additional $1,000/year in addition to normal street sweeping operations will be included in FY 2020-21 Operating budget. 115 City Hall Renovation DESCRIPTION Design and construct renovations to the existing City Hall for increased operational efficiencies and improved customer service. Estimated Project Cost: $ 17,000,000* Location: City Hall Funding: Capital Improvement, Certificates of Participation Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION As staff are temporarily relocated during construction of necessary Health & Safety projects this project will take advantage of the shut-down to reconfigure and remodel the interior space. Work includes, but is not limited to, moving the Permit Center to the ground floor, increasing the number of employee workstations, replace the single pane windows with energy efficient windows, new interior and exterior paint, carpet replacement and restroom remodels. Completion of this project would be in coordination with an additional project to complete Health & Safety issues. In addition, an Interim City Hall would be required. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. *Total cost to complete this project will be $17M for improvements noted on this page and $4.1M for Health& Safety improvements noted on the Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation project (page 12) and $2.5M for improvements noted on the Interim City Hall (page 13) for a total of $23.6M 116 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation DESCRIPTION Implement recommendations at City Hall as identified in the 2017/18 Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessment. • City Hall – New Elevator - $450,000 • City Hall ADA Improv. - $800,000 • City Hall Generator Replace - $250,000 • City Hall Lighting & Lighting Controls Replace. - $250,000 • City Hall new HVAC Sys. With EMS - $250,000 • City Hall New Switchboard & Electrical Sys. Replace. - $500,000 • City Hall Roof Renovations - $600,000 • City Hall Seismic Retrofit - $1,000,000 • Sports Center Seismic Retrofit - $1,000,000 Estimated Project Cost: $5,100,000 Location: City Hall & Sports Ctr. Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2017/18 Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessments project assessed the condition of nearly every City owned facility. City Hall and Sports Center were identified as the highest priority facilities with significant deficiencies that need to be addressed to avoid costly repairs and extended service interruptions. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. 117 Interim City Hall (Monta Vista Rec Center Option) DESCRIPTION This project would relocate the majority of City Hall staff to Monta Vista Recreation Center while the existing City Hall is improved or replaced. Estimated Project Cost: $2,000,000 Location: Monta Vista Rec Center Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION During construction work at City Hall (New Building, Renovation or Health & Safety Improvements), staff will need be relocated to complete the work. Monta Vista Recreation Center was identified as the most cost effective, interim site that could accommodate City Hall staff. Coordination with existing Recreation and Community Service programs will be required. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. There will be a net reduction in Operating costs when existing City Hall is out-of-service 118 Junipera Serra Trail Segment #3: Construction of Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Pkwy DESCRIPTION Final design and construction of Segment #3 from Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Pkwy. Estimated Project Cost: $1,800,000 Location: Junipera Serra Trail – Wolfe Funding: Capital Improvement Rd.to Vallco Pkwy Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The Junipero Serra Trail is one of the trail segments that would make up “The Loop” to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle – Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed. Segment #3 - Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Parkway is the first phase of a multi-phase program and is estimated to be the lowest cost segment to construct. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that trails will require additional maintenance however, it is anticipated that these impacts will be less than $2,000/year for this segment. 119 Junipera Serra Trail – Basic Design of All Segments DESCRIPTION Basic design for all segments from the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway. Estimated Project Cost: $1,800,000 Location: Junipera Serra Trail Funding: Apple Donation $1,800,000 Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The Junipero Serra Trail is one of the trail segments that would make up “The Loop” to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle – Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed. This project would fund the basic design of all segments from the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge to Vallco Parkway for future construction projects. Additional design dollars will be needed if either a bridge or tunnel is selected for the De Anza Boulevard crossing. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Anticipated a slight impacts to the Operating Budget as staff will need to provide oversight of the consultant for the design. 120 Library Expansion DESCRIPTION Develop a design and construct an approx. 4,400 SF addition to the Library building for a “program room” that will seat up to 130 to serve as a meeting space for library events. Using the “Perch” option from the Civic Center Master Plan. Estimated Project Cost: $10,046,979 Location: Library Funding: Capital Improvement, General Obligation Bonds Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan on July 7th, 2015. The master plan preferred option for an expansion to the Library was the “Perched” option. This expansion would be approximately 4,400 SF and accommodate 130 seats. This expansion would provide alternative meeting space for the library operator, reducing the reliance on the Cupertino Community Hall for programs and events. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Anticipated a slight impacts to the Operating Budget due to the increased size of the building. 121 Linda Vista Trail (Land donation if we commit to construct) DESCRIPTION Design and construct a bicycle pedestrian trail between Linda Vista Park and McClellan Road. Estimated Project Cost: $2,200,000 Location: Linda Vista Park Funding: Capital Improvement McClellan Rd to Park Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Creates connections envisioned within the General Plan, the Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. Additionally, the land is owned by a private individual who is willing to dedicate the land to the City free of charge if the project can be designed and funded by the end of 2019. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that trails will require additional maintenance however, it is anticipated that these impacts will be less than $2,000/year. 122 Mary Avenue Protected Bikeways DESCRIPTION Design and construct a protected bikeway from Stevens Creek Blvd. to the Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge . Estimated Project Cost: $165,000 Location: Mary Avenue Funding: Apple Donation $165,000 Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. This project would fund the installation of a protected bikeway (painted bike buffer with delineators) from Stevens Creek Blvd. to the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge to complete a project included in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in FY 2020-21 Operating budget. 123 McClellan Rd. Bike Corridor Phase 3-Signal Intersection Improvements @ DeAnza/Pacifica DESCRIPTION Improves pedestrian and bicycle safety by realigning the intersection and reconfiguring the vehicle movements. Improvements include relocating two signal mast arms and poles, related electrical, concrete and striping work, and elimination of the free right turn lanes from eastbound McClellan Road and westbound Pacifica Drive Estimated Project Cost: $1,500,000 Location: DeAnza Funding: Apple Donation $1,500,000 at McClellan/Pacifica Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Improve traffic flow, efficiency and bicycle safety at this complex intersection. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no known additional operating budget impacts associated with this project. 124 McClellan Rd. Bike Corridor Phase 4- Imperial to Byrne Separated Bike Lane DESCRIPTION Design and construct separated bike lanes on McClellan Rd. from Imperial Ave to Byrne Ave. Estimated Project Cost: $1,500,000 Location: McClellan Rd. – Imperial to Funding: Apple Donation $1,500,000 Byrne Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. This project is the last phase of a four phase program that installed separated bikeway on McClellan Road. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. Up to an additional $1,000/year will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in FY 2021-22 Operating budget. 125 McClellan Road Bridge Replacement @ Stevens Creek DESCRIPTION Design and construct a replacement bridge on McClellan Rd. over Stevens Creek. Estimated Project Cost: $6,000,000 Location: McClellan Road at Funding: SB 1 Eligible $4,800,000 Stevens Creek Capital Improvement $1,200,000 Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This bridge provides a critical east-west transportation link for Cupertino residents. Constructed in 1920 and widened in 1976, the structural capacity and seismic resiliency of this bridge is unknown. As a precautionary measure, weight restrictions have been applied to this bridge. Replacement of this bridge would provide numerous benefits including increased structural strength, seismic resiliency, potential widening and realignment and the opportunity to provide a pedestrian / bicycle crossing under McClellan Road thereby increasing overall safety at this location. This project is eligible for SB 1 funding. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 126 Memorial Park Phase 1 – Pond Demolition DESCRIPTION This project will remove of the existing concrete pond and return the site to a naturalized state. Estimated Project Cost: $1,500,000 Location: Memorial Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The existing concrete liner is in poor condition with numerous cracks that resulted in significant water loss. Due to this condition and drought restrictions the City drained the ponds in 2013 and has not refilled them. Reconstruction of the ponds is not cost effective and empty ponds pose a potential safety hazard. This project would remove the ponds and prepare the site for future development as identified through the Memorial Park Master Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: A slight impact to the Operating Budget is anticipated. The exact extent of the impact will depend on the nature and extent of the naturalization improvements installed. 127 New City Hall DESCRIPTION Design and construct a new 40,000 SF City Hall with underground parking for 118 spaces. The building will be LEED Silver Estimated Project Cost: $ 68,000,000* Location: City Hall Funding: Capital Improvement, Certificates of Participation, General Obligation Bonds Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan on July 7th, 2015, in the master plan. The Civic Center Master Plan included a New City Hall that would be 40,000 SF and have underground parking with 118 spaces. This project would replace the 54 year old, existing City Hall building. Replacement of City Hall would avoid costly seismic, HVAC and electrical upgrades, equipment replacements, and renovation costs. A new building would provide additional public meeting space, increased number of employee workstations and improved floorplan for enhanced customer service. Completion of this project will require an Interim City Hall (page 13). OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that Operating expenses would increase slightly. Operational expenses would increase with the increased square footage of the building but will be offset by the energy efficiency’s of the new equipment. Maintenance costs are expected to be reduced as emergency repairs are replaced by preventative maintenance efforts. *Total cost to complete this project will be $68M for improvements noted on this page plus $2.5M for an Interim City Hall noted on page 13. Total Cost will be $70.5M 128 Quinlan Preschool Shade Structure DESCRIPTION Design and construct a new shade structure over the existing play area and sand box at the preschool. Estimated Project Cost: $125,000 Location: Quinlan Comm. Ctr. Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The current playground has a shade structure that is ineffective, leaving young preschool students in direct sunlight during use of the playground. The current shade structure is too small and sits squarely over the top of the playground, doing little to provide needed shade. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 129 Not Used This page intentionally left blank 130 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 1: Sta 28+40 to 29+80 (Retaining Wall) DESCRIPTION Phase 1 will construct a retaining wall to stabilize the road slope to the creek from Sta 28+40 to 29+80 (approx. 140 LF). Estimated Project Cost: $1,150,000 Location: Regnart Road Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project continues the stabilization efforts along Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road closures. Proposed improvements include additional drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 131 Retaining Wall Repair – Cordova Road DESCRIPTION Design and construct a project to replace the existing wood planks in the existing wall. Estimated Project Cost: $350,000 Location: West side of Cordova Road, Funding: Capital Improvement north of San Juan Road Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION There is an existing wall along Cordova Rd. that retains soil adjacent to private property. The existing retaining wall is showing signs of deferred maintenance and potential premature failure. This project will replace the wood planks (ie lagging) in the wall and extend the useful life of the wall. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 132 School Walk Audit Implementation DESCRIPTION This project will construct infrastructure related improvements around schools that were identified as part of the comprehensive School Walk Audit study. Estimated Project Cost: $1,200,000 Location: Various Funding: Apple Donation $1,200,000 Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION One of the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan is to increase pedestrian safety around schools. The primary goal of the School Walk Audit report is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety around schools. This project will attempt to address both goals; enhance bike and/or pedestrian safety around schools, as well as potentially facilitating student drop-off and pick-up operations to help alleviate vehicle congestion around schools. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Increased maintenance costs of these improvements are estimated not to exceed $5,000/year. 133 Solar Electric Vehicle Chargers DESCRIPTION Installation of 30 solar powered electric vehicle chargers at four City facilities throughout the City: • Quinlan Community Center – 6 • Blackberry Farm – 12 • Sports Center – 6 • Monta Vista Recreation Center - 6 Estimated Project Cost: $827,400 Location: TBD Funding: BAAQMD Grant (up to 75% Reimbursable), Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The number of electric vehicles, community adoption rates for electric vehicles are steadily increasing. Additionally, City Staff are also purchasing electric vehicles to get to work within the City, and many staff need to charge once they get here. The need for infrastructure that meets this need, is that we need more electric vehicle charging stations at our public facilities. This project will also provide solar electricity to charge the EV chargers, so demand will not be diverted form the needs our buildings. Also, when vehicles are not charging, the solar electricity will feed back to the building helping to reduce load and demand charges during the day. This project is grant eligible up to 75% reimbursable through a competitive OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget 134 Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase 2 (Wolfe Rd. to HWY 85) DESCRIPTION Design and construct a separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd from Wolfe Rd. to HWY 85. Estimated Project Cost: $1,900,000 Location: Stevens Creek Blvd. – Wolfe Funding: Capital Improvement Rd. to HWY 85 Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. This project is the second phase of a multi-phase program to address that priority. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This cost may be up to $5,000/year in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in FY 2021-22 Operating budget. 135 Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway Phase 3 (HWY 85 to Foothill Expwy.) DESCRIPTION Design and construct a separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd from HWY 85 to Foothill Expwy. Estimated Project Cost: $2,000,000 Location: Stevens Creek Blvd. – Funding: Capital Improvement HWY 85 to Foothill Expwy. Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. This project is the third phase to address that priority. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This cost, up to $4,000/year, will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in FY 2022-23 Operating budget. 136 Storm Drain Master Plan Implementation DESCRIPTION Design and construct storm drain improvements at high priority locations identified in the updated Storm Drain Master Plan. The goal of the improvements is to minimize the potential for localized flooding of streets and private property. Estimated Project Cost: $2,818,000 Location: Various locations Funding: Storm Drain Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION City Council accepted the Storm Drain Master Plan on Jan. 15, 2019. The Storm Drain Master Plan identified and prioritized storm drain improvement projects. This project will fund implementation of the initial priorities. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project has no increase in operating budget expenses. A net savings may result over time if the potential for localized flooding is reduced requiring reduced storm related responses by maintenance staff. 137 Other Projects 138 Aquatics Facility DESCRIPTION Design and construct a facility that would provide year-round swimming, designed for recreation and instructional swimming, aquatic exercise, lap swimming and pool events. Estimated Project Cost: $ 50,000,000 Location: TBD Funding: Capital Improvement, General Obligation Bond Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for the adding of new major facilities to meet community needs at existing park, and a year-round aquatic facility was one of the major new facilities identified. One of the goals was to provide a year-round swimming facility, designed for recreation and instructional swimming, aquatic exercise, lap swimming and pool events. Potential sites identified were: Memorial Park, Creekside Park, Jollyman Park, Wilson Park, new site or Public-private partnership. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: The exact impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed but are anticipated to be a significant annual cost 139 Blackberry Farm Golf Course Renovation DESCRIPTION Initiate preliminary design effort to completely reconfigure and rebuild the existing golf course per the recommendations made by the National Golf Foundation, Inc. in their report dated December 2015. At a minimum, replace the existing irrigation system with a modern, water-efficient system and repair the two existing ponds. Pursue reactivating the existing well at Blackberry Farm. Estimated Project Cost: $ 1,450,000 Location: BB Farm Golf Course Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The current irrigation system, installed in the 1960s, is functionally outdated and failing due to age, which results in an excessive use of water and labor to maintain the system. The increasing retail cost of water exacerbates the operational inefficiency. Existing ponds no longer hold water. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. 140 Blackberry Farm – Play Area Improvements DESCRIPTION Remove existing tan bark and replace with new resilient surfacing and install 3 par course type exercise stations. Estimated Project Cost: $250,000 Location: Blackberry Farm Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The Captain Stevens play area could be enhanced by adding a more reliable and stable resilient play surface beneath the play equipment and by adding exercise stations adjacent to the play area that would provide for a multi-generational activity. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 141 Blackberry Farm – Splash Pad DESCRIPTION Design and construct a splash pad of approximately 2000 square feet. Estimated Project Cost: $690,000 Location: Blackberry Farm Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Blackberry Farm currently provides aquatic amenities for children and adults, but doesn’t have an element to serve very young children and toddlers. Adding an element that will serve the youngest family members will enhance the attraction of the facility for families with children of various ages. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is expected to have a moderate impact Operating expenses. 142 Bicycle Wayfinding Implementation DESCRIPTION Implement to Bicycle Wayfinding Plan that recommends the location and messaging for the bicycle wayfinding signage. Estimated Project Cost: $65,000 Location: Various Locations Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies bicycle wayfinding improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The Bicycle Wayfinding Plan was completed in 2018. This project will implement the recommendations included in the plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget are expected to be less than $1,000/year. 143 Capitol Project Support DESCRIPTION Funding for exceptional or unusual services that may occasionally be required in support of capital projects, so that such expenses may be accounted for and assigned to the project requiring the specific services. Estimated Project Cost: $295,000 Location: Various Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Budgeted capital projects that are in progress occasionally face unexpected management responses that require additional effort by staff or with contract resources. Examples of this are unusual legal or permit/regulatory issues. An annual appropriation will support timely responses to such needs and also allow the expenditures to be assigned to the specific projects. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 144 Carmen Road Pedestrian/Bike Bridge Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Design and Construct a pedestrian bridge across Stevens Creek Blvd. for bicycles and pedestrians at Carmen Rd. as identified in the feasibility study. Budgeted Amount: $3,100,000 Location: Carmen Rd. at Stevens Creek Blvd Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Currently there is no access across Stevens Creek Boulevard for bicycles and pedestrians at Carmen Road. Staff is working on the feasibility study which will identify and evaluate various concepts to create safe access for non-vehicular traffic. Once the feasibility study is completed and City Council has accepted it this project will complete the final design and construction. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 145 CIP Preliminary Planning & Design DESCRIPTION Funding for preliminary planning, engineering and design services that are determined to be needed subsequent to the adoption of the CIP Budget. This action will provide the means for the acquisition of resources to respond to CIP initiatives in a timely way. Estimated Project Cost: $625,000 Location: Various Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Funding within the CIP operating budget for General Contract Services has been the source of funding for mid-year additions to the CIP project work program for planning. Such project focused expenditures could not later be assigned to the specific capital project for tracking. Shifting funding from the operating budget to the CIP for preliminary planning and design will provide resources for mid-year CIP initiatives. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Shifting funding from the operating budget to the CIP for preliminary planning and design will result in a decrease to the operating budget. This has been accounted for in the FY 2018-19 Operating Budget. 146 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation Phase 2 DESCRIPTION Implement recommendations identified in the 2017/18 Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessment. This project would fund improvements to correct building deficiencies and improvements necessary to keep City owned building functioning properly. Estimated Project Cost: $5,200,000 Location: Various Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2017/18 Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessments project includes a scope of work that will assess the condition of nearly every City owned facility. These assessments, depending on the selected buildings, may include but are not limited to:  Health and life safety systems  Seismic evaluation  Mechanical, electric and plumbing evaluation  ADA compliance  Building envelope evaluation  Energy use efficiency  Space use efficiency Based on results of the assessment facility specific project recommendations will be identified, estimated and prioritized. This project provides a mechanism to initiate those recommendations. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. 147 Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation Phase 3 DESCRIPTION The third Phase of a multiphase program to implement recommendations identified in the 2017/18 Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessment. This project would fund improvements to correct building deficiencies and improvements necessary to keep City owned building functioning properly. Estimated Project Cost: $4,750,000 Location: Various Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2017/18 Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessments project includes a scope of work that will assess the condition of nearly every City owned facility. These assessments, depending on the selected buildings, may include but are not limited to:  Health and life safety systems  Seismic evaluation  Mechanical, electric and plumbing evaluation  ADA compliance  Building envelope evaluation  Energy use efficiency  Space use efficiency Based on results of the assessment facility specific project recommendations will be identified, estimated and prioritized. This project provides a mechanism to initiate those recommendations. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. 148 Creek Infall/Outfall Restoration DESCRIPTION Reconstruct existing drainage structures adjacent to 22001 Lindy Lane, 10545 Cordova Road and 21710 Regnart Road to prevent debris build-up, flooding and creek erosion during the rainy season. Budgeted Amount: $480,000 Location: Various Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The existing drainage structures at these three locations are antiquated, poorly protected from floating debris making them susceptible to debris build-up, blockages and potential flooding. This project proposes to rebuild these structure with more effective debris capture devices and improve the outfall structures to reduce erosion and improve hydraulic conditions. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Unanticipated blockages during storm events require immediate attention to avoid potential flooding and costly repairs. The frequency of these occurrences increases with each storm event requiring a costly response by City Staff. This project proposes to reduce the likelihood of occurrence with improved facilities. 149 Creekside Park – Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct identified improvements for the existing Creekside Park per the Development Plan Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 Location: Creekside Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Creekside Park. The master plan recommended renovating the site as a neighborhood recreation and sports hub. This project would construct improvements as specified in the Creekside Park Development Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 150 Creekside Park Development Plan DESCRIPTION Prepare a Development Plan for the existing Creekside Park, to achieve goals set in the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. Estimated Project Cost: $100,000 Location: Creekside Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Creekside Park. The master plan recommended renovating the site as a neighborhood recreation and sports hub. The short term goals were to sustain existing park uses and evaluate long-term opportunities to expand the recreation building and reactivate or repurpose the concession area. The long term goals were as follows: coordinate with Public Works to implement recreation building recommendations; develop site master plan and evaluate options to increase sports playing capacity; consider artificial turf sport fields; add full basketball court if space allows; add nature play elements to existing play area; provide trailhead amenities; connect via trails and bike lane network to Cupertino High, Wilson Park and Civic Center/Library. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 151 De Anza Median Island Landscaping Phase II - Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct replacement arbor, irrigation and plantings of street medians. This is the second phase of the program and covers the length of De Anza Boulevard between I-280 & Mariani Avenue. Estimated Project Cost: $1,546,500 Location: De Anza Blvd. between Funding: Capital Improvement HWY 280 to Mariani Ave. Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Cupertino has many mounded median islands which are difficult to irrigate efficiently. Since the installation of many of the City’s planted median islands, the approach to grading, planting, and maintaining them has changed as the desire to conserve resources has increased. Over that same time, irrigation products and systems have also improved efficiency. In addition, landscape plantings need to be replaced as they age out over time. Projects to renovate the median islands will refresh the plantings and improve the efficiency in the use of water and labor to maintain the systems. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project will result in reduced water usage due to drought tolerant planting and more efficient irrigation system. New planting will reduce the need to refresh plantings in the near future which will result in a maintenance savings for the next 2-3 years. 152 Gymnasium Complex DESCRIPTION Design and construct Gymnasium Complex that would provide a multi-generational gymnasium complex and recreation center to provide sports courts spaces and support other activities. Estimated Project Cost: $35,000,000 Location: TBD Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for the adding of new major facilities to meet community needs at existing park, and a Gymnasium Complex and Multi- Use Recreation Center was identified as one of these facilities. The Gymnasium Complex would provide a multi-generational gymnasium complex and recreation center to provide sports courts spaces and support other activities. Potential locations identified were as follows: Memorial Park, Creekside Park, Jollyman Park, Wilson Park, New site or Public- private partnership or Joint use facility. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 153 Healing Garden – Design and Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct a tranquil, relaxing garden to promote positive outcomes, including stress reduction, are derived through both passive and active nature connection. A “therapeutic garden,” is a garden where physical, occupational, horticultural, and other therapies take place. A “restorative landscape” is any landscape— wild or designed, large or small—that facilitates human health and well-being. Estimated Project Cost: $1,000,000 Location: TBD Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project promotes the therapeutic benefits of the garden. Access to nature promotes health through reduction in stress, depression, myopia, pain, fatigue, aggression, impulsivity, and symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); and improvement in immune function, bone strength, wound healing, cognition, concentration, emotional resilience, empathy, vitality, relaxation, mood, and satisfaction. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 154 Jollyman Park – Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct identified improvements for the existing Jollyman Park per the Development Plan. Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 Location: Jollyman Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Jollyman Park. The master plan recommended renovating the site to enhance park and neighborhood and community hub for recreation programs, activities and sports. This project would construct improvements as specified in the Jollyman Park Development Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 155 Jollyman Park Development Plan DESCRIPTION Prepare a Development Plan for the existing Jollyman Park, it is a neighborhood park located on several acres of land adjacent on Stelling Road. Estimated Project Cost: $100,000 Location: Jollyman Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Jollyman Park. The master plan recommended renovating the site as a neighborhood and community hub for recreation programs, activities and sports. The short term goals were as follows: sustain existing park uses; consider adding an all-inclusive, destination play area; add a picnic shelter and group seating; provide all-weather loop path; add neighborhood-serving event infrastructure and utilities. The long term goals were as follows: consider adding diverse amenities, such as outdoor fitness equipment/parcourse or full size basketball court; consider development of other new facilities; provide inviting connection to bikeway. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 156 Jollyman Park Pathway Installation DESCRIPTION Design and construct a pathway around the southeastern field at Jollyman Park. Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 Location: Jollyman Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Currently many visitors to this park walk a circuit around the edges of the southeastern ballfield. Installing a paved path will provide a more stable surface for this activity, greatly increasing the paved walking circuit within the park. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 157 Junipera Serra Trail Segment #1: Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza Blvd. DESCRIPTION Construction of Segment #1 from Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza Blvd. Estimated Project Cost: $3,500,000 Location: Junipera Serra Trail – Don Funding: Capital Improvement Burnett Bridge - De Anza Bl. Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The Junipero Serra Trail is one of the trail segments that would make up “The Loop” to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle – Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed. This project will construct Segment #1 from Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge to De Anza Blvd. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: An impact to the Operating Budget is anticipated. Exact impacts depend on the improvements installed. 158 Linda Vista Park – Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct identified improvements for the existing Linda Vista Park per the Development Plan. Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 Location: Linda Vista Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Linda Vista Park. The master plan recommended renovating the site to enhance park and neighborhood and community hub for recreation programs, activities and sports. This project would construct improvements as specified in the Linda Vista Park Development Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 159 Linda Vista Park Development Plan DESCRIPTION Prepare a Development Plan for the existing Linda Vist Park, it is a neighborhood park located on several acres of land adjacent on Linda Vista Road Road. Estimated Project Cost: $100,000 Location: Linda Vista Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Linda Vista Park. The master plan recommended renovating the site as a neighborhood and community hub for recreation programs, activities and sports. The short term goals were as follows: sustain existing park uses; consider adding; add a picnic shelter and group seating; provide all- weather loop path; add neighborhood-serving event infrastructure and utilities. The long term goals were as follows: consider adding diverse amenities, such as outdoor fitness equipment/parcourse or full size basketball court; consider development of other new facilities; provide inviting connection to bikeway and reconstructing the fountains. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 160 Mary Avenue Trail and Greenbelt DESCRIPTION Create a linear park-like greenbelt with separated bikeway and pedestrian path. Improvements include use of pervious pavement, PCB reduction by use of bioswale, infiltration Estimated Project Cost: $6,170,000 Location: Mary Avenue Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project is considered a top tier, Tier One priority in the Pedestrian Transportation Plan adopted in February 2018. This would be the City’s first complete or green street and would show progress toward meeting Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit requirements. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed 161 McClellan Ranch – Construct Trash Enclosure (Design Complete) DESCRIPTION Screen the existing trash/debris boxes from McClellan Road. This would include a concrete pad for the boxes. Estimated Project Cost: $100,000 Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Currently the trash containers are in the open, visible from McClellan Road, and attract illegal dumping. Screening the trash containers will help discourage illegal dumping at McClellan Ranch Preserve. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 162 McClellan Ranch – Barn Renovation DESCRIPTION Design and construct improvements to renovate the barn into an educational and public space. Estimated Project Cost: $3,250,000 Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION In 2012, an update to the 1993 master plan for the McClellan Ranch was completed, which lays out priorities for implementing programs and the related improvements at the park. In the FY 2013 budget, Council approved funding for the barn to be evaluated historically and structurally and for a conceptual renovation plan to be developed to meet the goals for the barn as listed in the master plan. The outcome of this project produced a conceptual renovation plan for the barn to be used for education and as an agricultural exhibit space open to the public. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 163 McClellan Ranch Preserve Stevens Creek Access DESCRIPTION Design and construct an accessible access to the creek. Estimated Project Cost: $1,200,000 Location: McClellan Ranch Funding: Capital Improvement Preserve Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Design and construct an accessible access to the creek along Stevens Creek in McClellan Ranch Preserve to be able to offer as a learning experience. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 164 Memorial Park – Tennis Court Restroom Replacement DESCRIPTION Design and construct a new restroom. Estimated Project Cost: $625,000 Location: Memorial Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The public restroom near the Memorial Park Tennis Courts needs upgrading for improved performance and to improve accessibility. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 165 Memorial Park Phase 2 – Construction DESCRIPTION Construct Memorial Park Phase 2 improvement as shown in the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study. Estimated Project Cost: $2,500,000 Location: Memorial Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Memorial Park. The master plan recommended enhancing the site as a community hub and multi-use civic-focused event space. In FY2018 CIP the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study was funded. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 166 Memorial Park Phase 2 – Design (Amphitheater & Trail) DESCRIPTION Design improvements to the amphitheater and trail per the Memorial Park Master Plan & Study. Estimated Project Cost: $350,000 Location: Memorial Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Memorial Park. The master plan recommended enhancing the site as a community hub and multi-use civic-focused event space. In FY2018 CIP the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study was funded. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 167 Memorial Park Phase 3 – Construction DESCRIPTION Construct Memorial Park Phase 3 improvement as shown in the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study. Estimated Project Cost: $2,425,000 Location: Memorial Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Memorial Park. The master plan recommended enhancing the site as a community hub and multi-use civic-focused event space. In FY2018 CIP the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study was funded. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 168 Memorial Park Phase 3 – Design DESCRIPTION Design the Memorial Park Phase 3 per the Memorial Park Master Plan & Study. Estimated Project Cost: $350,000 Location: Memorial Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for Memorial Park. The master plan recommended enhancing the site as a community hub and multi-use civic-focused event space. In FY2018 CIP the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study was funded. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 169 McClellan Ranch Preserve Community Garden Improvements – Construction DESCRIPTION Reconstruct the existing community garden based on the design developed in FY 2017-18. The project includes reconfiguration of the garden plots, improved ADA accessibility to and within the garden, installation of new perimeter fencing, irrigation distribution system and informal meeting area. Estimated Project Cost: $1,500,000 Location: McClellan Funding: Capital Improvement $575,000 Ranch Preserve Parkland Dedication $925,000 Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project will implement the approved conceptual design for the McClellan Ranch Community Garden Improvements project. The goals of this project are to increase the number of garden plots thereby reducing the number of residents on the waiting list, improve ADA accessibility, improve the water distribution system throughout the garden, increase the aesthetics and sense of community and provide increased protection from non-beneficial wildlife. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: An improved water distribution system should result in an overall water usage reduction. Improved fencing and more efficient garden configuration should reduce the need for additional pest control. Additional plots and a renewed emphasis on proactive management will require additional staff commitment. The staff time is included in the operating budget. 170 McClellan Ranch Preserve EEC Aquatic Habitat DESCRIPTION Construction of an outdoor aquatic habitat for turtles, fish and other species adjacent to the Environmental Education Center (EEC). This habitat will be used as an outdoor education center for schools visiting the EEC. Estimated Project Cost: 175,000 Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project would create an outdoor habitat and classroom providing for a more natural environment for the turtles, fish, etc and more space to conduct classroom sized presentations. The facility would be ADA accessible, consistent with the McClellan Ranch environment and from other animals. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Care and operation of the aquatic habitat will be the responsibility of existing McClellan Ranch staff and supported by part-time staff. No additional staff is required. Maintenance of the pond pumps and filters would need to cleaned and replaced periodically. Estimated annual expense is less than $1,000 annually. 171 New Neighborhood Parks (Land Acquisition& Development) DESCRIPTION Acquire and develop new neighborhood parks in accordance with the Master Plan and site identification study and procurement plan. Estimated Project Cost: $20,000,000 Location: City Wide Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for the adding of new major facilities to meet community needs at existing park, and a new acquisitions. The Master plan recommended the City look for opportunities should they arise, acquire and develop new neighborhood parks in targeted underserved areas was recommended. Potential area locations include new acquisition in north and east Cupertino, joint-use sites at schools and public-private partnerships. This project will provide a funding mechanism to acquire new park/open space. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, Operating impacts are anticipated to increase as additional parkland is acquired and developed. 172 New Neighborhood Parks (Site Identification Study & Procurement Plan) DESCRIPTION Identify sites and develop a procurement plan to meet the recommendations in the master plan Estimated Project Cost: $150,000 Location: City Wide Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for the adding of new major facilities to meet community needs at existing park, and a new acquisitions. If opportunities arise, acquire and develop new neighborhood parks in targeted underserved areas was recommended. Potential area locations include new acquisition in north and east Cupertino, joint-use sites at schools and public-private partnerships. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget for this project is staff time to oversee the project. 173 Performing Arts Center DESCRIPTION Design and construct a Performing Arts Center to include a community auditorium or fine and performing arts center to house community-sale performances and support daytime art and recreation programs as well as evening programs. Estimated Project Cost: $77,000,000 Location: TBD Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for the adding of new major facilities to meet community needs at existing park, and a Performing & Fine Arts Center was identified as one of these facilities. The Preforming Arts Center would provide for a community auditorium or fine and performing arts center to house community-scale performances and support daytime arts and recreation programs as well as evening programs. The Master Plan identified the following potential locations: Memorial Park, Civic Center/Library Field, New Site, Public-private partnership or other/repurpose building or a joint use facility. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed and the operating model selected (ie City operated or 3rd party vendor) 174 Portal Park – Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Design and construct improvements identified in the Portal Park Development Plan. Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 Location: Portal Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Portal Park has some facilities from the original construction in the 1960s that can no longer be used as intended. Areas of the park are underutilized for this reason. A Portal Park Development Plan will be prepared to identify improvements to the existing park. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 175 Portal Park Development Plan DESCRIPTION Prepare a Development Plan for the renovation of the east side of Portal Park. Estimated Project Cost: $75,000 Location: Portal Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Portal Park has some facilities from the original construction in the 1960s that can no longer be used as intended. Areas of the park are underutilized for this reason. A process to obtain community input and consensus will inform future plans to renovate portions of the park. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 176 Quinlan Front Office Upgrades DESCRIPTION Design and construct improvement to the front office to accommodate operational changes and provide better customer service. Estimated Project Cost: $700,000 Location: City Wide Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The new registration system comes with improvements that create a need for staff to be sitting at the customer counter. PCI compliance has created a need for more storage in the office. Project would include a complete reconfiguration of the front office to allow for better customer service and new program needs. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 177 Quinlan HVAC Upgrades DESCRIPTION Design and construct a multi-zone HVAC system upgrade. Estimated Project Cost: $1,000,000 Location: City Wide Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The HVAC system at Quinlan is original with the building in 1990. Temperature does not stay regulated throughout the building. The temperature does not stay regulated day to day. Public Works has looked at the unit and the temperature issues over and over to no avail. Building temperatures are either too cool or too warm, are not consistent within a single conditioned area, and are not efficient. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. 178 Recreation Facilities Monument Signs DESCRIPTION Design and construct new monument signs with lighting at the following locations: McClellan Ranch Preserve McClellan Ranch West Estimated Project Cost: $200,000 Location: Various Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The McClellan Ranch Preserve and Stevens Creek Corridor Signage Program was approved by Council in December 2014. The Signage Program prescribes a standardized and consistent look and feel for all signage along Stevens Creek. The Signage Program provides a signage convention that can be applied to other recreation facilities in the city. The existing monument signs at several city facilities are outdated, worn, and in need of repair. This project will install new monument signs at McClellan Ranch Preserve and McClellan Ranch West. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 179 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 2: Sta 36+30 to 36+80 (Retaining Wall) DESCRIPTION Phase 2 will construct a retaining wall to stabilize the road slope to the creek from Sta 36+30 to 36+80 (approx. 50 LF). Estimated Project Cost: $800,000 Location: Regnart Road Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project continues the stabilization efforts along Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road closures. Proposed improvements include additional drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls. This is Phase 2 of 6. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 180 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 3: Sta 23+35 to 23+50 (Culvert/Outfall Replacement) DESCRIPTION Phase 3 will replace a culvert/outfall to stabilize the road slope to the creek from Sta 23+35 to 23+50. Estimated Project Cost: $925,000 Location: Regnart Road Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project continues the stabilization efforts along Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road closures. Proposed improvements include additional drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls. This is Phase 3 of a 6- phase program. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 181 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 4: Sta 7+15 to 7+40 (Retaining Wall) DESCRIPTION Phase 4 will construct a retaining wall to stabilize the road slope to the creek from Sta 7+15 to 7+40 (approx. 25LF). Estimated Project Cost: $700,000 Location: Regnart Road Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project continues the stabilization efforts along Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road closures. Proposed improvements include additional drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls. This is Phase 4 of a 6- phase program. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 182 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 5: Sta 38+95 to 39+40 (Retaining Wall) DESCRIPTION Phase 5 will construct a retaining wall to stabilize the road slope to the creek from Sta 38+95 to 39+40 (approx. 45LF). Estimated Project Cost: $825,000 Location: Regnart Road Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project continues the stabilization efforts along Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road closures. Proposed improvements include additional drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls. This is Phase 5 of a 6 phase program. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 183 Regnart Road Improvements Phase 6: Various Locations (Uphill Side Retaining Wall) DESCRIPTION Phase 6 will construct a retaining wall to stabilize the road on the uphill side of the road. Estimated Project Cost: $250,000 Location: Regnart Road Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project continues the stabilization efforts along Regnart Road and compliments the 2017 Outfall Repair and Slope Stabilization project and the Retaining wall project. The 2017 Regnart Road Slope Stability Study identified several areas along Regnart Road that exhibit poor drainage characteristics, slope stability concerns that require partial road reconstruction in order to avoid costly road or slope failures and lengthy road closures. Proposed improvements include additional drainage structures, regrading/repaving the road to drain towards the creek, slope stabilization and erosion control measures and retaining walls. This is anticipated to be the final phase of the improvement program for Regnart Road. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project should minimize or prevent costly emergency responses by maintenance crews resulting in a savings to the operating budget. 184 Senior Center Expansion DESCRIPTION Design and construct an expansion to the existing Senior Center to provide additional recreation space for older adults, and both fit and frail seniors. Estimated Project Cost: $25,000,000 Location: Senior Center Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City Council reviewed the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan in April, 2019. The master plan included recommendations for expanding and/or adding of new major facilities to meet community needs at existing park, expanding services to provide space for seniors and teens was identified as one of these facilities. The master plan included space for seniors and teens, this project would provide additional recreation space for older adults, and both fit and frail seniors. The master plan considered expanding the Senior Center for increased senior population. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 185 Service Center – Replacement Administration Building with EOC DESCRIPTION Design and construction of a new administration building at the Service Center Improvements include an EOC, modest future growth of Service Center staffing and up to ten staff from City Hall. Estimated Project Cost: $16,000,000 Location: Service Center Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The current Service Center Administration building, built in the late 1970’s, is inadequate for meeting current staffing levels. A new administration building will provide adequate, efficient office, meeting, and training space for city staff and an EOC, in a structurally compliant building. A feasibility study completed in spring 2017 provides design options and cost estimates for building a new administration/EOC building at the Service Center. The estimated all-inclusive project cost for the proposed conceptual plan is approximately $16 million. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: It is anticipated that Operating expenses would increase slightly. Operational expenses would increase with the increased square footage of the building but will be offset by the energy efficiency’s of the new equipment. Maintenance costs are expected to be reduced as emergency repairs are replaced by preventative maintenance efforts. 186 Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvements DESCRIPTION Design and construct a replacement for the existing Shed 3 to accommodate the landscape material and organic waste storage requirements, including durable walls and canopy and comply with current stormwater pollution prevention requirements. Estimated Project Cost: $1,700,000 Location: Service Center Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Public Works PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Currently, loose landscape materials and waste are stored at the Service Center in outdoor, covered, material storage bays at Shed No. 3. As part of the City’s increasing waste diversion efforts, it now collects different types of organics from its sites to recycle, including food scraps. The existing material bays need to be reconfigured to accommodate the increasing demand for separate storage bays. This project was bid in January, 2018 and proposals exceeded the available budget. This proposal will augment the existing budget and allow for a redesign of the project to a more cost effective solution. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project will increase waste diversion opportunities and create efficiencies in the collection process. It is anticipated that these efficiencies will result in a net zero increase in the FY 2018- 19 Operating Budget. 187 Sports Center – Interior Upgrades DESCRIPTION Design and implement the following, as available funding permits: 1) renovate the second floor restrooms; 2) renovate the women’s locker room and shower; 3) renovate the men’s locker room and shower; 4) renovate the front lobby counter. Estimated Project Cost: $1,548,700 Location: Sports Center Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The last major upgrades to the building were in 2004 and the facility is in need of some minor upgrades, due to wear-&-tear and weathering. These improvements will improve user experience and attract new users. This project will continue the modernization program and increase the attractiveness of the facility. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: The Sports Center is requiring increased maintenance as the facility ages and improvements wear out. The renovation of these four areas will result in fewer maintenance calls and no net increase to the Operating Budget. 188 Sports Center HVAC Upgrades DESCRIPTION Replace the existing HVAC units with new, energy efficient units with increased cooling capacity. Estimated Project Cost: $500,000 Location: Sports Center Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The current HVAC units were installed for a customer base of 600, the current customer base is 2000. The amount of classes and fitness equipment in the building have quadrupled since the remodel in 2004. Staff have received multiple complaints from patrons due to facility temperatures that are either too cold or too hot. The current units are under capacity to meet the current demand. In addition, the existing units have reached the end of their useful life and need constant maintenance and repairs, which include calling in outside contractors to trouble shoot. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. 189 Stevens Creek Bank Repair – South of SCB – Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Prepare a conceptual design for repairs to creek banks that will protect property from further erosion and stabilize the bank, and is compatible with existing goals and requirements for the creek corridor. Budgeted Amount: $1,600,000 Location: Stevens Creek South of Funding: Capital Improvement Stevens Creek Boulevard Requesting Dept.: Rec. and Comm. Services PROJECT JUSTIFICATION In 2014, the City purchased a residential parcel (Blesch) on Stevens Creek Boulevard that lies between the Stocklmeir site and the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. The creek channel upstream of this parcel has been widened and restored. However this parcel, which is in the active floodway and subject to bank erosion, remains to be stabilized and restored. This parcel is targeted for improvements relating to the park and recreation purposes of the Stevens Creek Corridor. Its bank should be stabilized before such improvements move forward in order to protect the City’s investment. A conceptual plan for improvement of the bank and channel will make the implementation of the project more eligible and attractive for potential grant funding. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 190 Stevens Creek Trail & Bridge over UPRR (De Anza Trail) DESCRIPTION Acquire necessary easement, permits, and agreements, and, design and construct a vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle bridge span over the UPRR right of way, adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd. and near the Lehigh Cement Plant. Budgeted Amount: $18,000,000 Location: Stevens Creek Blvd. Requesting Dept.: Public Works at UPRR PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Provide a connection with the Stevens Creek Trail system and vehicle access to the Snyder- Hammond House. This project is included in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 191 Stocklmeir Legacy Farm – Phase 1 Improvements DESCRIPTION Develop a service program and master plan for a legacy farm park, and implement an initial improvement project. Estimated Project Cost: $400,000 Location: Stocklmeir Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Transition the former Stocklmeir property to a public park as a “legacy farm”. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 192 Stocklmeir House – New Sewer Lateral DESCRIPTION Install a new sewer lateral to connect the Stocklmeir House to the City’s sanitary sewer main. Estimated Project Cost: $100,000 Location: Stocklmeir Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This is the first step towards renovating this house and making it suitable for future non-residential use and occupancy. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. 193 Wilson Park – Design & Construction DESCRIPTION Prepare final design and construction documents and construct improvements identified in the Development Plan. Estimated Project Cost: $750,000 Location: Wilson Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The east side of Wilson Park is considered underutilized. Based on the recommendations received through the Development Plan process this project will formulate a plan to renovate portions of the park. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts to the Operating Budget cannot be determined at this time, the impacts will be dependent on the facility installed. 194 Wilson Park Development Plan DESCRIPTION Prepare a Development Plan for the renovation of the east side of Wilson Park. Estimated Project Cost: $75,000 Location: Wilson Park Funding: Capital Improvement Requesting Dept.: Parks & Rec. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Wilson Park has sport fields on the west side of the park and the east side of the park is potentially underutilized. A process to obtain community input and consensus will assist in formulating a plan to renovate portions of the park. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACTS: This project is not expected to impact Operating expenses. 195 1 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Contents i. Summary of responses 2 ii. Survey questions 4 iii. Individual responses 5 Attachment F 196 Summary Of Responses As of April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM, this forum had: Topic Start Attendees:50 March 26, 2019, 1:48 PM Responses:58 Hours of Public Comment:2.9 QUESTION 1 You've got 10 dots to 'spend' on the City's facilities. Each dot is worth $100,000. How would you spend them on these areas? % Count Building New Facilities 15.5% 90 Remodelling Current Facilities 18.8% 109 Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities 22.8% 132 Library Expansion 22.1% 128 Other 6.9% 40 QUESTION 2 You've got 10 dots to 'spend' on capital improvement projects in the City. Each dot is worth $100,000. How would you spend them on these areas? % Count Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) 10.2% 59 Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) 12.4% 72 Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) 17.2% 100 2 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 197 % Count Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) 18.4% 107 Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) 19.1% 111 Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) 6.7% 39 Other 4.0% 23 QUESTION 3 If the City needed additional funding for the Capital Improvement Program, which funding option(s) would you support? Select at least one. % Count Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) 29.3%17 Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) 17.2% 10 Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) 15.5%9 Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short- term rental stays of less than 30 days) 48.3% 28 I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. 27.6% 16 QUESTION 4 What other feedback do you have? Answered 2 Skipped 56 3 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 198 Survey Questions QUESTION 1 You've got 10 dots to 'spend' on the City's facilities. Each dot is worth $100,000. How would you spend them on these areas? • Building New Facilities • Remodelling Current Facilities • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities • Library Expansion • Other QUESTION 2 You've got 10 dots to 'spend' on capital improvement projects in the City. Each dot is worth $100,000. How would you spend them on these areas? • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) • Other QUESTION 3 If the City needed additional funding for the Capital Improvement Program, which funding option(s) would you support? Select at least one. • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. QUESTION 4 What other feedback do you have? 4 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 199 Individual Responses Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:32 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (1) • Other - School (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not shown April 13, 2019, 12:35 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (2) • Other - Program Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:38 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (3) • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) 5 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 200 Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:40 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (4) Question 2 • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (5) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (5) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:42 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (5) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:44 PM Question 1 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (7) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:48 PM Question 1 6 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 201 • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 12:58 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:01 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:02 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (1) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (3) • Other - Expand impacted schools (3) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) 7 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 202 • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:04 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 Schools Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:17 PM Question 1 • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:21 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (5) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 8 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 203 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:22 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:26 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:27 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (4) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (3) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:35 PM 9 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 204 Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (2) • Other - Parks (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) • Other - Parks (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:38 PM Question 1 • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:43 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (4) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (4) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:44 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (1) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) 10 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 205 • Other - None (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:47 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:49 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Other - Environmental upgrades (6) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (4) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (4) Question 3 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 1:56 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (4) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (4) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (3) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:04 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) 11 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 206 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (5) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:19 PM Question 1 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Other - Bike trails (1) Question 2 • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (5) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (5) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:19 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (5) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (3) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:28 PM Question 1 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (9) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) Question 3 12 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 207 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 Take care of kids at school Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:46 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (4) • Remodelling Current Facilities (1) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (4) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:46 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (3) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) • Other - None (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:47 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (1) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) 13 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 208 Question 3 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:48 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (3) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 13, 2019, 2:49 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (1) • Other - Deep Cliff Golf Course (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (3) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) Question 3 • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 5:47 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (4) • Library Expansion (3) • Other - Removal of unnecessary bike lanes (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) 14 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 209 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 5:49 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (3) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 5:57 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (6) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (6) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 6:02 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (4) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (1) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) 15 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 210 Question 3 • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not shown April 22, 2019, 6:10 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (6) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (4) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (4) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 6:15 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Other - Restore water to Memorial Park duck pond (3) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (4) • Other - City-wide Wi-FI (3) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not shown April 22, 2019, 7:03 PM Question 1 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (6) • Library Expansion (4) Question 2 • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (8) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 7:05 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (3) 16 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 211 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 7:06 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 7:13 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (4) • Other - Open Space on East Side (2) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (3) • Other - new parks on eastside or at least open space (3) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 7:41 PM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Other - Parking at the library (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (3) 17 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 212 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (3) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 7:47 PM Question 1 • Library Expansion (10) Question 2 • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (10) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 8:57 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (3) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (5) Question 2 • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (4) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (3) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 22, 2019, 9:19 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (5) • Other - Building trails. (5) Question 2 • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (7) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) Question 4 No response Name not shown April 22, 2019, 10:28 PM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) 18 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 213 • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) • Other - solar electric vehicle chargers, more trees/bushes around the city (2) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not shown April 23, 2019, 12:56 AM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (4) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (2) • Other - Park improvements (2) Question 2 • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not shown April 23, 2019, 3:56 AM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (5) • Remodelling Current Facilities (1) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (3) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) Question 3 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not shown April 23, 2019, 4:18 AM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (1) 19 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 214 • Remodelling Current Facilities (5) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (2) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (3) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (2) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not shown April 23, 2019, 6:54 AM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (2) • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (3) Question 2 • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (4) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 23, 2019, 7:04 AM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (2) • Library Expansion (6) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (1) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (1) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (1) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (1) • Other - Library Expansion (3) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 23, 2019, 7:29 AM Question 1 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (3) • Library Expansion (7) Question 2 20 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 215 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Recreation Facilities Improvements (e.g. Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center) (3) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (3) Question 3 • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response ENO SCHMIDT April 23, 2019, 9:05 AM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (4) • Library Expansion (6) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (5) • Other - Library Expansion (5) Question 3 • I do not support the use of additional taxes to fund the Capital Improvement Program. Question 4 No response Name not available April 23, 2019, 9:12 AM Question 1 • Library Expansion (3) • Other - More schools (7) Question 2 • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (1) • Compliment Grant Funding and/or Donations (e.g. all-inclusive playground, solar electric vehicle chargers) (2) • Other - Provide place for homeless people- with showers, toilets, sinks. (4) Question 3 • Parcel Tax (tax on property that is not based on the property's assessed value) • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 23, 2019, 9:56 AM Question 1 • Remodelling Current Facilities (2) • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (1) • Library Expansion (4) • Other - Public swimming pool, tennis courts (3) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (2) • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (2) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (4) Question 3 • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) Question 4 21 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 216 No response Name not shown April 23, 2019, 10:14 AM Question 1 • Building New Facilities (10) Question 2 • Administration Facilities Improvements (e.g. City Hall, Community Hall) (4) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (2) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (4) Question 3 • Property Tax (tax on property that is based on the property's assessed value) • Transient Occupancy Tax (tax on hotel and short-term rental stays of less than 30 days) Question 4 No response Name not available April 23, 2019, 10:16 AM Question 1 • Improving Health and Safety of Current Facilities (4) Question 2 • Road Improvements (e.g. overlays, concrete repairs) (4) • Bike/Pedestrian Trail Improvements (e.g. separated bike lanes, creek trails) (1) • Park Improvements (e.g. Memorial Park, Creekside Park, community garden) (5) Question 3 • Sales Tax (tax on retail transactions within the City) Question 4 No response 22 | www.opentownhall.com/7361 Created with OpenGov | April 23, 2019, 10:45 AM Capital Improvement Program Survey How should the City allocate its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget? 217