BACKGROUND:
Contra Costa County has not had an adopted Capital Facilities Master Plan since the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999-2000 plan was approved by the Board on January 25, 2000. On April 27, 2021, the Public Works Department issued a Request for Qualifications to solicit Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for Comprehensive Master Plan Services. The Public Works Department received seven SOQ's from interested firms. A selection committee comprised of various County staff conducted evaluation of SOQs and unanimously ranked and selected Gensler as the top scoring firm. At the July 13, 2021 meeting, the Board authorized staff to contract with Gensler to produce a new strategic Master Facilities Plan to guide capital planning for County departments other than Health Services and the detention facilities. Health Services has its own Facilities Master Plan which is in the process of being updated. Detention facilities are currently being examined in response to a consent decree and other internal planning efforts.
Over the last nine months, Gensler has conducted extensive research, surveys, and interviews with County departments and employees in the facilities covered by the plan. Those efforts have included:
2,177 Employee Survey Responses (35% Response Rate)
51 Sites Toured
20 Department Leadership Questionnaire Responses
22 Department Leadership Interviews
Two Steering Committee Workshops (10 members)
One Board of Supervisors Retreat Workshop (five members)
100+ County Documents, Reports, etc.
In addition to Gensler’s work, and to provide a current baseline of facilities condition for the Gensler team to use, the County also completed a Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) of the entire County portfolio. The FCA was completed by Gordian, and it identified a deferred maintenance need of $159.3 million dollars in the next five years for the 75 facilities (44 owned, 31 leased) comprising approximately 1.49 million square feet in the Master Facility Plan. The Plan also includes 26 other facilities, approximately 0.24 million square feet, where the County operates but the facilities are maintained by other jurisdictions. Most of these are libraries where the city owns the building, but the County staffs the library. The total County portfolio has 274 facilities comprising 3.79 million square feet, with a total five-year deferred maintenance need identified of $536.0 million dollars. The Master Facilities Plan includes 27% of the County facilities by count, 47% by square footage and 30% by deferred maintenance needs. As a reminder, the vast majority of the County facilities not included in this Master Facilities Plan are in Health Services or are detention facilities.
Over the last ten years, the County has usually budgeted between $13 million to $15 million dollars for capital facilities maintenance and addressing deferred maintenance in the County portfolio. Some, but not all, of that money has gone to the facilities in the study. A conservative estimate of continuing that average spending level for the Master Facilities Plan facilities (estimating 40% of annual spending at $14 million average, equaling $ 5.6 million per year) would be $112 million over the next 20 years for buildings in the plan. Gordian’s work and forecasting indicates that this level of annual spending would result in a near complete deterioration of the condition of the facilities over 20 years, as the deferred maintenance backlog on these facilities would increase from the present $160 million to $550 million. In contrast, it would require approximately $24.8 million annually over the next 20 years to maintain the existing facilities in the same condition as they are now. It is clear that the current spending levels are not adequate to maintain the facilities in their present condition and that $496 million over the next 20 years would be required to keep the current status quo.
In response to this present condition, Gensler prepared three options for the Board’s consideration. They range from major, transformative change to minimal change. The details and discussion of the options are presented in the attached slides. These options present a 20-year future strategic vision for the capital planning for County facilities. Following the Board determining the strategic vision it prefers, staff and the Gensler team would prepare the initial Five-Year Implementation Plan which will outline the initial steps to take each year for the next five years to begin to realize the strategic vision. The Implementation Plan guides each year’s budget development for capital projects and maintenance. The Implementation Plan is reviewed and modified or amended as necessary every three to five years to respond to progress or changing conditions.
Following the staff and Gensler’s presentation, Board questions and discussion and public comment, staff requests the Board to take action to select which option it prefers the County to pursue as its strategic vision. Gensler and staff will then prepare the initial Five-Year Implementation Plan and return to the Board for final approval of the Master Facilities Plan and Implementation Plan.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Not choosing an option for the strategic vision of the Master Facilities Plan will delay the finalization of the Plan and prevent the development of the initial Implementation Plan.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Carolyn Stein; No Name Given; Liz Ritchie; Caller 6770.
Following discussion, the Board indicated its preferences incorporating part of Option 1 and part of Option 2 (Major and Moderate) noting that each region has different needs. They expressed the following things they would like prioritized for further information and consideration:
1) The volume and type of services such as retrieval of vital records that is currently available via the internet (online) and what departments intend to add or expand remote acces to services for public convenience, with emphasis on what trends and desires of the public are;
2) The siting of regional hubs/consolidated service centers where the public might have access to multiple types of services and information, possibly with employee assistance to navigate the system, to shorten travel burdens for the public; particularly in far east county;
3) The possibility of a mix ‘n match approach to optimize the setup adopted in accordance with the needs of that region;
The location of departments in near proximity that have synergy, whose functions are closely related;
Concerted effort to place locations providing county services on a major transit route;
4) A balance between offering remote work for employees and scheduling and staffing for public needs.
The County Administrators Office will meet individually with each Supervisor to review the particular needs of their district.