East County Justice Center

1. East County Justice Center Board Briefing June 24, 2008 Purpose Discuss options which address space needs and budget

2. Original Project • Program Plan • 4 courtrooms (expand to 6 in future) • DA and Bldg Security • MCSO (Hansen bldg replacement) • City of Gresham Police • IT Disaster Recovery site (shell space only) • Project funded through the sales of disposition properties, i.e. no debt

3. Program Options & Budget • Two options have been identified for this briefing • Common assumptions • Funding • Approaches

4. Assumptions • We cannot sacrifice quality and durability to cut construction costs • We cannot cut space beyond what is truly needed to be functional • We must provide the needed court space • The Hansen Bldg. cannot be renovated economically • LEED Silver is a mandate • Gresham Police space must be budget neutral • We cannot consider structured parking (cost)

5. Project Costs • Projected construction costs are based on comparable projects; they are not “cost estimates” (which requires a bldg. design) • Projected costs were agreed upon by architect, contractor, cost estimator, and FPM • Springfield, OR Justice Center was selected as the best comp; June 2007 bid was $215/sf • Escalated by 7.5% to mid-2009 = $240/sf • A contingency of 10% is included in all options

6. Project Costs (cont.) • Site Acquisition $5.4 million Assumes woodshop property acquired • Site Costs* $2.0 million Includes parking, landscape, hardscape, demo, utilities, etc. • Soft Costs* $5.0 million Includes a long list of items including professional fees, land use and regulatory costs, LEED certification, studies & land survey, project management, FF&E, Percent for the Arts, etc.

7. Option #1 – Courts & Gresham • 2 court sets with DA & bldg. security • Gresham Police – in future Courtroom • MCSO at Yeon • No IT space • Projected cost = $26.3 million

8. Option #2 – Courts, Gresham, & MCSO (split ECJC/Yeon) • 2 Court sets with DA & bldg. security • Gresham Police – in future Courtroom • MCSO – in future Courtroom and Yeon (high parking and large space uses at Yeon) • No IT space • Projected cost = $27.5 million

9. Issues for both Options • City of Gresham and/or MCSO occupy future Courtroom space at ECJC – requires future replacement space • Lose benefits between Sheriff’s Office and City of Gresham Police sharing space • Uncertain cost for probable seismic upgrade to Yeon Annex (est. $350k to $500k) • Relocate Yeon Annex functions • Relocate DCS Director’s office • Relocate Land Use Planning and Surveyor to 8000 sq. ft. modular building on the Yeon site. • IT space not in these options

10. Funding Sources • Current - • Edgefield South $ 9.5 million Sale closed • Edgefield North $ 5.6 million $ 15.1 million Projected closing July 2008 • Gresham $ 2.0 million $ 17.1 million Assumes no change in commitment • 242nd Vacation $ 1.6 million $ 18.7 million Pending approval by Troutdale • Hansen Bldg. $ 3.5 million $ 22.2 million New appraisal in progress

11. Budget Summary • Net identified revenue - $22.2 million (includes 242nd Ave Vacation - $1.6 million) • Budget shortfall – $4.1 million to $5.3 million based on presented options • Project revenue possibilities • Further property sales • Borrowing • One-time-only

12. Schedule • June/July 2008 • Work with Partners to program space based on final direction • Produce Pre-Design Project budget estimate based on final programming • Early August 2008 • BCC Approval of Revised Project Plan (FAC-1)

13. Things to consider • Timeframe for Courtroom(s) needs • MCSO and City of Gresham impacts to operations • Multiple and future move scenarios carry risk • Life cycle costs vs. upfront Capital costs • County financial situation

14. Which Options Should We Develop? • Of the options presented, option 2 is the most promising • Other thoughts or options to explore?