Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-24 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING ~~~~x~s~~.~ o ~, CITY COUNCIL '" ~ OF THF; Ham' o CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ~~LrFOa~l~ P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: CITY HALL LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010 6:30 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, the 24th day of May, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., in the Large Conference Room, at City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Agenda Review. 4. Public Comments -comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. 5. Study Session: Status of the rehabilitation and seismic upgrades for Fire Station 63. 6. Study Session: Outsourcing Employees Benefits Administration. 7. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel- Anticipated Litigation (pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c) Initiation of Litigation- one case. Closed Session: (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Position: City Attorney. 9. Adjournment. ~~--~ / , ~.------ - Kri~a 'nelli- rty Clerk SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 24, 2009 AGENDA PAGE2 S~~S~~f /~~~ 0 n by ~'' m o c''~IFOR~~ ~~ DATE: May 24, 20 l a TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Philip D. White, Fire Chief SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE REHABILITATION AND SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR FIRE STATION b3. REC4M11~NDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation on the status of the rehabilitation and seismic upgrades for Fire Station 63. BACK+GROUND/DISCUSSION On Apri12$, 2009, the structural engineering firm Biggs Cardosa Associates was directed by the Public W_orl~s Department to submit-a preliminary...seismic-evaluation of the Municipal Services Building located at~ ~33 Arroyo I.Drive. The' purpose of the evaluation was to determine if'the building's structural system complied with the Immediate Occupancy seismic requirements, and if not, to recommend modifications necessary to upgrade the building in order to meet with the general intent of these requirements. This was determined necessary based upon several issues in play at that time. A planning firm was commissioned to study the area, consider removal of the building or rebuild it for a new civic center, whether or not a Fire Station should remain there or close, and that the police evidence room was being considered for construction. Since the building houses the Police and Fire Departmenfis, it is considered as an essential facility and therefore immediate occupancy of this building is required during and after a seisnuc event. 'The result of the evaluation was that the Municipal Services Building has several identified deficiencies and therefore may not meet the Immediate Occupancy seismic requirements. $ased on this preliminary evaluation, several recommendations were made to improve the building's survivability, by the consultant. The estimated construction cost to strengthen the building was X2,500,000 with the caveat the actual construction costs could vary substantially pending physical reviews. While seismically strengthening the entire building would be the most appropriate method to increase the building's ability to resist the forces generated during an earthquake, the Fire Department took the opportunity to perform limited seismic upgrades by applying for a grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act tARRA) Assistance to Firef ghters Station Construction Program. On December 24, 2009, FEMA awarded the Ci~.y a ~ I,S 11,925.00 grant for the rehabilitation of Fire Station 53.On May 12, 2010, the grant was Staff Report Subject: STATUS REPORT ON THE REIdABILITATIONANb SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR FIRE STATION 63 Page 2 accepted by the City Council. The goals of the rehabilitation project are to improve the station's survivability following an earthquake, increase the clearances in the station's apparatus bays to accommodate the new rescues and fire engines and finally to improve the station's living conditions. Ideally, this will include improved safety equipment storage, office space, kitchen, bathroom, individual sleeping rooms and exercise facilities. The SSFFD currently staffs Fire Station 63 with f ve Firefighter/Paramedics 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This station is the busiest in the City and because of its location, responds to aIl frst alarm assignments within our City. The building that houses Fire Station 63 was converted from a `Big Box" style department stare prior to 1980. The building also houses our City's Police Department, City Council Chambers, Recreation Department and a parking garage. Fire Station 63 occupies the basement of this building but has street level access for its apparatus due to surrounding elevation changes. Prior to being converted to a fire station, this space was used as an automotive repair shop. Approximately $140,000 was identified to perform the assumed and anticipated seismic upgrades. On April 5, 2010, the City's Engineering Division received proposals from azchitectural and engineering firms for the continued evaluation of the existing building, preparation of plans and specifications necessary to modify Fire Station 63. A$er reviewing these proposals, it became apparent. that additional seismic, upgrades would ,need .to _be. made , to -improve the station's survivability-following an earthquake. More specifically, concerns were raised about how the ceiling and exterior wall at and near the apparatus bay would respond during an earthquake. As a result, an additional $300,000 has been requested from FEMA for this purpose. If this request is denied, this amount will have to be reclirected from other planned improvements in the station. Lastly, a geotechnical study was also performed in April to obtain information for use in designing the fire station seismic upgrades. This information will also be usefiil for designing the seismic upgrades for the entire building when funding becomes available. While the seismic upgrades of Fire Station 63 will help address some of the structural deficiencies of the Municipal Services Building, some additional seismic upgrades for other portions of the building may need to be considered. In particular, the Police Department, which houses the City's Public Safety Answering Point (9-1-1 Center) and dispatch center are at risk until such upgrades are made. Staff Report Subject: STATUS REPORT ON THE REHABILITATION AND SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR FIRE STATION 63 Page 3 FUNDING At this time, there is no request for funding. CONCLUSION Due to concerns of how the ceiling and e~eterior wall at and near the apparatus bay might respond during an earthquake, an additianai X300,000 has been requested from FEMA. Additional seismic upgrades for other portions of the building may need to be considered and will be followed uP on by staff. Several options for repairs are anticipated at various costs and staff will provide these to Council in the future as they are developed. By: Philip D. 'te Fire Chief Approved: 1.~f/y azry M. Nagel Gity Manager Attachment: Biggs Cardoso Assoc. Letters PDW/tr ~1@~~~ ~~~trb~~.~ ..~sS~t~~Ed$'R'~~ lBOY~ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 8F5 The Alsrnada San Jose, CA 95126=3133 Telephone 406-295-5515 Fa~simlle 4178-296-8'114 City of 5outb San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Mr. Ray Razavi and Mr. Robert Icahn Subject: Minimum Seismic Upgrade for Fire Station 63 Municipal Services Building 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear R.ay and Robert: April 29, 2010 2009029 In is our .understanding that on December 24, 2009, the City of South San Francisco was awarded an American Recovery and Reinvestment-Assistance to Firefighters Station Construction Grant of $1,811,925.00 to rehabilitate and seismically upgrade its Firc Station 63. Of this grant approximately $140,000 was identified tv perform the assumed and the anticipated seismic upgrades. You have requested that Biggs Cardoso Associates, Inc. identify and evaluate which of the existing structural elements of Fire Station 63 will require seismic ,strengthening to keep the station operational during an earthquake. It is also our understanding that you have some concerns about haw the ceiling and the exterior wall at and near the apparatus bay would respond during an earthquake that may impact the operation of the Fire_ Station 63 . _ _ On April, 28, 2009 our company submitted a preliminary seismic evaluation of the Municipal Service Building in which the Fire Station 53 is located (on portion of the First Floor}. In that report we evaluated the entire building tQ determine if the existing structure complied with the Immediate Occupancy requirements and if not, to determine which structural elements would need strengthening. Minimum lltequire+d Seismic Strenathenins of the 14lnnicitral Service Bniltiins: The results of that preliminary seismic evaluations indicated that the existing building has major lateral- force resisting deficiencies. The following structural elements may require strengthening: • Strengthen the existing second floor plywood shear walls and second floor firaming or add new two-story concrete sheaz walls or steel braced flames. • Add interior steel or concrete wall pilasters to strengthen existing concrete tilt-up wall panels. • Strengthen the existing roof plywood diaphragm cad sub-diaphragms by increasing nailing, blocking and seismic ties. • Add ledger bolts to connect the roof diaphragm to the concrete tilt-up walls. • Add connection of concrete floor diaphragm to the concrete tilt-up walls. • Add out-of--plane wall anchorage at roof diaphragm • Strengthen and/or add new collectors to existing and new shear walls. • Add new concrete shear walls at the garage level to line up with the exterior concrete shear walls at the front of the building. Even tE7ough seismically strengthening the entire building would be the mast appropriate method to increase the building's ability to resist the forces generated during an earthquake, it is our understanding -1- Municipal Services Building Fire Station 63 Apri129, 2410 Page 2 that City of South San Francisco would Like to focus the scope of the seismic retrofit work in the areas of Fire Station 53 as per the guidelines of the Firefighters Station Construction Grant. Additional retrofit work for the building (beyond the area occupied by Fire Station 63) is also recommended to help Fire Station 53 stay operational following an earthquake. This additional recommended retrofit work not identified in the original grant request includes but may not be liunited to the following. Ont-of Plane Anchorage of Tllt up Wall Panels above Fire Station 63 isee attachments: 1. Add out-of--plane wall anchorage at roof diaphragm on the South and portions of the East and West Walls adjacent to Fire Station 53, 2. Add interior steel wall pilasters to strengthen existing concrete tilt-up wall panels where passible. 3. Strengthen the existing roof plywood diaphragm and sub-diaphragms by increasing nailing, blocking and seismic ties as required for item 1 and at areas needed to accomplish item 2. 4. Connect tilt up wall panels at second floor. Streagthening,of Concrete Ceiling of Aouarates Bav (see attachmentsl~: The ceiling of the apparatus bay consists of a 3.5" cast-in placed concrete topping slab over 16" deep pre- cast concrete beams spaced at 4'-0" on centers. These beams span approximately 32 feet between an 8" cast in place concrete wall at the rear of the apparatus bay and concrete headers at the overhead door openings. . __ ..... _ ._ -- . . ~It is~oui: arid.eistanding-that some~craclr~~have Been o~servedin Ilie ceiling of tlic apparatus"bay: ~ e" continuous concrete slab spans approximately 42" between the edges of the pre-cast concrete beams. By code the minimum thickness for aone-way continuous solid slab is t = L128, therefore, t ~ ~2" /28 =1.5". The existing 3.5" thick stab meets the minimum code requirements; however that does not mean that this slab can support the heavy loads imposed upon it. It should be noted that our original preliminary seismic evaluation of the Municipal Services Building did not include any analysis of gravity only load elements; therefore we have not analyzed the floor slab that forms the ceiling in the apparatus bay. If the capacity of the existing slab exceeds the code allowables one possible method to strengthening this slab would be to add steel beams or stiffeners under the slab between the pre-cant beams. These additional steel members could be added in only those areas where the heavy loads are located. Please nom that this strengthening is for the 3.5" stab only. Even though the existing pre-cast beams, overhead door opening header and rear wall are supporting these heavier 2'~ Floor loads we recommend that they be evaluated Estimate of Probable Construction Costs The recommended modifications noted in this report are based on our April 28, 2409 report as a guide. The following is our estimate of probable construction costs for the seismic strengthening of the four iterns described above and the addition of steel stiffeners under the ceiling slab between the pre-cast beams in the apparatus bay. It should be noted that none of the e~€isting finish materials were removed as a part of that evaluation and no physical testing of the existing construction material was performed. It should be noted that there could be concealed structural defciencies, which we were not able to uncover in that ]invited evaluation, -2- Municipal Services Building Fire Station 63 Apri129, 2414 Page 3 and therefore there are no guaranties or wan~anties, either expressed or implied, as to the performance of this building during any future earthquake. This estimate of probable construction cost for the partial strengthening of the existing building is intended to provide a measure of feasibility to repair and reinforce the building and is based on the proposed remedial strengthening of the structural. This estimated cost is preliminary in nature and could vary depending on the final strengthening design chosen, the condition of the structure when exposed during the construction, the bidding climate and the final code requirements. The estimate is very schematic in nature and should be used only for preliminary budgeting purposes. The preliminary engineer's estimate includes the structural work necessary to seismically retrofit the building, and the demolition necessary to perform the structural work. Work necessary ~ replace architectural finishes is included in this estimate but other elements including mechanical and electrical systems disrupted by the structural work are not included in the scope. The demolition also assumes that the building is free of hazardous materials. The estimate does not include soft costs such as professional design fees, testing and inspection costs etc., costs associated with the relocation of existing facilities, staff or operations during the construction, nor does it include any non-structural construction costs such as replacement of architectural finishes, ADA upgrades ar other improvements. Because of the age of the building, budget limitations on this report, incomplete structural information and the preliminary- nature of this evaluation we have included an appropriate contingency to the cost estfnnate .to-accountfor:.unforeseen conditions. _ Item Cost Roof Diaphragm: • Removal of existing roofing ~ 5,000 • Re nail exist. plywood roof diaphragm, chords, collectors; wall anchors, etc. $ 15,Q00 • Install new roofing $ 30,OOtD • Install sub-diaphragm wall anchors/ties at 4'-0" at perimeter of roof $40,404 2"a Floor Concrete Tilt-up Walls • Install steel wide flange wall pilasters at 1 l'-0"o.c. (+/-) at perimeter walls $ 50,000 • Connect perimeter tilt up wall panels to 2""' floor diaphragm $40,000 2"d Floor Concrete Slab • Install steel stiffeners under the floor slab $ 20,000 Sob-'i'ota! S20a,000 Contingency (30%) $ 60,000 Overhead (10%) $ 26,000 Profit ~5%) $ 13,000 'T'otal Construction Rounded ~299,Q00 ~300,o0a -3- Municipal Services Building Fire Station 63 April 2~, 2414 Page 4 Since the above estimate of probable construction costs is preliminary and is based on limited structural information, the actual construction cost as stated above could vary subst~tially. In order to obtain a more realistic construction cost, we recommend that a more complete evaluation be performed. This evaluation would develop a conceptual design to strengthen the building. This design will include a detailed evaluation of the existing structural framing, exposing and testing of concealed structural items, i.e. reinforcing steel, anchor bolts, etc., computer analysis, evaluating conceptual design alternatives, preparing conceptual drawings, and a detailed cost estimate by an outside cost estimator. Please call if you have any questions or comments regarding this report. Sincerely, BIGGS GARD4SA ASS ,INC. Mahvash Harms, SE Principal Attachment: Strengthening Recornmendatian Plans & Section cc: Denney Furia, Biggs Cazdosa Associates, Inc. M''~.2009~029';Lcttcr FS G3 Min Scismic Wrark.doc -4- ~i•k .. `.ti• ~ - MfNifVfUM SEfSMfC STRENGTHENfNG~ ~ ~~-ti~f~W:atfk ~ : R a° ro" ,G k~ 1 191.. ~. its *.^ ~ k 3. Fie-nail e~ .., Dia~h~agi <4.~~~~onne~t Sic rid ~::,{ . 5, .i ~3 ~~ . . T •i~: _ 1 .!` 7 .,: .,,.iT :~:~i ~l i "t 4 .-: 2 i C~ :- 'P t .. ~' i ~. :. ;1 ~ ~ ~ . C~ ~ } ~'~ : 1 ~ .. .. #ing ~~oor t-~uprWali"Panets Y@' i~hG .... orb ,. f ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ f~4t)F PLAN ' :,. 'Reference Fire Sta#ion fi3 - ~-- - ~ _ ---T .~--,~ ^~ ~,.~ ~.. _ .~ Reference - ,. ~_ ~ -. GROUND FLOQR PLAN - ~_ .- _. _. e __.~r. _. s_~._,.,_ .~~. -- - - _. .. _ 5 _ - - ...~. _ _ . ,~. ~. .~.. _ ~. C~'~@ 1111aII Pan@IS TYPICAL 6~11L~313rtfs SECTIt)~I AT ~1RE STATI~~! C3 -6- --- .. _-~_~ n_~.r .~.., MINIMUM SEISMIC STRENGTHENING ,. _.. __~,.~ ~w~.. ~i~a~.~~ ;~ C~~n~e~c ~ ~I~~"~u~`'fall~Par~els~@ ~~ 1~ .. ~. ~' ~a. 1 ~ _.. ~ ~ ,..Y.+. RC?QF PLAN ~"YPIC~-L BUIL®iWG SEC'fl~hl ~T i~=ti~E S~'ATi~~ 63 -g- ~crefie Wald Panels .~. ~ r_--_e._.. fl~~i -- ~OG~~ CAIN®®SA , e4SS®C~ATES il\IC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS gCS The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126-3133 Telepf,one 4~B-^cJ6-5515 i=acsimile 408-296-8114 City of Soutli San Francisco 3I5 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Mr. Ray Razavi Subject: Preliminary Seismic Evaluation Municipal Services Building. 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Razavi: Apri128, 2009 2009029 Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc has completed ottr preliminary structural evaluation of the subject property. Tlie purpose of the evaluation is to determine if the subject project's structural system complies with Immediate Occupancy seismic requirements and, if not, to recommend modifications necessary to upgrade the building in order to meet with the general intent of these requirements. Since the building houses the police and fire departments it is considered as an essentral facility and therefore immediate occupancy of this building is required during and after a seismic event. The work included the review of available documents for the original building and the subsequent remodeling,. perform a linv.ted survey of the building to observe its condition, perform a seismic assessment of the structure, develop a conceptual scheme to rehabilitate the structure, and prepare a report. The report includes a list of the documents available for our review, the building description aild its condition, the design criteria used far our review, a deteilnination of the building's deficiencies, suggested modifications to the building and an engineer's cost estimate. . EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y The purpose of the preliminai-,~ evaluation is to determine if the stnictural framing of the MLU-ucipal Services Builduzg complies with Immediate Occupancy seismic requirements and if not, determine, which structural elements will need strengthening. Two methods were selected to evaluate the building. The first method was the Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis as described in AS CE 31 while the second method was using the requirements of the 2007 California Building Code. The result of both evaluation methods is that the existing building has major lateral-force resisting deficiencies and therefore does not meet the Immediate Occupancy safety requirements. Based on tlus preliminary evaluation the following structural items require strengthening: Bob Hahn Sr. Civil Engineer ,- c' Muunicipal Services Building April 28, 2009 Page 2 • Strengthen the existing second floor plywood shear walls and second floor framing or add new ttivo-story concrete shear walls or steel braced frames. • Add interior steel or concrete wall pilasters to strengthen existing concrete tilt-up ~vall panels. • Strengthen the existing roof plywood diaphragm and sub-diaphragms by increasing nailing, blocking and seismic ties. • Add ledger bolts to connect the roof diaphragm to the concrete tilt-up walls. • Add connection of concrete floor diaphragm to the concrete tilt-up walls. • Add out-of--plane wall anchorage at roof diaphragm • Strengthen and/or add new collectors to existing and new shear walls. • Add new concrete shear walls at the garage level to line up with the exterior concrete shear walls at the front of the building. The estimated probable construction costs to' strengthen the existing building based on this preliminary evaluation is $2,500,000. It should be noted that this estimated cost is preliminary and .is based on limited structural information; the actual constzuction cost could vary substantially. We therefore recommend that a more complete evaluation be performed. This addtional-evaluat~ori would include a~conceptual" desi~ "and"-drawings to ~strerig"t~.en the"buildin~- and amore precise estimate of probable construction costs. ~ " DOC. UMENTS The following documents were available for review. 1. Copy of Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing drawings, "Department Store for U.S.E South San Francisco" by Office of Lloyd Gartner Architect, dated October 25, 1968. 2. Copy of "Survey and Topography Portion of Lot A Rancho Buri Burl, South San Francisco, California" by Edwin H Smith, Civil Engineer, Redwood city, CA. Date: Illegible. 3. Copy of Architectural, Mechanical, Landscape and Plumbing drawings of "South San Francisco Municipal Services Building" by Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates Architects dated August 30, 1979. 4. Copy of Soils report titled "Foundation Investigation-Proposed Department Store Building: Arroyo Drive and El Camino Real, South San Franscico, CA for U.S.E Stores" by Dames & Moore, Consulting Engineers in the Applied Earth Sciences, dated September 4, 1968. 5. Copy of Letter and site notes regarding additional soils info for the same site by Dames & Moore dated February 14, 1980. -10- Municipal Services Building Apri128, 2009 Page 3 6. Copy of 32 sheets of Stlzlctural Calculation for the U.S.E Store done by David Alan Welisch-Structural Engineers dated 1969. . 7. Copy of Structural Calculation for S.S.F Muni Services Building clone by Robinson.Meier.Juilly &Associates-Structural Engineers dated 1979. Even though copies of construction documents related to fire original construction of the retail store in 1969 were available for our review, the poor quality of the copies made the stnictural drawings illegible and therefore could not be used in this evaluation. The only drawings that were legible were the architectural drawings prepared by Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates Architects dated August 30, 1979. The available structural calculations were also partially illegible and since there were no final structural drawings, it is impossible to know if any or all of the structural designs indicated in the calculations were incorporated in the final structure as constructed. B UILDTNG DESCRIPTION The subject building is located at 33 Arroyo Drive, So. San Francisco, California. The building __ is : a_two-stor_y_~tructure_with._the...lower._leveLheing_..a_parking...garage__that_is.__diVideclinto.__thtee...._ __..... separate .areas. One area of the garage is panting for general public, the second area is for the fire department and the third is for-the police department. .Also located in the, police department _ _ _ _ area is masonry and concrete enclosed firing range. The tipper level of the building houses the police department, parks and recreation, city hall chambers, city achninistrative offices, classrooms, multi-purpose rooms for community and senior citizens activities and restroom facilities. The overall dimensions of the building at the lower level parking garage are approximately 169' x 363' while the upper level dimensions are approximately 158' x 363'. It is our understanding that the original building was designed and constructed in 1969 as a retail store and was subsequently purchased by the City and in 1979 Was upgraded and remodeled to serve as a municipal services building. The building's vertical. load resisting system varies between the tipper and lower level. The ceiling of the lower level parking garage consist of a 3.5" cast-in-placed concrete topping slab over pre-cast concrete beams which span between either pre-cast concrete girders located at the interior of the garage or on an 8" thick concrete tilt-tip exterior wall located at the rear of the building. The pre-cast concrete girders are supported by either interior concrete columns, an interior 12" thick concrete wall, or by concrete wall pilasters at the 8" duck exterior concrete tilt- up walls located on the El Camino Real and Fire Department sides of the building. The intenor columns are supported by isolated spread concrete footings while the intenor and exterior concrete walls are supported by continuous spread concrete footings. The ground floor slab of the parking garage is cast-in-place concrete. It should be noted that at the front of the building the exterior concrete tilt-up walls at the tipper level are set back approximately 12 feet fiom the concrete wall at fire lower parking garage level. Because of the site grading the concrete wall at the parking garage level at the front of the building is a retaining wall. The upper level concrete tilt-up walls at the front of the building are supported on a line of pre-cast concrete girders alzd -11- Muiucipal Services Building Apri128, 2009 Page 4 concrete colunuls spaced at approximately 33' on centers. A cast-in-place concrete slab spans between the p~-e-cast girders and the front basement retaining wall. Tlus exterior slab support landscaping located at the ground level at the front of the building. The upper level roof framing consists of plywood sheathing over 2x12 wood purlins spaced at 24" on centers, which span approximately 22.5' bettiveen glue-laminated beams. The glue- laminated beams are supported on either interior glue-lamnated girders or on the 6" thick exterior concrete tilt-up panels located on the El Camino Real and Fire Station sides of the building. The glue-laminated girders ,are supported on either interior steel pipe columns or on the 6" thick exterior concrete tilt-up panels located at the front and rear perimeter walls. It should be noted that at the exterior concrete tilt-up walls steel tubular columns were added to support the glue-laminated beams and girders, which were originally supported on the perimeter concrete tilt-up wall panels. The second level steel pipe columns are located in line with the concrete columns located in the parking garage level below. The horizontal diaphragms of the building, which resist both wind and seismic loads, consist of the 1/2" plywood sheathing at the roof and the 3.5" thick cast-in-place concrete second floor slab _ over the, parking_garage..._. gt_.the _upper..level the_roof_diaphragrn.is_supported with_a combination.... of the interior wood frame plywood shear walls and the 6" thick concrete tilt-up shear walls at the perimeter of the building while at the lower level the second floor slab is supported by~ the 8"thick concrete tilt=up sheaf walls at the rear, El Camino Real and Fire Department sides of the building, the 8" thick concrete retaining wall at the front of the building and a 12" and 8" cast-in- place concrete shear wall located at the interior of the parking garage. B tJILDING CONDITION In general, the building was observed to be in relatively good condition, with minor signs of distress or damage except for some water damage and repair work in the police portion of the parking garage. The condition of the building indicates that it has been maintained over the years. The water damage in the police portion of the parking garage is located at the intersection of the concrete second floor slab aid a pre-cast concrete girder under the exterior landscaping. Numerous cracks in the slab at this intersection were observed. The repair work to this portion of the slab included epoxy type injection of the cracks and a steel wide flange beam supported by two steel pipe columns was installed to assist in supporting the slab and exterior landscaping. Because of the extensive water damage there was probably concern that the reinforcing steel in the concrete slab in the areas of the cracks might have been damaged due to corrosion. DESIGN CRITERIti Vertical Load Analysis Since there is no proposed change in building use and there are no signs of distress or damage other than the water d~unage in the police's panting garage, which has Ueen repaired, no analysis -12- Municipal Services Building April 28, 2009 Page 5 or strengthening of the vertical load-carrying system was included in otu scope-of-worlc or performed. Lateral Load Analysis When rehabilitating a building, a decision must be made regarding whether to perform a seismic retrofit, a partial retrofit or no retrofit at all. In many cases the city building departments in the San Francisco bay area have rules or triggers which dictate the direction the owner is required to take. Typically it has been our experience that if the building dead load is not increased by more than 5%, the lateral resisting system is not weakened by more than 5% or the use is not changed to a more hazardous use as defined by the Building Code, the City will generally not require a mandatory seismic upgrade. Based on discussions with the City, our assumption in this report is that the building will be brought up to an Immediate Occupancy level of performance because of the presence of the Police and Fire Departments housed in this building and that their services would be immediately required in the event of a major earthquake. Generally accepted guidelines for analysis and _ __ _ _ design s_ occluded .the_ most_ cnr.~ez~t . ec~itiom_of._the..California...Building.._Code._.(CBC).._._._The._code.. _ allows the use of ASCE 31 for seismic evaluation of existing buildings and ASCE 41 for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. The analysis of this structure for lateral loading has been done in accordance with the ASCE 31 at the Immediate Occupancy level. The ASCE 31 analysis consists of a preliminary Tier 1 analysis, which was done to identify deficiencies in the structural system. Following the Tier 1 analysis, a more detailed Tier 2 analysis was done to further investigate the deficiencies identified in the Tier 1 analysis. Analyses performed as past of the Tier 1 Evaluation process are limited to Quick Checks. The Tier 1 analysis uses a pseudo seismic force calculated per section 3.5.2.1 of ASCE 31 to calculate the stiffness and strength of certain building components to determine whether the building complies with certain evaluation criteria. The deficiencies are further investigated in the Tier 2 analysis. Since this evaluation is preliminary, a Linear Static Procedure (LSP) was used to analyze the building in the Tier 2 analysis. Hand calculations were performed for the Tier 2 evaluation. TIER 1 AND Z DEFICIENCIES The following is a list of deficient or otherwise non-compliant items identified in our ASCE 31 evaluation of the stnictural system. The Tier 1 deficiency (see Appendix A) is listed first followed by the outcome of Tier 2 analysis: • VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force- resisting system shall be continuous to the foundation. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.3.2.4) -13- Mutucipal Services Building April 28, 2009 Page 6 Tier 1 Results: The light frame plytivood shear ~valls at the interior- of the building ter inate at the 2"`~ story, thereby creating a vertical discontinuity. The 6" thick concrete tilt-up shear walls at the upper level at the front of the building also terminate at the 2"~ story, thereby creating a vertical discontinuity. However these tilt-up walls are supported on pre-cast concrete girders and concrete columns that are located in the parking garage. Tier 2 Results: The 3.5" thick slab and the 12",c 12" retrofit beam that spans between the existing concrete precast beams are not adequate to resist the seismic overturning forces from some of the second floor plywood shear walls. Since a computer analysis is beyond the scope of this evaluation, it is difficult to determine how the seismic forces will be distributed from the discontinuous upper level shear walls through the rigid concrete second. floor diaphragm and into the lower level shear walls. s SHEAR STRESS CHECK (Concrete): The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.3, shall be less than IOO psi or 2~f~ for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.1) Tier 1 Results: The shear stress in lower level concrete walls exceeded the allowable stress of 2~f~' psi. ~ . Tier 2 Results: The shear capacities of most of the concrete shear walls at the lotiver level were adeguate to resist the seismic shear forces. The short shear walls along the Fire Department side of the building are not adequate to resist the seismic shear forces. SHEAR STRESS CHECK (wood): The shear stress in the plywood shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.3, shall be less than 1000 plf for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.7.1) Tier 1 Results: The shear stress in second floor plytivood shear walls eYCeeded the allowable stress of 1000 plf. Tier 2 Results: The shear capacities of the light frame plywood shear walls at the upper level are not adequate to resist the seismic shear forces. OVERTL)~~NING: All shear walls shall have aspect ratios less than 4-to-1. Wall Piers need not be considered. This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy Performance level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.2.4) -14- Municipal Services Building .4pri12~, 2009 Page 7 Tier '1 Results: The aspect ratio was not satisfied for several walls on upper level at the front of the bulldlilg and alSO on the io'r~'er level at the Flre Department side of the building. Tier 2 Results: The shear capacities of the ~valls on the upper level were not adequate to transfer shear and the overturning of these walls caused a very high tensile/compressive force on the slab below. The 3.5" thick slab together with the 12"x12" beam was not adequate to resist these forces and transfer them into the rigid diaphragm. • WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on the diaphragrn~for lateral support shall be anchored for out-of--plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed in the diaphragm. Connections shall have adequate strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of section 3.53.7. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.6.1.1) Tier 1 Results: The a°~isting wall anchorage is not adequate to transfer the ~~ _"~ ~ ~ --~ ~ - --~ ~-- ouf=of=plane forces to ~e diap ragm. Tier 2 Results: The anchors are note adequate to transfer the out-of plane seismic forces from the concrete tilt up wall to the flexible diaphragm. • GIRDERICOLUMN CONNECTION: There shall be a positive connection utilizing plates, connection hardware or straps between the girder and the column support. (Tier 2: 4.6.4.1) Tier 1 Results: At the lower level, it was not possible to determine if the pre- cast girders are just sitting on the concrete columns or if there. is a positive connections or reinforcing from the beam that is doweled into the column. From the calculations it appears that the concrete girders are just sitting on the concrete columns because the columns were only checked for bearing. Tier 2 Results: There is no Tier 2 Evaluation procedure that is available for connections that are non-compliant. There needs to be a positive connection between the girder and the column. • WALL OPENINGS: The total width of openings along any perimeter wall line shall constitute less than 75 percent of the length of any perimeter wall for Life safety and 50 percent for Immediate Occupancy with the wall piers having aspect ratios of less than 2-to-1 for Life safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.3.3) -15- Mtuzicipal Services Building April 28,' 2009 Page 8 Tier 1 Results: At the loVVer level, the wall at the Fire Department side of the building has several oper~irgs ranging from 22' to 28.5'. The total length of the tivall is 139'-8" and total length of opening is 104'-6". This does not meet the Immediate Occupancy requirement. Tier 2 Results: The lower- level pre-cast concrete panels at the exterior- ~vall of the Fire Department are not adequate to resist seismically induced shears into these members from the floor above. WALL THICKNESS: Thickness of bearing walls shall not be less than 1125 the unsupported height or length, whichever is shorter, nor less than 4". This statement shall apply to the Immediate Occupancy performance level only. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.4.2.3.6) Tier 1 Results: The unsupported height of upper level tilt up walls of 17.5' requires the walls to be at least 8" thick. The 6." thick walls do not satisfy this requirement. ................. ._..----..._-- _. _--_-__.-....__.._....__----Tier-2--Results: -7Clie-w~~Ils-~-ill---lie ak.._for-. o~t~~~f=~ia~ie~-forces _as_.1onb..as.__a minimum of #4 bars are used for the vertical steel and spaced at a maximum - spacing -of ~0". Since we :•da not- have:, the f nal --structural engineering drawings, this could not be confirmed without doing destructive testing on walls to figure out what actual reinforcement and spacing have been used. GEOLOGIC SITE HAZARDS AND FOUNDATION TIER 1 DEFICIENCIES All items are compliant including the liquefaction criteria. The site is not located in a liquefaction zone or in a surface fault rupture zone. NON-STRUCTURAL TIER i DEFICIENCIES During the field inspection notl~.ing out of the ordinary was noticed as far as non stnictural components. However it is recorrunended that all architectural, mechanical equipments and plumbing fixtures be properly anchored and braced to resist seismic forces. ANALYSTS USING 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE: Ili most cases, when a building does not meet the requirements based on the quiclt check procedures of Tier 1 analysis, it will work under a more detailed Tier 2 analysis, but in tl~e case of the subject building, both Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis did not help some of the important components of the buildings, specially the shear walls. Jig our review of the 1979 str~ictural calculations, the seismic forces used in the design for the remodeling of the building was based on the assumption that since the upper and lower levels of this building have relatively different seismic resisting system that each level can be -16- Municipal Services Building Apiz128, 2009 Page 9 independently analyzed and designed a11d that the code required vertical distlzbutions of dead loads is~not required for this two story stricture. Tlus,was justified at the trine because the lotiver level of the building has a rigid concrete floor diaphragm and relative stiff concrete perimeter and interior shear walls and that the upper level has a flexible plywood diaphragm and that the new interior shear walls that were to be installed for the remodeling of the building were to be relatively flexible wood framed plywood shear walls. However, since the rigid exterior tilt-up concrete wall panels extend to the roof diaphragm and the relative overall stiffness of each level of the structure is therefore approximately the same, the assumption that the upper and lower level can be designed independently is inappropriate. ~Wlien the dead loads are vertically distributed, as required by the CBC, the existing upper level plywood shear walls become overstressed and require strengthening. Therefore, we determined that a more detailed analysis based on the latest 2007 CBC and ASCE 7-OS is required. Asite-specific base shear was calculated and all seismic resisting structural components were checked against the latest code and if required conceptual strengthening details were developed. _ ._ As_discuss_ed__in.the_Tier. l.. and.Tier.2._evaluation_portion of this_.report,..this.buildvighas.two.. shear..... - - wall systems that are vertically discontinuous at the parking garage. One system is the concrete tilt-u wall anels located at the front of building. The. original buulding was..constructed with .P P _ _ _ the concrete tilt-up shear walls at the upper level located at the front of the building to be offset from .the lower level basement shear wall. The other system was the plywood shear walls that were added at the upper level when the building was changed from a retail store to the Municipal Service Building for the City. To actually determine how these vertical discontinuities affect the overall performance of the building during a seismic event we would normally perform a computer analysis of the structure, however because of the limitations of this evaluation it was not included in our work. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: 1. The shear walls at the upper level needs to be strengthened to transfer the seismic ul- plane shears to the level below. This would inchtde adding new '/~" structural I plywood on one or both sides of the existing shear walls and increased nailing and hold-downs. The strength of the existing concrete second floor must be evaluated if it is capable of supporting the strengthened plywood shear walls. 2. Investigate using new two-story concrete shear, walls or steel braced frames to resist seismic loads. These two-story shear elements would require solve modifications to the second floor plait and the parking garage. This may lead to a reduction of parking spaces in the garage. 3. The 2007 CBC code does not allow ordinary pre-cast tilt up walls anymore in seismic design category D, which most of the State of California falls under and so to coizzply - 17- Mtuzicipal Services Building April 28, ?009 Page 10 with the current code the existing walls need to be strengthened by possibly adding external wall piers that would make it comply with an internlediate precast tilt up vyall. 4. Diaphragms and sub-diaphragms at roof level need improved resistance to transfer the seismic forces. Provide increased nailing, bloclcillg and seismic ties between the existing or new purlins. 5. The ledger bolt connections into the existing tilt-up walls have to be strengthened and closely spaced. 6. The out-of--plane and in-plane wall anchorage for the tilt-up concrete walls must be strengthened to comply with the latest code. 7. Existing collectors need to be strengthened or new collectors be added to transfer seismic forces at discontinuous shear wall locations. S. New concrete shear walls at the garage level, which line up with the upper shear walls at upper level at the front of +~he building might be required. This may lead to a reduction of parlang spaces in the garage. _ _.___.P~I,~11~IINAR~ ENGINEER'S-EST~dAT]~--Q1F-PI2~BABLE C~~STS- _ .._..._ .. _ ... _ . _. The .recommended modifications noted. in this. report .are based on our .preliminary .structural calculations, the type and condition of the existing framing, engineering judgment, and experience obtained from evahating and retrofitting similar buildings. It should. be noted that none of the existing finish materials were removed as a part of this evaluation and no physical testing of the existing construction material was performed. It should~be noted that there could be concealed stnlctural deficiencies, which we were not able to uncover in this type of limited evaluation, and therefore there are no guaranties or warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the performance of this building during any future earthquake. Tl-us estimate of probable construction cost for the conceptual strengthening of the existing building is intended to provide a measure of feasibility to repair and reinforce the building and is based on the proposed remedial strengthening of the structural. This estimated cost is preliminary in nature and could vary depending on the final strengthening design chosen, the condition of the structure when exposed during the construction, the bidding climate and the final code requirements. The estimate is very schematic in nature and should be used only for preliminary budgeting purposes. The preliminary engineer's estimate inchides the structural work necessary to seismically retrofit the building, and the demolition necessary to perform the structural work. Work necessary to replace architectural finishes is included in this estimate but other elements including mechanical and electrical systems disrupted by the structural work are not included in the scope. The demolition also asstunes that the building is free of hazardous materials. The estimate does not include soft costs such as design fees, testing and inspection costs etc., costs associated with the relocation of existing facilities, staff oi- operations during the construction, nor does it include -18- Municipal Services Building April 28, 2009 Page 11 any non-structural constnictiotn costs such as replacement of architectural finishes, ADA upgrades or other improvements. . Because of the age of the building, budget limitations on this report, incomplete stnictural inforniation and the preliminary nature of this evaluation we have included an appropriate contingency to the cost estunate to account for unforeseen conditions. Item Cost UPPER LEVEL Roof Diaphra~n: Removal of existing roofing $ 25,000 Re-nail existing plywood roof diaphragm, chords, collectors, wall anchors, etc. $ 15,000 Install new roofing $ 250,000 Install sub-diaphragm wall anchors/ties at 4'-0" at perimeter of roof $ 100,D00 _._- _InstalLglue-laminated.b.e.am plices-.-..__.._.._._..----.. _.. _....- ......----.---. ......... _ ..................._._ ..$.__.... --_15,.ODQ_.... _ _ ... Install new ledger bolts at perimeter of roof ~ ~$ 50,000 Install new roof dia lnra collectors at interior 2"d floor 1 ood shear walls $ 55,000 P '~. P_Yu'.- Interior ~°d Floor Plywood Shear Walls or add Two Storv Shear Wa11s or Steel Braced Frames The work includes: • Removal of existing gypsum wall board finish • Removal and re-stall T-bar acoustical ceilings • Add new 5/8 "diameter anchor bolts at 12"o.c. • Add 1/Z plywood sheathing on one side of wall • Re-nail existing plywood sheathing • Add gypsum wall board, tape, texture and paint each side of wall Or add two-story concrete shear walls or steel braced frames Total: plywood shear walls or concrete shear walls or steel braced frames 2"d Floor Concrete Tilt-tip Walls Install steel wide flange wall pilasters at 11'-0"o.c. (+/-) at perimeter walls Connect perimeter tilt-up wall panels to 2"d floor diaphragm LOWER LEVEL 1ST Floor Concrete Tilt-up Walls Connect perimeter and interior tilt-up wall panels to 2na floor diaplagm Connect perimeter and interior tilt-up wall panels to ground floor slab/foundation $ 500,000 $ 150,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 -19- Municipal Services Building April 2S, 2009 Page 12 Connect interior girders to columns $ 50,000 Sub-Total $1,510,000 Contingency (30%) $ 500,000 Overhead (10%) $ 200,000 Profit (5%) $ 110,000 Total Construction $2,320,000 Rounded $2,500,000 Since the above estimate of probable construction costs is preliminary and is based on limited structural information, the actual construction cost as stated above could vary substantially. In order to obtain a more realistic construction cost, we recommend that a more complete evaluation be performed. This evaluation would develop a conceptual design to strengthen the building. This design will include a detailed evaluation of the existing structural framing, exposing .and_testing_of_concealed structural items, i.e.__reinforcing steel,_ anchor _bolts, etc., computer analysis, evaluating conceptual design alternatives, preparing conceptual drawings,,and a detailed cost estimate by an outside cost estimator. The following is an estimate of the ............ structural engineering fees to, perform the conceptual design and develop a construction budget for the required strengthening. 1. Detail evaluation and survey $ 6,000 2. Testing of existing construction material and equipment rental $ 5,000 3. Evaluate alterative conceptual designs $ 21,000 4. Prepare conceptual structural drawings $ 9,000 5.' Cost estimate $ 6,000 Total Conceptual Design $ 47,000 If the conceptual design and estimated budget for the strengthening of the Municipal Services Building is approved, additional design fees will be required to prepare the final construction documents. These additional fees will include, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and cost estimating. It should be noted that since the strengthening of the building is known the additional consulting fees could easily be determined. CONCLUSION Based on our visual review of the structure a17d all evaluation of the builduzg in accordance with ASCE 31, it is our opinion that this buulding does not meet Immediate Occupancy safety requirements as specified in the ASCE 31 and in the event of a major eal-thqualce it cannot be expected to be fiinctional for operation iinrnediately. -20- Municipal Services Building Apri128, ?009 Page 13 LIIVIITflTIONS OF THIS .REVIEyY 1. It is understood that Biggs Cardosa Associates make no warranty either expressed or implied, as to the findings, designs, reconunendations, specifications, or professional advice given in this opinion letter. 2. Tlus letter has been prepared, upon your request, to determine the general present physical condition and adequacy of the building with respect to the design criteria stated in the body of this letter. We take no responsibility for the conformance of the as- constructed structure. 3. No reliance on .this report shall be made by anyone other than the client whose name appears above. 4. We have made reasonable efforts to assure that tlus report is accurate; however, we cannot assume any liability, which nught result from it, or any conditions, which this report might fail to disclose. 5. The building was evaluated based on the information gained from visual observations made during one field visit and the drawings__that were_available_.for_review,____The _ evaluation did not include any destructive/non-destnictive testing to determine existing material properties or quantities. If the :City elects to continue with its evaluation and seismic upgrade of this building we recommend that an extensive investigation of the existing structural framing be undertaken and that a more sophisticated analysis be .performed. Since the .structural information cannot be ascertained from the record documents, we recommend that program of ~ exploratory testing of specific stnlctural framing members also be performed. Please call if you have any questions or comments regarding this report. Sincerely, BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ~' r 1 J Mahvash Harms, SE Principal cc: Deunes Furia, Biggs Cardosa Associates, hlc. Nl :\2OU91U29\DJ FSouthSanfranciscoRe}~ort.doc -21- ~°°~x"S-~''~ o n ~. y J O c'~LIFOR~~~ a eo DATE: May 24, 2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathy Mount, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: OUTSOURCING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Provide direction regarding outsourcing of employee benefits administration. BACKGROUND The City currently performs the following services in-house related to employee benefits either through HR or Finance/Payroll and is considering outsourcing them: 1. Preparing for, conducting and processing open enrollment, typically on annual basis; 2. Processing of additions, deletions and changes to any benefits; 3. Processing and verification of qualifying events; 4. Processing for COBRA termination and HIPAA notices; 5. Responding to questions and resolving issues regarding benefit eligibility; 6. Billing and tracking of payments by retirees for additional coverages; 7. Tracking and processing Medicare reimbursement for retirees; 8. Tracking and processing transition from early retiree to Medicare status for retirees; 9. Billing employees for cost sharing; 10. Reconciling and paying bills from all vendors of benefit services; a. Two Medical providers with four plans; b. Dental provider with two plans; c. Vision provider with two plans; d. COBRA administrator; e. Section 125 Plan administrator; f. Section 457 Plan administrator g. Life, AD&D, and Additional Life insurance; h. RHS administrator; i. Short-term and Long-term disability insurance; 11. Producing discrimination testing data; 12. Tracking eligibility for and tracking of DBO eligibility and payments; 13. Processing 457 deferred compensation changes; and 14. Preparing and tracking W-4 employee deduction changes. Staff Report Subject: OUTSOURCING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION Date: May 24, 2010 Page 2 of 3 Currently, we use manual administrative, reconciliation and billing systems, which inherently present operational risks for human error. In recent months, we discovered errors of over $20,000 due to paper-based systems which do not readily catch mistakes in eligibility and billing rates. We do not have the resources to conduct a dependent audit, although we suspect there are a few ineligible dependents being covered on City benefit plans. Additionally, the City uses multiple administrators of different benefits, which are cumbersome to track, and prevent us from achieving savings from consolidation. Finally, the person handling benefits administration in HR is an Analyst II, but the majority of the work is clerical in nature. We do not presently employ lower level staff to absorb the work, so the Analyst's time is unavailable for higher level analytic work. DISCUSSION The existing benefits administration systems need to be redesigned to reduce the risk of human error and increase efficiency. External benefits administration service providers offer sophisticated software systems that can fully integrate with the carriers' systems and employers' payroll/HRIS systems to ensure data consistency and integrity. They automate many benefit processes, eliminating enrollment errors and saving significant amounts of administrative time. The tools offered by these providers include decision support, drill-down and report writing features. Further, they offer services and features beyond those that can be provided in-house that enhance the employee experience in accessing their benefits. Benefits administration services provide plan comparisons, paycheck modeling, online open enrollment, a call center for questions about the benefits process and provide a one stop on-line location for employees to review and update their benefits information. They can conduct dependent audits to ensure only eligible dependents are on the City's plans, can handle 125 Flexible Benefits administration, COBRA administration and all aspects of retiree benefits in addition to all the services listed above which the City currently provides. FUNDING The cost to the City of providing this service is significantly less than having it done by an HR Analyst II. Preliminary bids for the work range from $30,000 to $40,000 annually, although there may be some additional charges for special one-time services like a full dependent audit. This expense would be paid from the benefits fund, which would not hit the general fund. The cost would nevertheless be significantly less than the salary and benefit load of an Analyst II, which is roughly $113,000. The Analyst II currently handling benefits is being redeployed to handle risk management, workers' compensation claims, and the safety committee and would continue to oversee the functioning of an outside benefits administrator. This is higher level work and more appropriate Staff Report Subject: OUTSOURCING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION Date: May 24, 2010 Page 3 of 3 for an employee at this level of experience and pay. We also anticipate realizing cost savings by dedication of an Analyst to monitoring the enhanced Risk Management functions, including workers' compensation. While aone-to-one savings can't be promised, staff is confident that by focusing more of the Analyst II's time to risk management work, the savings the City will realize in liability and workers' compensation costs should offset the additional costs from contracting for the benefits administration. Funds for the costs of the benefits administration can therefore be absorbed into the Self Insurance Internal Service Fund with no additional cost likely to be borne by the City. CONCLUSION We anticipate concluding the interviews with providers in the next two weeks and making a final decision about whether to proceed with outsourcing benefits administration. Kathy Mount ~ ~.~rry M. Nagel ;~ Human Resources Director City Manager KEM/jbr