SAN DIEGO CITY HALL
New proposal: A 19-story building with two levels of underground parking, a 400-seat City Council chambers, 576,000 total square feet of space, a one-stop shop for city services on first floor and a 1.25-acre public plaza.
Cost: $293.5 million.
Previous proposal: Similar features except it would be 34 stories tall and have 1 million square feet of space.
Cost: $432 million.
The proposed San Diego City Hall that will likely go before voters in November is much smaller and less expensive than the version first contemplated three years ago.
The project is also expected to save more taxpayer money than originally thought, a factor that ers hope will sway skeptical voters frustrated with past financial decisions from city leaders.
After eight months of negotiations with a developer, Mayor Jerry Sanders plans to announce a deal today that caps taxpayer costs at $293.5 million — far less than the initial $432 million estimate. He said the deal will allow the city to consolidate operations at a central location and save millions that could channeled to fire service, parks and libraries.
The proposal calls for a 19-story City Hall totaling 576,000 square feet at C Street and First Avenue, where Golden Hall sits just west of the current City Hall. It includes two levels of underground parking, a one-stop shop for city services on the first floor and a 400-seat City Council chambers. The rest of the building would be occupied by about 2,300 city office workers.
The original proposal by Portland, Ore.-based Gerding Edlen called for a 34-story structure with 1 million square feet. The developer had also hoped to obtain nearby city properties for a retail project, but those plans were scrapped because of the recession.
Sanders said the new proposal is a practical solution to the current City Hall, which opened in 1965 and is considered by many to be a money pit.
“With this template that we have now, this is certainly not a Taj Mahal,” he said. “It’s a very functional building that I think will serve the city well and it saves us money every single year.”
Charles Black, the city’s lead negotiator with the developer, said the current proposal is smaller than the original because the city workforce has been reduced by roughly 1,400 positions, which means less space will be needed.
“We wanted to configure a project that made the most sense for the city,” Black said.
City officials project the new City Hall will save $28 million during the first 10 years because the city won’t need to make repairs at the current facility and eliminate leases for office space to house its workers throughout downtown. The savings include the cost of financing and paying back municipal bonds to fund the project. After 50 years, the savings over and above the debt service are expected to swell to $237 million. An earlier estimate on the taller building predicted a 50-year savings of $232 million.
The other option is to stay in the current building — which needs $37 million in mechanical, electrical, roof and plumbing repairs to get through the next decade — and continue paying $13 million annually in leases. A review by two auditing firms showed that the “hold steady” option would still require the city to build a new complex in 10 years.
So the question before voters will be whether it makes financial sense to build a new City Hall when the city continues to cut services or wait until the city emerges from its budget woes before moving forward.
The choice comes as the city considers several other major downtown projects, including a new main library, a Chargers stadium and a convention center expansion.
Sanders said he plans to campaign on behalf of a new City Hall and tell voters it will free up millions of dollars over the next decade that could be used to restore cuts, such as the recent decision to idle up to eight fire engines a day.
“It’s not whether we tear (the current City Hall) down,” he said. “It’s when we tear it down. So I think it makes much better business sense to do it now.”
So far, much of the opposition to a new City Hall has focused largely on putting the project up for a public vote. That issue became moot this year when four City Council said they wouldn’t the project without a public vote, guaranteeing that no deal could be ed without voter input.
The most outspoken opponent of the project has been Councilman Carl DeMaio. He has urged city leaders to look at short-term, low-cost solutions such as renegotiating leases because he doesn’t believe the city can afford spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a major civic project.
Officials in the Mayor’s Office say they have repeatedly tried to renegotiate leases, many of which expire in 2014, with minimal success.
The proposed ballot measure for a new City Hall will go before a council committee Wednesday with an eye toward full City Council approval in July.
If voters it in November, construction is scheduled to begin in January 2012 and doors would open in July 2014.
