Insights. Leadership and Planning for State Capitol Renovations. Introduction

Transcription

1 Leadership and Planning for State Capitol Renovations Introduction America s state capitols are the physical expression of our representative form of government. These wonderful iconic buildings not only embody the checks and balances of government but have become symbolic Peoples Houses. Today, many capitols are at the point in their lifecycle where deterioration of their building components is causing many states to consider significant restoration. Contributing Author David Hart, FAIA Mr. Hart has 30 years of experience in program management, architecture and design of large, complex and politically sensitive projects. He has experience in public architecture, city halls, libraries, public safety facilities and capitol renovations. In 2000, the Utah Capitol Preservation Board appointed Mr. Hart as architect of the Utah State Capitol. In this capacity he directed the entire restoration of the State Capitol. He was responsible for the innovation of a collaborative integrated delivery process that led to the successful restoration of the Utah State Capitol. This methodology influenced management of complex public projects nationally. Several states are working through the challenges associated with planning, funding, and aligning expectations associated with these magnificent buildings. There are numerous factors to consider. In addition to the failing building elements there are political challenges. The nature of the three branches of government can lead to different expectations relative to the renovation. It is imperative that these complicated concerns are understood and skillfully dealt with in order to focus the team on a common scope and budget. This article will explain a series of carefully crafted steps to navigate through the political and physical challenges. The Utah and Minnesota State Capitol Renovation projects will be used as case studies. Utah State Capitol Renovation Overview The $273 million project included the renovation of Capitol Hill, the addition of two new legislative office buildings, redesign of the grounds and base isolation and restoration of the Capitol itself. The project took less than 10 years to complete. The Capitol restoration was the largest restoration project in Utah history. It was completed on time and $3 million under budget, with no claims or disputes. In 2009, It received a CMAA Project Achievement Award. He has a master s degree in architecture from the University Of Utah Graduate School of Architecture. Utah State Capitol Page 1

2 In 1998, the Utah legislature, with the support of the governor, created the Utah State Capitol Preservation Board and hired an executive director (David Hart, FAIA) to put together a process that would not only restore the Capitol but would plan for the next hundred years. Utah State Capitol Alignment goals were tailored to meet stakeholder expectations and objectives while maintaining original budget, scope and schedule. David spent many hours prior to the start of the restoration learning from current and past legislators about the political processes of Capitol Hill. I had to understand why tension existed between the different legislative bodies and how important that tension was to the governing process, he said. The commission created a plan to bring together the leaders of the political process, designers, constructors, and users in a teaming environment to align expectations. This resulted in team collaboration, with everyone working toward an agreed renovation goal. This goal was established in 2000 by the Capitol Preservation Board and included: Complete Historic Restoration and Base Isolation of Capitol and Grounds. Opening of the Capitol to the public on January 4, 2008 Utah s Statehood Day. Cost would be less than the estimated $300 million. The team alignment goal was tailored to fit each group s expectations and objectives, while maintaining the original parameters of the budget, scope and schedule. Ten basic principles comprise the Utah State Capitol Restoration Model. 1. Determine the leadership organization and assign specific champions to support project goals 2. Ensure early involvement of key decision makers 3. Establish clear project definition through early alignment charrettes 4. Prepare open communication channels 5. Establish trust and respect in relationships 6. Hold multiple planning discussions 7. Establish a collaborative and innovative decision process with a focus on results 8. Define team accountability and satisfaction 9. Develop non-standard contracts to support project goals 10. Establish an environment of mutual benefit and reward Minnesota State Capitol Overview Minnesota State Capitol The estimated $241 million renovation, repair and preservation project will focus on the upgrade of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems as well as the historic restoration of public and private spaces. The project, estimated to take less than six years, is the most significant restoration project in Minnesota history. In the fall of 2011, the Minnesota State Capitol Preservation Commission was convened. During its inaugural meeting the governor challenged the commission to act as good stewards and to think about the importance of restoring the Capitol for the next 100 years. Page 2

3 The governor asked the commission to have that recommendation ready for the 2012 legislative session. Following Governor Dayton s challenge, the commission adopted the Utah model and authorized the Department of Administration to proceed with a similar plan. State Capitol Program Comparison Minnesota State Capitol - Exterior Pediment Detail Minnesota s Governor Dayton challenged the commission to act as good stewards and think about the importance of restoring the Capitol for the next 100 years. Minnesota State Capitol The Minnesota State Capitol restoration, while similar in size and function, is very different from the Utah project, in four primary ways. First, the Utah State Capitol was driven by the need to seismically stabilize the building, while the Minnesota State Capitol is driven by the replacement of the major building systems. Designed by Cass Gilbert in 1905, the Minnesota Capitol has been in continuous use ever since, and many systems are failing. Second, due to the seismic work associated with the Utah State Capitol, the occupants relocated for the duration of the project to two new buildings that were constructed directly behind the Capitol. In Minnesota, the governor and legislature have requested that the building remain open while the systems are replaced. Third, the two commissions are different. The Utah board was given complete control of the Capitol and Capitol Hill and had the final say. Minnesota s Commission, on the other hand, is comprised of political leadership of the state and private stakeholders, and its powers are to provide a comprehensive master plan and oversight to the project. The statutory responsibility for overseeing the restoration resides with the Department of Administration. Finally, the management structure for the two programs is different. The Utah program included: A board with complete authority A leader fully empowered to make decisions A program management company with excellent skills and full time representation on site The Minnesota program includes: A commission with authority for oversight and planning A Department of Administration with responsibility for design and construction within the Capitol A Program Management company as the link between the Utah state model and the Minnesota process as well as a liaison between the building tenants and the design/ construction team An owner representative providing guidance and contractual leadership Page 3

4 Case Study Best Practices Five best practices were used in the early planning of both capitol renovations. 1. Capitol Preservation Commission In 2011, Minnesota crafted a Capitol Preservation Commission with responsibilities similar to those of the Utah Capitol Preservation Board, including: Minnesota State Capitol The ability to communicate and to disseminate information to other leaders is imperative for Capitol renovation projects. Guidance and stewardship from state political leadership Oversight to recommend planning and funding Annual reporting to the state legislature Specific goals and objectives 2. Champions In a political process, advocates are very important. The ability to communicate and to disseminate information to other leaders is an imperative for these projects. 3. Governing Principles Leadership is essential on any project, but collaborative leadership is a must when dealing with the political process and with elected officials. The ability to bring together individuals with strong opinions and in many cases, bridge the gap between ideology and party politics is very important from the beginning. A strong facilitator who understands the political environment and who recognizes the importance of collaboration is required. The facilitator helps to create the project governing principles. The Utah governing principles are listed below in order of priority: Life safety drove the restoration: the worry of a collapse from a large seismic event. Utah expected the Capitol to be fully functional after renovation Preserve and restore the architectural integrity of the building. The Minnesota governing principles are listed below in order of priority: Restore Cass Gilbert s architectural statement Functionality Life safety and accessibility. Utah State Capitol - New Dome These principles were used to develop the scope, budget and schedule. The master plan built upon these principles and identified the budget and schedule through a series of working sessions with the commission. The master plan was presented to the legislature and ultimately was the tool that provided ample information to the legislature who chose to provide the first year of funding the project. Page 4

5 4. Comprehensive Master Plan The comprehensive master plan, by statute, was to include a recommended budget and schedule. Collaboration in the development of the master plan is the critical element to achieve strong support and understanding by the public and legislature. As such, the plan was developed in a collaborative environment with all stakeholders. 5. Project Definition Utah State Capitol - Frieze and Cornice Repair Collaboration is critical to achieve strong support and understanding by the public and the legislature. Plans should be developed in a collaborative environment with all stakeholders. Clear project definition is a crucial step, and one that needs to be well done to be effective. It builds upon the master plan and focuses only on those things which concern the owners. Project definition includes the following key elements: Design guidelines are a set of ideas or elements of the building which the owner would like the architect, engineers and CM to seriously consider. Design imperatives are a set of mandatory ideas or elements of the building which the owner is instructing the architect, engineer and CM that to incorporate. Scoping workshops are the process where the guidelines and the imperatives are introduced to the team at length, and where all stakeholders determine how to implement a particular idea or set of ideas. The workshops offer an environment where ideas can be discussed and solutions explored through open collaboration with all interested parties. Summary documents describe the outcome of the decisions and solutions that were reached during the workshop. These documents are incorporated into the design guidelines and imperative documents. Scope estimates and schedule impacts are analyzed the following week to determine where scope has increased or decreased based on the workshop decision. The team updates the overall cost model. Once this project definition phase is complete the architect should be able to complete with scope documents quickly. The budget should be resolved and the schedule or sequences of construction completely identified and understood. In other words, the complete scope of the project is outlined, on budget and a clear path to accomplish it is developed. On the Utah State Capitol, project definition took two years, beginning with the start of the design guidelines and ending with the conclusion of the scope documents, budget and schedule. The architect was brought into the process just prior to the beginning of the scoping workshops. Additionally the Historic Structure Report (HSR) which is critical for historic buildings like the Capitol, was accomplished concurrently with the design guidelines and incorporated into the final documents. Utah State Capitol Page 5

6 Minnesota has made some adjustments in the timing and collaboration of the project which should increase its effectiveness. These include bringing on the architect, engineers and CM prior to the completion of the design guidelines. This will allow the design and construction team to hear from the owner and others firsthand why things are important. They have also chosen to develop the HSR alongside the development of the design guidelines and scoping workshops. This will provide the opportunity for the HSR to help inform direction the restoration. Summary There are five best practices for planning State Capitol renovations. Establish a Preservation Commission Identify champions to communicate the vision Establish governing principles Turn expectations into a master plan Create clarity and understanding through project definition These five best practices are all built upon collaborative leadership. This starts at the first meeting, where in the case of the Minnesota State Capitol, Governor Dayton challenged each member to be a good steward and take responsibility for the restoring of the building. It is continued by collaborative facilitation of workshops that align stake holder expectations, and clearly identifies the principles, master plan and guidelines that the architects and CM will use to successfully restore the Peoples House. If you would like to learn more about MOCA please contact David Hart at dhh@ mocasystems.com or visit Minnesota State Capitol - House Chamber Page 6