REPORT OF PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT … · The inverted pyramid 5-story portion of the structure was built in ... smallest and each upper floor being ... that are original to

REPORT OF

PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT

for ST. PETERSBURG PIER

800 SECOND AVENUE NE SUITE 3002

ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33701-3503

Prepared for: CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG

POST OFFICE BOX 2842 ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33731-2842

Prepared by:

Professional Service Industries, Inc. 1748 33rd Street

Orlando, Florida 32839

PSI Project No. 0753-208-Rev 2 Report Date: April 15, 2010

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY

Client Name City of St. Petersburg

Project Number 0753-208-Rev 2

Contract ID, Date PSI Proposal No. 0753-9824, dated October 13, 2009

Project Name St. Petersburg Pier

Current Use or Property Type Retail shopping and restaurants

Address 800 Second Avenue NE

City, County, State, Zip Code St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida 33701-3503

Area of Site (acres) 5.29 acres per Pinellas County Property Appraisers web site. Only the Pier building is the subject of this survey

Number of Buildings One

Area of Buildings (SF) 78,356 Gross SF per the Pinellas County Property Appraisers web site

Number of Stories

The core of the building has an inverted pyramid shape that is 5-stories in height. This portion of the building was constructed in 1973. Additions performed in the late 1980’s generally added more 1-story building areas around the first floor of the original central core.

Subgrade Spaces? The building is constructed on a concrete deck located above Tampa Bay

Year(s), First Dev’d for Current Use The inverted pyramid 5-story portion of the structure was built in 1973.

Year(s) Additional Phases One story additions were performed around the one story portion of the original building in 1988.

Years Significant Renovations Interior finish upgrades and mechanical upgrades were generally performed at the original portion of the structure in conjunction with the 1988 1-story additions.

Current Adjoining Uses: General Tampa Bay

Applicable Building Code(s): Original Unknown

Applicable Building Code(s): Current 2009 Florida Building Code

Outstanding Code Violations? The City of St. Petersburg owns the property. No outstanding violations were reported.

Zone Special Attraction

Analysis Term 10 years

Inflation Factor 3 percent

Opinion of Cost: Immediate Needs $284,750

Opinion of Cost: Needs Over Term Uninflated

$2,287,760

Opinion of Cost: Needs Over Term Inflated

$2,390,593

Opinion of Cost: Needs Over Term Uninflated , $/sf/yr.

$5.84

Opinion of Cost: Needs Over Term Inflated, $/sf/yr.

$6.10

Probable Maximum Loss (Seismic) N/A

2 PSI Project No.: 0753-208Rev 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 3

2.0 USE AND QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 RELIANCE ............................................................................................................ 8 2.2 USE BY OTHER PARTIES ................................................................................... 8 2.3 STANDARD OF CARE AND WARRANTIES ........................................................ 8 2.4 QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 9

3.0 CONTRACT AND PURPOSE OF SERVICES................................................................ 11 3.1 CONTRACT ........................................................................................................ 11 3.2 PURPOSE OF SERVICES.................................................................................. 11

4.0 SCOPE, METHODOLOGY AND RESOURCES ............................................................ 12 4.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES....................................................................................... 12 4.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 12 4.3 RESOURCES...................................................................................................... 15 4.4 ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS ............................................................................ 17 4.5 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS........................................................................... 17

5.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION......................................................................... 18 5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 18 5.2 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 20 5.3 STRUCTURE, FOUNDATION AND EXTERIOR WALLS ................................... 22 5.4 ROOF .................................................................................................................. 24 5.5 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING SYSTEMS .................................. 26 5.6 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS....................................................... 30 5.7 FIRE, LIFE SAFETY AND SECURITY SYSTEMS.............................................. 31 5.8 INTERIOR FINISHES.......................................................................................... 32

6.0 NON-ASTM SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................... 33 6.1 DISABLED PERSON ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................... 33 6.2 LIMITED MOLD ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 34 6.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS ESTIMATE ......................................................... 34

APPENDICES Appendix A: Recommended Needs Spreadsheet Appendix B: Photographs


1.2 CONCLUSIONS

The St. Petersburg Pier is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. The property is a tourist attraction that is owned by the City of St. Petersburg. The site contains a single building that is located at the end of a concrete pier. The building contains 5-story and 1-story areas. The 5-story portion of the structure is constructed in the shape of an inverted pyramid with the first floor being the smallest and each upper floor being progressively larger. This portion of the building was constructed in 1973. One story additions were constructed around the perimeter of the existing structure in 1988. The 5th floor of the inverted pyramid portion of the building contains Cha Cha’s restaurant. The 5th floor of the structure also contains a fairly large observation deck that is enclosed by perimeter fencing. The 5th floor also has a penthouse that contains mechanical equipment that serves the building. The 4th floor contains the Columbia restaurant. The 3rd floor contains the property management offices and a lot of open areas that can be used for special events. The 2nd floor of the inverted pyramid portion of the structure contains a retail store that has aquariums and retail areas. The 1st floor of the building generally contains small shops and restaurants as well as support facilities for the building. The building contains a total of 78,356 gross square feet per the Pinellas County Property Appraiser. The building is constructed on a concrete deck that is elevated above Tampa Bay. The concrete deck and building are supported on concrete piles and other steel reinforced concrete sub structures. The scope of work for this project includes the primary building and does not include the associated pier and other infrastructure. The site is generally fully developed with landscaping being limited to isolated planting beds. The landscaping is provided water from an irrigation system that uses water from a municipal source. Storm water drains via sheet flow to drop inlets that are generally located throughout the property. The site’s drainage provisions are direct storm water directly into Tampa Bay. Power is provided to the site through a 1000 KVA pad mounted transformer located in an outdoor enclosure at the north side of the building. Progress Energy reportedly provides power to the site. Tenant service sizes vary depending on their individual needs. Service to the buildings is 480/277 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire, 2000 amp electrical service. Indoor downstream step down transformers provide 208/120 volt electrical service for receptacles and small appliances. Electrical rooms with branch panels are located in the northwest stairwell on each floor of the building. Sewer and water services are provided by the City of St. Petersburg. The 5-story inverted pyramid portion of the structure is primarily provided conditioned air by a central chiller system. The chiller and most of the air handler units are located in a roof top penthouse mechanical room. Auxiliary split system and package units also provide conditioned air to isolated interior spaces within these building areas. The 1-story portion of the structure is primarily provided conditioned air by four (4) package HVAC units that are mounted on the first floor roof. These units were manufactured by Trane and were installed during additions that were performed in 1988. The first floor of the building also has a few isolated areas that have other small HVAC units that provide condition air to these interior areas. All of the building areas are protected by wet sprinkler systems that are connected to a central fire alarm system. Fire extinguishers are generally located throughout the site. Fire hydrants are also located on site. The property is in overall fair overall condition but due to its age some upgrades/improvements are needed to bring the property up to current standards. The property also was adversely


impacted by Hurricane Charley that moved through the area in 2004. Although repairs were performed after the storm, the property’s various components were stressed by the extreme conditions produced by the hurricane which may require replacement of some of these components earlier than their normal expected useful lives. Budget restraints have also adversely impacted the maintenance of the facility which also may shorten the expected useful life of some of the building components. The inverted pyramid central core portion of the building is approaching 40-years of age which is generally considered the expected useful life (EUL) of a building. This generally requires gutting the existing structure and installing new interior finishes, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Since the existing building is located in a harsh marine environment the expected useful life of the original portion of the structure should be expected to be shortened to less than its typical expected useful life. This generally means that the original portion of the building is expected to require a complete renovation during the next few years. The current building configuration is considered maintainable but it may not be economically feasible. The current building configuration only provides a limited amount of net rentable retail space that can be leased to provide income to maintain the existing building, support facilities and the pier structure itself. The existing building although considered unique may not provide enough net rentable space to maintain these areas without being subsidized by the City of ST. Petersburg. Consideration should be given to performing a design evaluation of the existing infrastructure to determine what can be done to improve the revenue stream for the property so that it can be self supporting. This type of evaluation is considered beyond the scope of this survey.

1.2.1 SITE IMPROVEMENTS (NOT IN SCOPE OF WORK FOR THIS SURVEY)

Recommended Immediate Needs:

No Recommended Immediate Needs were observed or reported at the time of our site visit.

Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term: No Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term were reported or observed at the

time of our site visit.

1.2.2 PAVEMENT AND PARKING (NOT IN SCOPE OF WORK FOR THIS SURVEY)

Recommended Immediate Needs: No Recommended Immediate Needs were observed or reported at the time of our site

visit.




1.2.3 STRUCTURE, FOUNDATION AND EXTERIOR WALLS


visit. Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term: Clean, seal and paint the applicable exterior surfaces of the building. (Year 1) Clean and paint aluminum railings located around the Cha Cha’s patio deck. (Year 1) Remove and replace double leaf hollow metal door that leads to the penthouse

mechanical room. The existing door is heavily corroded. (Year 1) Remove and replace glass curtain wall systems that are original to the 1973 construction

of the inverted pyramid portion of the building. The existing glazing systems are approaching the end of their useful life, do not meet current energy codes and do not meet the Florida Building Codes requirements for impact resistance. (Year 1)

1.2.4 ROOF


Replace the waterproofing membrane and reslope the outdoor patio roof area at Cha Cha’s. The existing patio surface is not properly sloped to drainage provisions. The patio areas are accessible to the public and pond excessively which creates slip/fall hazards that create liability issues for the property. PSI considers the remediation of the ponding issues at this building area an immediate need.

Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term: Replace aggregate surface built up roof areas that are associated with the rooftop

mechanical penthouse and part of Cha Cha’s back of house restaurant areas. (Year 1) Replace EPDM single ply roof at the first level of the building. (Year 2)

1.2.5 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS

Recommended Immediate Needs: Allowance for the removal of abandoned piping installed below the pier. The abandoned

piping is extremely deteriorated and could break loose damaging other systems that serve the building.

Install a lightning protection system at the building. Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term: Due to the age of the building, PSI recommends that a full asbestos survey be

performed. Many of the MEP systems are approaching the end of their useful lives and costs associated with replacing these systems can be greatly increased if asbestos containing materials are present. (Year 1)


Remove and replace abandoned York chiller. The building’s original HVAC had two (2) chiller systems for redundancy and maintenance. The building currently only has one (1) operational chiller. The building should be maintained as it was originally designed. (Year 1)

Remove and replace McQuay air handler units that serve the second through fifth floors of the 1973 portion of the building. The units are generally at the end of the serviceable life. (Year 1)

Remove and replace package rooftop HVAC units that serve the first floor of the building. These units have corrosion issues and are generally approaching the end of the serviceable lives. (Year 3)

Allowance to replace domestic water supply system and drain systems that are associated with the 1973 portion of the building. (Year 1)

Allowance for the removal of asbestos containing materials that are likely present in a structure of its age. (Year 1)

1.2.6 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS


No Recommended Immediate Needs were observed or reported at the time of our site visit.



1.2.7 FIRE, LIFE SAFETY AND SECURITY SYSTEMS

Recommended Immediate Needs: Replace the aging central fire alarm system. Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term: No Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term were reported or observed at the


1.2.8 DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY


visit.

1.2.9 INTERIORS


visit.




1.2.10 MICROBIAL GROWTH & MOLD


visit. Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term: No Recommended Physical Needs Over-the-Term were reported or observed at the



2.0 USE AND QUALIFICATIONS

2.1 RELIANCE

This report was prepared pursuant to the contract PSI has with City of St. Petersburg. That contractual relationship included an exchange of information about the property that was unique and between PSI and its client and serves as the basis upon which this report was prepared. Because of the importance of the communication between PSI and its client, reliance or any use of this report by anyone other than City of St. Petersburg for whom it was prepared, is prohibited and therefore not foreseeable to PSI. Third party reliance letters may be issued on request and upon payment of the, then current fee for such letters. All third parties relying on PSI’s reports, by such reliance, agree to be bound by the proposal and PSI’s general conditions. No reliance by any party is permitted without such agreement, regardless of the content of the reliance letter itself.

2.2 USE BY OTHER PARTIES

Any unauthorized reliance on or use of this report, including any of the information or conclusions contained herein, will be at the third party's risk. For the same reasons, no warranties or representations, expressed or implied in this report, are made to any such third party.

2.3 STANDARD OF CARE AND WARRANTIES

PSI performed the Property Condition Assessment (PCA) using methods and procedures and practices generally conforming to ASTM E 2018-08, Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process. The guide describes these methodologies as representing good commercial and customary practice for performing a PCA of a parcel of property. Findings and conclusions derived from the methodologies described in the guide contain all of the limitations inherent in the methodologies that are referred to in ASTM 2018-01. In addition our report was in general accordance with the requirements of Principal Real Estate Investors Guidance Document Property Condition Report (PCR) for mortgage lending.

PSI warrants that the findings contained in this report have been prepared in general accordance with accepted professional practices at the time of report preparation as applied by similar professionals. Future changes in standards, practices, or regulations cannot be anticipated and have not been addressed.

The methodologies include reviewing information provided by other sources. PSI treats information obtained from the record reviews and interviews concerning the property as reliable and the ASTM guide does not require PSI to independently verify the information. Therefore, PSI cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the information provided by these other sources is accurate or complete.

No other warranties are implied or expressed.


2.4 QUALIFICATIONS

Our services were not intended to be technically exhaustive. There is a possibility that even with proper application of methodologies, conditions may exist on the property that could not be identified within the scope of the assessment(s) or that were not reasonably identifiable from the available information.

Our services and report are not an instrument of professional architectural or engineering service, and PSI did not develop architectural or engineering findings, conclusions or recommendations, nor did PSI verify designs or design capacities. PSI's observations, opinion, and recommendations may have been developed under time and budgetary constraints inherent to ASTM 2018-08. Our observations do not warrant or guarantee neither the performance of any building components or systems nor adequacy of design.

In general accordance with ASTM 2018-08, PSI’s report is based on a limited ground level (except where otherwise explicitly indicated) visual inspection of the property. PSI did not gain access to all areas, perform any exploratory probing or discovery, perform tests, operate any specific equipment or take measurements or samples. The PCA was not a building code, safety, regulatory or environmental compliance inspection.

No PCA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding repair and maintenance needs in connection with the property. The PCA was intended to reduce, but not eliminate uncertainty regarding such needs.

The observations and recommendations presented in this report are time dependent, and conditions will change. This report speaks only as of its date.

As directed by the client, PSI performed a limited assessment for the presence of visible mold. The assessment did not investigate other biological contaminants in or around any structure, and our service was not designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of the amplification of the same. Client acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the environment with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. Client further acknowledges that site conditions are outside of PSI's control, and that mold amplification will likely occur, or continue to occur, in the presence of moisture. As such, PSI cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification.


Please contact Keith Mudrak at (407) 304-5560 with questions you have about this report.

Respectfully Submitted: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC

Keith R. Mudrak James C. Keeney, CCC, GC Staff Engineer PCR Reviewer Principal Consultant Report Date: April 15, 2010


3.0 CONTRACT AND PURPOSE OF SERVICES

3.1 CONTRACT

Summary Client Name City of St. Petersburg Authorizing Person’s Name Mr. Raul Quintana Authorizing Person’s Title Project Manager Contract Identification PSI Proposal No. 0753-9824 Authorization Date October 26, 2009

3.2 PURPOSE OF SERVICES

PSI understands that Client’s purpose for having the PCA performed is to conduct a baseline survey of the general physical condition of the improvements located on the subject property.


4.0 SCOPE, METHODOLOGY AND RESOURCES

4.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES

4.1.1 PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT

PSI performed a Property Condition Assessment of the subject property that generally conforms to the scope and limitations of ASTM Guide E 2018-08. The assessment was also intended to satisfy Client's requirements, described in its undated guidance document for Engineering Reports.

The assessment included a walk-though survey, records review, and interviews. Our services did not include sampling or testing of any kind.

4.1.2 NON-ASTM SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS

PSI assessed other conditions that are beyond the consideration of ASTM E 2018-08. They are tabulated below:

Summary Performed? Yes No Disabled Person Access Assessment Limited Mold Assessment Probable Maximum Loss Estimation

4.2 METHODOLOGY

4.2.1 PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT

The Property Condition Assessment includes:

Conducting a walk-through survey of readily accessibly portions of the property

Observing conspicuous conditions

Researching readily available information relating to the property

Recommending reasonable remedies.

Developing Opinions of Probable Costs (Opinions of Cost) associated with the remedies.

WALK-THROUGH SURVEY

Mr. Keith Mudrak a PSI employee from our Orlando, Florida office conducted the walk-through surveys between November 5-18, 2009. Our observer was escorted in part by Mr. Brian Hill (Operations Manager) with Urban Retail Properties, LLC who currently manage the property.


The walk-through survey consisted of observing obvious, easily visible items from the periphery of the property and from accessible adjacent public thoroughfares, as well as representative portions of the property's interior and building systems. These items were conspicuous and patent, and may be observed without intrusion, removal of materials, exploratory probing, use of special protective clothing, or use of special equipment.

Visual reconnaissance of adjoining properties was limited to areas and facilities that were readily observable from the subject property or from public access areas. Photographs were taken to document the features observed during the walk-through, where possible.

RESEARCH

PSI reviewed pertinent portions of practically reviewable documents. In addition, the PCA normally includes interviews with persons knowledgeable about the site. Sources of information that PSI reviews are listed in the subsequent sections of this report.

ESTIMATION OF CONDITION

PSI used its experience and judgment to evaluate items observed and assign a condition assessment to them. The condition descriptions used in this report are described below:

Good: Component or system is sound and performing its function. Although it may show signs of normal wear and tear, commensurate with its age, some minor remedial work may be required.

Fair: Component or system is performing adequately at this time but: exhibits deferred maintenance, evidence of previous repairs, workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards, is obsolete, or is approaching the end of its typical expected useful life. Repair or replacement is required to prevent further deterioration, restore it to good condition, prevent premature failure, or to prolong its remaining useful life. Component or system exhibits an inherent deficiency of which the cost to remedy is not commensurate with the deficiency but that is best remedied by a program of increased preventive maintenance or periodic repairs.

Poor: Component or system has either failed or cannot be relied upon to continue performing its original function as a result of having realized or exceeded its typical expected useful life, excessive deferred maintenance, a state of disrepair, and inherent design deficiency or workmanship. Present condition could contribute or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Repair or replacement is required.

It should be noted that a condition term applied overall to a system does not preclude that a part, section, or component of the system may differ in condition. The items will also be affected by circumstances that occur after the date of the walk-through survey.

ESTIMATION OF AGE

PSI used information gathered about the property to estimate the Expected Useful Life (EUL) and Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of items observed. The use of these terms in this report is described below:


Expected Useful Life (EUL): an estimate of the average amount of time, in years, that in item, component of system may function when installed new, assuming routine maintenance is practiced.

Remaining Useful Life (RUL): a subjective estimate of the number of remaining years that an item, component or system is able to function in accordance with is intended purpose before warranting replacement, based upon observation or average estimates of similar items, components, or systems or a combination thereof.

ESTIMATION OF QUANTITIES

PSI used the information gathered to estimate quantities of items or materials exhibiting similar conditions or characteristics. These estimates are not exact and were used to understand the magnitude of the representative conditions.

RECOMMENDED REMEDIES

PSI used information and the estimated age to develop a list of recommended remedies or Physical Needs for the property. PSI segregated the needs into two categories:

Immediate Needs: Items that require immediate action as a result of any of the following:

Material existing or potential unsafe conditions

Material building or fire code violations.

Conditions that if left un-remedied have the potential to result in or contribute to critical element of system failure within one year or will most probably result in a significant escalation of its remedial cost.

Needs over the Term: Items requiring repair and replacement which are beyond the scope of regular maintenance, but which are considered necessary to maintain the overall condition of the property.

OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST

PSI developed Opinions of Probable Cost (Opinions of Cost) for the recommended remedies. Cost estimates are to be considered a rough order of magnitude only. The subject building is located in a unique marine setting which can significantly influence cost estimate.

PSI developed the costs using a combination of sources, typically including one or more of the following:

Commercially available published cost information

Means Repair and Remodeling Cost Data

Means Facilities Maintenance and Repair Cost Data

Site-Specific historical experience costs


User provided unit costs

PSI’s experience, databases or files

Third party cost information from contractors, vendors, or suppliers.

The costs assume repair and replacements to be “in-kind” with those existing and do not anticipate an upgrade or improvement of existing conditions.

The Opinions of Cost are preliminary budgets for the need or remedy. The actual cost of recommended repairs will likely vary based on such factors as the amount of work competed at one time, the quality of material used, the quality of workmanship as well as amount of work which may be accomplished by qualified and capable in house maintenance staff.

Note that our assessment does not identify minor, inexpensive repairs or maintenance items that are clearly part of the property owner’s current operating budget so long as these items appear to be taken care of on a regular basis. The assessment does include infrequently occurring maintenance items, such as exterior paint, deferred maintenance repairs and replacements that normally involve significant expense or outside contracting.

Our Opinions of Cost are presented on the Needs over the Term spreadsheet that is appended to this report.

4.2.2 NON-ASTM SCOPE ASSESSMENTS

Additional assessment services are described in Section 6.

4.3 RESOURCES

Information sources are listed or referenced in subsequent sections of the report. Our interpretation of that information is discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. Selected excerpts of the information obtained are appended.

4.3.1 BASIC PROPERTY INFORMATION

Mr. Brian Hill with Urban Retail Properties, LLC provided information regarding the size, age and location of the subject property and instructions regarding access to the site.

4.3.2 CLIENT PROVIDED INFORMATION

PSI requested that the Property Management Company Urban Retail Properties, LLC provide information regarding the property, including:

Summary Provided/Sent to PSI

Obtained during Walk-Through Survey

Resource Comments

Record Construction Drawings Partial construction drawings were reviewed while on site


Summary Provided/Sent to PSI

Obtained during Walk-Through Survey

Resource Comments

Maintenance Logs None provided for review

Certificate of Occupancy None provided for review

Prior Property Condition Report (PCRs) None provided for review

Building, Fire, Life Safety and Zoning Violations

The City of St. Petersburg currently owns the property. No code violations were reported.

Safety inspection records None provided for review

Appraisal None provided for review

Warranty Information: Roof None provided for review

Warranty Information: Boiler, chillers, cooling towers, etc.

None provided for review

Property specific historical repair and replacement cost information


Pending proposals or contracts for material repairs/replacements

Verbal information was provided concerning past projects and pending proposals to help to determine historical pricing for the property.

ADA accessibility survey None provided for review

Building rent roll, occupancy percentage, and turnover ration


Marketing and/or Leasing Information


Information reported to PSI is incorporated into and discussed in appropriate sections of the report.

4.3.3 PRIOR REPORTS

PSI was not provided with prior reports of prior PCA assessments of the site.


4.3.4 INTERVIEWS

PSI interviewed the parties tabulated below during this assessment.

Summary Name Title/Function Affiliation Mr. Brian Hill Operations Manager Urban Retail Properties, LLC Ms. Carol Everson Property Manager Urban Retail Properties, LLC Mr. Raul Quintana City Architect City of St. Petersburg

4.3.5 OTHER RESOURCES

Other resources and information accessed for purposes of this site assessment are discussed in corresponding sections of the report. Published sources used to complete this PCA but not previously listed are cited at the point they are referenced.

4.4 ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS

ASTM E 2018-01 sets forth limitations in the assessment process. Limitations to the accuracy and completeness of this report are tabulated below.

Summary Limitation? Yes No Access Limitations Physical Obstructions to Observations Other

Some areas were not accessed.

Some spaces had acoustical ceilings limiting observations of roof deck and associated mechanical systems.

4.5 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS

PSI made the following assumptions in developing our findings and conclusions:

Extrapolation - PSI extrapolated observations and findings actually made to all typical areas or systems of the subject property for the purposes of describing such condition within the report and preparing opinions of probable costs for suggested remedies.

Regulatory Information - PSI considers all other information obtained from regulatory or enforcement agencies, such as building departments, to be complete, accurate and current.

Interviews - PSI considers all information provided through interviews to be complete and unbiased.


5.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION

5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Project Summary

Property Name St. Petersburg Pier

Current Use of Property Type Retail shopping and restaurants

Property Address 800 Second Avenue NE

City, County, State, ZIP Code St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida 33701-3503

Area of Site (acres) 5.29 acres per Pinellas County Property Appraisers web site. Only the Pier building is the subject of this survey

Number of Buildings One

Area of Buildings (SF) 78,356 Gross SF per the Pinellas County Property Appraisers web site

Number of Stories

The core of the building has an inverted pyramid shape that is 5-stories in height. This portion of the building was constructed in 1973. Additions performed in the late 1980’s generally added more 1-story building areas around the first floor of the original central core.

First Developed for Current Use The inverted pyramid 5-story portion of the structure was reportedly built in 1973.

Additional Phases One story additions were reportedly performed around the one story portion of the original building in 1988.

Significant Renovations Interior finish upgrades and mechanical upgrades were generally performed at the original portion of the structure in conjunction with the 1988 1-story additions.

Current Adjoining Uses (General) Tampa Bay

The St. Petersburg Pier is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. The property is a tourist attraction that is owned by the City of St. Petersburg. The site contains a single building that is located at the end of a concrete pier. The building contains 5-story and 1-story areas. The 5-story portion of the structure is constructed in the shape of an inverted pyramid with the first floor being the smallest and each upper floor being progressively larger. This portion of the building was completed in 1973. One story additions were constructed around the perimeter of the existing structure in 1988. The 5th floor of the inverted pyramid portion of the building contains Cha Cha’s restaurant. The 5th floor of the structure also contains a fairly large observation deck that is enclosed by perimeter fencing. The 5th floor also has a penthouse that contains mechanical equipment that serves the building. The 4th floor contains the Columbia restaurant. The 3rd floor contains the property management offices and a lot of open areas that can be used for special events. The 2nd floor of the inverted pyramid portion of the structure contains a retail store that has aquariums and retail areas. The 1st floor of the building generally contains small shops and restaurants as well as support facilities for the building. The building contains a total of 78,356 Gross square feet per the Pinellas County Property Appraiser. The building is constructed on a concrete deck that is elevated above Tampa Bay. The concrete deck and building are supported on concrete piles and other steel reinforced concrete sub structures. The scope of work for this project includes the primary building and does not include the associated pier and other infrastructure.


The site is generally fully developed with landscaping being limited to isolated planting beds. The landscaping is provided water from an irrigation system that uses water from a municipal source. Storm water drains via sheet flow to drop inlets that are generally located throughout the property. The site’s drainage provisions direct storm water directly into Tampa Bay. Power is provided to the site through a 1000 KVA pad mounted transformer located in an outdoor enclosure at the north side of the building. Progress Energy reportedly provides power to the site. Tenant service sizes vary depending on their individual needs. Service to the buildings is 480/277 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire, 2000 amp electrical service. Indoor downstream step down transformers provide 208/120 volt electrical service for receptacles and small appliances. Electrical rooms with branch panels are located in the northwest stairwell on each floor of the building. Sewer and water services are provided by the City of St. Petersburg. The 5-story inverted pyramid portion of the structure is primarily provided conditioned air by a central chiller system. The chiller and most of the air handler units are located in a roof top penthouse mechanical room. Auxiliary split system and package units also provide conditioned air to isolated interior spaces within these building areas. The 1-story portion of the structure is primarily provided conditioned air by four (4) package HVAC units that are mounted on the first floor roof. These units were manufactured by Trane and were installed during additions that were performed in 1988. The first floor of the building also has a few isolated areas that have other small HVAC units that provide condition air to these interior areas. All of the building areas are protected by wet sprinkler systems that are connected to a central fire alarm system. Fire extinguishers are generally located throughout the site. Fire hydrants are also located on site. The property is in overall fair overall condition but due to its age some upgrades/improvements are needed to bring the property up to current standards. The property also was adversely impacted by Hurricane Charley that moved through the area in 2004. Although repairs were performed after the storm, the property’s various components were stressed by the extreme conditions produced by the hurricane which may require replacement of some of these components earlier than their normal expected useful lives. Budget restraints have also adversely impacted the maintenance of the facility which also may shorten the expected useful life of some of the building components. The facility has however been maintained adequately enough so that there are no current safety issues outstanding. The current building configuration is considered maintainable but it is generally not considered economically feasible. The current building configuration only provides a limited amount of net rentable retail space that can be leased to provide income to maintain the existing building, support facilities and the pier structure itself. The existing building although considered unique does not provide enough net rentable space to maintain these areas. The inverted pyramid central core portion of the building is approaching 40-years of age which is generally considered the expected useful life (EUL) of a building. This generally requires gutting the existing structure and installing new interior finishes, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Since the existing building is located in a harsh marine environment the expected useful life of the original portion of the structure should be expected to be shortened to less than its typical expected useful life. This generally means that the original portion of the building is expected to require a complete renovation during the next few years. PSI generally does not believe that renovating the existing building systems is economically feasible. Demolishing the existing building and re-building a more conventional multi-story structure makes much more sense. A newer building


could be constructed that provides much more net rentable square feet and would cost a lot less to maintain. Consideration should be given to replacing the existing building with a new structure that takes advantage of the site’s panoramic view and unique location.

5.2 SITE IMPROVEMENTS

5.2.1 TOPOGRAPHY/LANDSCAPING/SITE ACCESS

The site is generally flat with engineered slopes located in the paved areas to direct storm water to drop inlets which provide site drainage. Roof drainage provisions consist of internal roof drains. All of the site’s drainage provisions direct storm water run-off directly into Tampa Bay. The site is generally fully developed with landscaping being limited to isolated planting beds. The landscaping is provided water from an irrigation system that uses water from a municipal source.

The pier and its associated improvements are accessed through a concrete bridge that is connected to the mainland and off site parking areas.

Observations/Comments:

The topography and site access of the site appears to be in generally good condition with no observable distress. No issues pertaining to accessing or leaving the site were reported or observed. The landscaping is in fair overall condition. The site’s irrigation system is in working order. PSI’s scope of work for this project focused specifically on the main building improvements and not on other site improvements such as the bridge leading to the Pier facility or the drive lanes that are located adjacent to Pier facility.

Recommendations

No Recommended Immediate Needs or Physical Needs Over-the-Term were observed or reported at the time of our walk-through.

5.2.2 STORM WATER DRAINAGE

The parking areas, driveways, and other paved areas drain via sheet flow to drop inlets. Roof drainage is accomplished by internal drains. All of the site’s drainage provisions direct water to Tampa Bay below the concrete pier.


Drainage issues were reported at the patio observation deck that is associated with Cha Cha’s restaurant on the 5th floor of the pyramid portion of the building. These issues are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of this report. Cast iron piping that is associated with the internal roof drains that are located at the pyramid portion of the structure that was constructed in 1973 have corrosion issues. These piping systems have been exposed to a salt air environment for an extended period of time and are approaching the end of their useful life. The cast iron piping associated with the roof drains at the original portion of the building should be replaced before they fail and potentially cause water damage to the interior finishes of the structure. We have made these recommendations in Section 5.5.4 of this report. Piping associated with the roof drains at the 1-


story portions of the building that were constructed in 1988 are in better condition and should not require replacement.

Recommendations

Refer to Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.4 for recommendations.

5.2.3 CONCRETE SITE FEATURES

Concrete site features include curbs, wheel stops, sidewalks and light pole pedestal pads. Concrete sidewalks generally provide egress around the perimeter of the building. Two (2) ADA ramps are installed adjacent to the south side of the building. Drive lanes that provide access to the site are generally constructed of asphalt pavement. Concrete pavers are located at primary building entrances.


The concrete work appears to be in overall fair to good condition. These areas are generally considered out of the scope of work for this project since the building is the primary focus of our survey.

Recommendations


5.2.4 PAVEMENT

The drives and parking areas at the property are generally constructed of asphalt pavement.


The asphalt pavement at the site appears to be in fair to good overall condition. The pavement probably should be sealed and re-striped but these areas are generally excluded from the scope of work for this project. PSI has therefore not included sealing and re-striping the asphalt pavement in our recommended needs summary spreadsheet

Recommendations


5.2.5 PARKING

Limited parking is provided near the subject building. Some parking spaces are provided next to north side of the building for vendors and contractors that work at the property. Some additional parking is provided adjacent to the south side of the building. Two (2) of these parking spaces are designated for ADA usage. Valet parking is provided at the building’s main entrance at the west side of the structure. Surface parking is provided along the bridge that leads to the pier


building. Another surface parking lot is located next to the west end of the bridge that leads to the pier structure.


Parking generally appears to be limited but adequate for the site’s present use. These parking areas are associated with the pier structure but not part of the building itself so they have generally been excluded from the scope of work for this project.

Recommendations


5.3 STRUCTURE, FOUNDATION AND EXTERIOR WALLS

5.3.1 SUBSTRUCTURE

PSI was not provided copies of the building’s foundation drawings for review during the walk through. The building’s foundations appear to consist of reinforced concrete deck elevated above the surface of the water supported by concrete beams, piles and other steel reinforced sub structure systems. The substructure that is associated with the portion of the building that supports the inverted pyramid part of the building is extensive because of the shape of the overlying structure. The substructure at this part of the building generally consists of four massive caissons that are closely spaced.


The building’s foundations appeared to be in fair to good condition considering the age of the structure. We surveyed the underside of the pier from a boat and observed isolated settlement cracks that are typically found in structures that are of this age. No evidence of abnormal distress that would indicate a subsurface problem was observed. The pier’s pilings and other sub structure components are reportedly surveyed periodically and repairs are performed as required.

Recommendations


5.3.2 STRUCTURE

The core of the building has an inverted pyramid shape that is 5-stories in height. This portion of the building was constructed in 1973. This portion of the building is a steel reinforced concrete masonry structure. Additions performed in the late 1980’s generally added more 1-story building areas around the first floor of the original central core. These building areas were constructed using conventional framing techniques with EIFS (exterior insulated finish systems). Most of the building roof areas are low sloped with a few building areas at the newer first floor addition areas that have elevated roof sections that have pitched standing seam metal roof systems.



The structural systems for the building appeared to be in fair/good condition. No problems or issues were reported or observed.

Recommendations


5.3.3 EXTERIOR WALLS

Exterior walls of the original inverted pyramid portions of the building have a painted concrete exterior finish. The newer 1-story portions of the structure that were added on in 1988 generally have framed exterior walls with a painted exterior insulated finish system (EIFS). Some of the exterior wall areas are clad with painted metal panels.


The exterior walls are in overall fair to good condition considering their overall age. The exterior of the building was reportedly painted in 2005. The building is starting to have a dated worn appearance and should be repainted early in the term. Isolated exterior wall repairs should be performed in preparation for painting the exterior surfaces of the building. Because of the salt air environment repainting should be performed at 5 year intervals throughout the term. Perimeter railings at the 5th floor observation deck at Cha Cha’s restaurant also require painting.

Recommendations

No Recommended Immediate Needs were observed or reported at the time of our walk-through.

Recommended Physical Needs Over the Term:

Clean, seal and paint the applicable exterior surfaces of the building. (Year 1)

Clean and paint aluminum railings located around the Cha Cha’s patio deck. (Year 1)

5.3.4 DOORS/WINDOWS

Building entrances generally consist of glass curtain wall systems that have aluminum frames. Service entrances have either hollow core metal doors or metal rollup doors. Interior tenant units have either solid wood core or hollow metal core doors. Windows consist of single or double pane glazing set in aluminum frames.


Window systems associated with the original building constructed in 1973 are approaching the end of their expected useful life (EUL). These windows do not meet current energy codes or the Florida Building code’s impact resistance requirements. These existing window systems also have wide sills that provide natural roosting areas for various birds that inhabit the area. The accumulation of bird droppings in the general area is excessive and causing distress to the


adjoining roofing and mechanical systems. The window sills should be altered during window replacement so that roosting areas are not provided. The accumulation of bird droppings also may pose environmental concerns since roof drainage from the adjoining areas at the 1-story portions that were constructed in 1988 drain directly into Tampa Bay.

Windows and doors associated with the portion of the structure that was added on in 1988 are in generally fair to good overall condition and should not require replacement during the term. The double leaf hollow core metal door at the building’s roof top mechanical penthouse however is corroding severely. This door should be scheduled for replacement.

Recommendations



Remove and replace double leaf hollow metal door that leads to the penthouse mechanical room. The existing door is heavily corroded. (Year 1)

Remove and replace glass curtain wall systems that are original to the 1973 construction of the inverted pyramid portion of the building. The existing glazing systems are approaching the end of their useful life, do not meet current energy codes and do not meet the Florida Building Codes requirements for impact resistance. (Year 1)

5.4 ROOF

5.4.1 ROOF TYPE

The original 5-story building generally has two separate low sloped roof areas. The roof areas over the mechanical penthouse and the back of the house parts of Cha Cha’s restaurant have an aggregate surfaced built up roof. The other roof area at the 5-story portion of the original structure consists of an open air patio area that has 2’ X 2’ concrete pavers installed over some type of water proofing system. The ages of these roofing systems are not known but they appear to predate the additions that were performed at the 1-story part of the building that were constructed in1988. Both of these roof areas that are associated with the original portion of the structure drain through internal roof drains that direct storm water directly into Tampa Bay.

Roof areas at the 1-story portion of the structure that was added on in 1988 are generally low sloped with isolated areas that are elevated from the field of the roof. These isolated roof areas have standing seam metal roofs. The low sloped roof areas at this part of the building have a single ply EPDM roof system that has an elastomeric coating system. This roof system appears to be original to construction in 1988.


All of the building’s low sloped roof areas are generally approaching the end of their expected useful lives (EUL) and are expected to require replacement during the first part of the term. The aggregate surfaced roof areas at the penthouse and the back of the house Cha Cha’s restaurant areas have visual signs of deterioration and evidence of previous repairs. These roof areas appear to be over 20 years old and should be replaced early in the term. The patio roof


areas that adjoin Cha Cha’s restaurant also have significant drainage issues that require remediation. These issues are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of this report.

The single ply EPDM roof areas at the 1-story portion of the structure appear to be original to the additions that were performed in 1988. EPDM roof systems generally have an expected useful life (EUL) of between 15 to 20 years. These roof areas are showing signs of deterioration and are approaching the end of their useful life. The elastomeric coating system may have been installed in an attempt to prolong the life of the roofing system but it still is expected to require replacement early in the term based on its age and physical condition.

Recommendations



Replace aggregate surface built up roof areas that area associated with the rooftop mechanical penthouse and part of Cha Cha’s back of house restaurant areas. (Year 1)

Replace EPDM single ply roof at the first level of the building. (Year 2)

5.4.2 ROOF DRAINAGE

Roof drainage at the low sloped roof areas consists of sheet flow to internal roof drains. These drainage provisions direct water directly into Tampa Bay. Roof drainage provisions appear to be original to construction that was performed in 1973 and 1988.


The drainage of the 1-story roof areas that were constructed in 1988 appear to be generally fair/good with no improvements required. Drainage at the aggregated surfaced built up roof areas over the penthouse mechanical room and the Cha Cha’s restaurant back of the house areas also appears to be adequate. The patio roof areas that adjoin the restaurant however have significant ponding issues. These areas are generally accessible to the public and need to be re-sloped to provide proper drainage. The excessive ponding is creating slip/fall hazards that are creating liability issues for the property. The patio area will generally have to be re-roofed to provide proper drainage. The concrete pavers will need to be temporarily removed so that the underlying water proofing system can be replaced and the roof deck re-sloped to direct water to the drainage provisions. The caste iron piping associated with the roof drains at the original portion of the structure that was constructed in 1973 are corroding and should be replaced. We have made these recommendations in Section 5.5.4 of this report. Replacement of these roof drainage provisions should generally be performed in conjunction with re-roofing.

Recommendations


Replace the waterproofing membrane and reslope the outdoor patio roof area at Cha Cha’s. The existing patio surface is not properly sloped to drainage provisions. The patio areas are accessible to the public and pond excessively which creates slip/fall hazards


that create liability issues for the property. PSI considers the remediation of the ponding issues at this building area an immediate need.

Recommended Physical Needs Over the Term were observed or reported at the time of our walk-through.

5.4.3 ROOF ACCESSORIES

The rooftop equipment and penetrations observed included HVAC unit supports, exhaust fans and various vent pipes.


Roof accessories appear to be in generally fair condition and commensurate with the age of the building. PSI recommends replacing the roof accessories as required at the same time the roofs are being replaced.

Recommendations


5.4.4 ROOF FLASHINGS

Parapet wall flashings are generally a continuation of the field membrane that terminates under metal termination bars or metal coping caps. Metal drip edge is located adjacent to gutters and other perimeter roof areas.


The flashing generally appears to be in fair to good condition and should be replaced at the same time the roofs are being replaced.

Recommendations


5.5 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING SYSTEMS

5.5.1 UTILITIES

Summary

Electricity Progress Energy Natural Gas TECO Fuel Oil N/A Telephone AT&T Potable Water City of St. Petersburg Sewer City of St. Petersburg


5.5.2 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

The original inverted pyramid portion of the building that was constructed in 1973 is primarily provided conditioned air by a central chilled water system. The building has two (2) chillers located in the roof top mechanical penthouse. One (1) of these chillers is original to the 1973 construction of the inverted pyramid portion of the structure. This unit was manufactured by York and is currently abandoned in place. The other chiller was replaced in 2004 along with the roof top cooling tower. The new chiller unit was manufactured by Carrier and reportedly has a 200 ton capacity. Six (6) air handler units (AHU) are associated with the chilled water system. Five (5) of these AHU units are also located in the roof top mechanical penthouse. The other AHU that serves the inverted pyramid portion of the building is located in a stairwell mechanical room at the northeast portion of the second story of the structure. This air handler unit serves the Aquarium tenant space at the second floor of the original portion of the building that was constructed in 1973. Five (5) of the air handler units that are associated with the chilled water HVAC system are original to construction in 1973. These units were manufactured by McQuay. The other air handler unit was replaced in 2004 in conjunction with the chiller and cooling tower replacement. The newer air handler unit was manufactured by Carrier. The inverted pyramid portion of the structure also has some other package and split system HVAC systems that serve dedicated individual interior spaces. One (1) of these units is a package HVAC unit that provides supplemental cooling to the second floor Aquarium tenant space. This unit was installed in 2008 and is the responsibility of the building owner. This unit was manufactured by Carrier and has a 10 ton cooling capacity. Three (3) additional 2 ton Carrier split system units provide conditioned air to roof top mechanical penthouses that contain elevator equipment. These units have been generally replaced during the past few years. The maintenance and replacement of these 2 ton Carrier units is reportedly the responsibility of the building owners. Cha Cha’s restaurant also has one additional roof top HVAC unit. This unit is reportedly maintained by the tenant.

The first floor of the building that was generally constructed in 1988 is primarily provided conditioned air from four (4) roof mounted package Trane HVAC units. Two (2) of these units have 40 ton cooling capacities and two (2) have 50 ton cooling capacities. Responsibility for maintaining these units is reportedly the building’s owners.


Many of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems that are associated with the original portion of the structure that was built in 1973 are approaching the end of their expected useful lives due to their age. Due to the age of construction of these systems their may be asbestos containing materials associated with each of these building components. Since the presence of asbestos containing materials can add significant costs to any renovation project, PSI recommends performing a full asbestos survey. We have not budgeted for any additional costs that may be associated with asbestos abatement that may be required during any building renovations or upgrades. These additional costs will need to be determined after the completion of the initial asbestos survey.

Many of the components of the chilled water central HVAC system are reaching the end of their serviceable lives. These components are generally associated with the original inverted pyramid portion of the structure. This portion of the building was originally provided conditioned air by two (2) chillers to provide redundancy and downtime for maintenance functions. Currently the


building only has one operational chiller. If this chiller is down for any reason none of the tenants at the second through 5th floor will have any air conditioning which will impact their ability to conduct business. Tenants may be able to hold the building’s owners responsible for these financial losses and demand compensation. The abandoned York chiller should be removed and replaced with a fully functional chiller so that these systems can operate as they were originally designed to do so. The original McQuay air handler units that are associated with the central chilled water system are also reaching the end of their serviceable life and should be scheduled for replacement. Many of these units have electric heat strips that are not operable so many of the interiors of the original portion of the building are not provided heat. This is generally not an issue because of the site’s location but there are times when it is needed. The new Carrier chiller, cooling tower, split and package HVAC units and the new carrier air handler unit that serve the original 1973 portion of the structure are in good overall condition and should last through the term with only routine maintenance being required.

The four (4) large rooftop Trane package HVAC units that serve the first floor building areas that were constructed in 1988 are in poor overall condition. These units are 21 years old. These types of HVAC systems typically have an expected useful life of 15 to 20 years. These units have recently been renovated with new coils and structural repairs to remediate severely corroded areas. These upgrades will prolong the expected useful lives of these units for a few years but wholesale replacement of these units is still expected early in the term. These four (4) roof top units have a combined cooling capacity of 180 tons.

Recommendations



Due to the age of the building, PSI recommends that a full asbestos survey be performed. Many of the MEP systems are approaching the end of their useful lives and costs associated with replacing these systems can be greatly increased if asbestos containing materials are present. (Year 1)

Remove and replace abandoned York chiller. The building’s original HVAC had two (2) chiller systems for redundancy and maintenance. The building currently only has one (1) operational chiller. The building should be maintained as it was originally designed. (Year 1)

Remove and replace McQuay air handler units that serve the second through fifth floors of the 1973 portion of the building. The units are generally at the end of the serviceable life. (Year 1)

Remove and replace package rooftop HVAC units that serve the first floor of the building. These units have corrosion issues and are generally approaching the end of the serviceable lives. (Year 3)

Allowance for the removal of asbestos containing materials that are likely present in a structure of its age. (Year 1)

5.5.3 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

Power is provided to the site through a 1000 KVA pad mounted transformer located in an outdoor enclosure at the north side of the building. Progress Energy reportedly provides power to the site. Tenant service sizes vary depending on their individual needs. Service to the


building is 480/277 volt, 3 phase, 4 wire, 2000 amp electrical service. Indoor downstream step down transformers provide 208/120 volt electrical service for receptacles and small appliances. Electrical rooms with branch panels are located in the northwest stairwell on each floor of the building. Electrical wire was reported to be copper at the building.


The electrical system appears to be fair overall condition. The electrical feeder to the site’s main step down transformer have been replaced during the past few years and appear to be in fair to good condition. Electrical distribution systems generally have an expected useful life of 50 years and our anticipated to last through the term with expected routine maintenance.

The building is in an exposed unsheltered area that is prone to lightning strikes. The building has been reportedly been hit by lightning strikes a number of times during its existence. The building was not originally provided a lightning protection system. PSI recommends retrofitting a lightning protection system to the building’s exterior due to its exposed location and history of previous lightning strikes.

Recommendations

No Recommended Immediate Needs:

Install a lightning protection system at the building.

No Physical Needs Over-the-Term were observed or reported at the time of our walk-through.

5.5.4 PLUMBING SYSTEMS

It appears that typical supply piping for domestic water is copper. The sanitary sewer is reportedly a mixture of cast iron and PVC. Internal roof drains are also constructed of caste iron.


The plumbing system and piping generally appear to be in poor to fair condition. Trunk lines that provide potable water to the site and remove sanitary waste from the building generally are in fair to good condition. These lines are routed under the bridge that leads to the pier. PSI generally surveyed these systems from a boat and they are not original to construction with most of these systems having been replaced during the past 5 years. These trunk lines that provide water to and remove sanitary waste from the building are expected to last through the term with expected maintenance. Issues were however observed. The underside of pier contains numerous abandoned pipes and hangars. The abandoned piping and its associated hardware should be removed. The abandoned pipe and hardware could break loose damaging other systems that serve the building or direct floating debris into building components causing potentially severe damage.

Plumbing risers associated with the original 1973 portion of the structure are generally in poor overall condition and should be scheduled for replacement. These systems would include the main domestic water supply lines, sanitary drain lines and piping associated with the internal


roof drains. These systems have had piecemeal repairs and replacements performed over time and generally require wholesale replacement at this time.

Recommendations:


Allowance for the removal of abandoned piping installed below the pier. The abandoned piping is extremely deteriorated and could break loose damaging other systems that serve the building.


Allowance to replace domestic water supply system and drain systems that are associated with the 1973 portion of the building. (Year 1)

5.5.5 DOMESTIC WATER HEATERS

Hot water heaters are located in various building areas. The units are reportedly replaced as required.


Hot water heaters are considered deferred maintenance items and as such no costs are included in this review.

Recommendations


5.6 VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

The building has six (6) elevators that provide primary egress to the upper floors of the structure. The original inverted pyramid portion of the building contains four (4) passenger and one service elevator. These elevators are all traction type with rooftop penthouses containing the drive motors, cables and controls. The building also has one (1) hydraulic elevator located at the west side of the structure. This elevator was installed during additions that were performed in 1988.


All of the traction elevators that are associated with the original portion of the building have been renovated and upgraded to include new cables, motors, controls and cab finishes. The hydraulic elevator is also in good overall condition with no issues observed.

Recommendations



5.7 FIRE, LIFE SAFETY AND SECURITY SYSTEMS

5.7.1 FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS

All of the building interiors are equipped with a wet type sprinkler system. The sprinkler systems are constructed of steel pipe. The systems have a flow alarm and back flow preventer. The wet sprinkler systems are reportedly inspected on a yearly basis. Inspection stickers observed indicated that inspections are up to date. Fire extinguishers are located throughout the site. Fire hydrants were also observed on the site.


All fire suppression systems observed appeared to be adequate for present usage. We did not determine the brand of sprinkler heads at the building.

Please note that the Consumer Product Safety Commission in conjunction with Central Sprinkler Systems as well as other manufacturers have issued several “Voluntary Recalls” of sprinkler heads. The information in regards to the identification of the particular heads being recalled was not available to PSI at the time of this walk-through. PSI has not determined whether the particular sprinkler heads involved in this recall are located in the subject facility, but does recommend further investigation by the building owner. Information in regards to the specifics about the Central Sprinkler Systems recall can be reviewed at the web site www.sprinklerreplacement.com or perform a search for sprinkler system recalls. This information should be reviewed in conjunction with the owner’s specifications and warranty information.

Recommendations


5.7.2 LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS

Lighted exit signs, emergency doors and emergency lighting fixtures were observed. The building has a fire alarm system that is monitored by Commercial Communications Systems. The fire alarm system was manufactured by Cerberus Pyrotronics.


The life safety systems found appeared to be in fair to good condition. The fire alarm system however is antiquated and generally does not fully meet current building code requirements. The existing system should be replaced with a unit that fully meets current building code requirements.

Recommendations


Replace the aging central fire alarm system.


Recommended Physical Needs Over the Term were observed or reported at the time of our walk-through.

5.7.3 SECURITY SYSTEM

The property has security and maintenance staff on site 24/7. Tenants are responsible for security within their individual leased space.


The existing security systems appeared to be adequate and in good condition. No deficiencies were reported or observed during our site visit.

Recommendations


5.8 INTERIOR FINISHES

5.8.1 INTERIORS

Interior finishes vary from building to building. Ceiling finishes include acoustical tile and exposed structural ceilings. Wall finishes include painted gypsum and painted CMU block. Floor finishes include carpet, exposed concrete, tile and vinyl composition tile (VCT).


All interior areas observed were in fair to good condition. PSI does not expect any wholesale replacement of interior finishes will be required during the term. The facility has a fairly large in-house maintenance staff that takes care of issues as they arise.

Recommendations



6.0 NON-ASTM SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 DISABLED PERSON ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

6.1.1 BACKGROUND

The Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA) is a Federal Law effective on January 26, 1992. As defined under Title III of the ADA, existing facilities considered to be “public accommodations” must take steps to remove architectural and communication barriers that are deemed “readily achievable” under the retroactive requirements.

6.1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

This assessment included an extended review of the “common” exterior path of travel areas of the property. Significant items of non-conformance were noted without regard as to whether or not they are “readily achievable.” Factors to be considered in determining whether or not an action is readily achievable include the nature and cost of the action, the number of employees at the subject property and the financial resources of ownership and tenants. The decision as to which actions are to be undertaken as readily achievable is to be determined by the building owner in consultation with its accountants, attorneys and design/ construction professionals.

6.1.3 RESULTS

Parking areas were generally excluded from the scope of work for this survey. The site was generally developed before ADA laws were in place. Since the property was developed before these laws were in effect the site would not be required to meet the current ADA standards because of the grandfather clause. Federal and State ADA laws however do require reasonable upgrades that are readily achievable. These readily achievable ADA improvements generally apply to the public portions of the property. If significant renovations are performed or building additions or expansions are performed they will generally be required to meet current State and Federal requirements.

Recommendations: No Recommended Immediate Needs were observed or reported at the time of our walk-through.


6.2 LIMITED MOLD ASSESSMENT

6.2.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The limited mold assessment that PSI performed consisted of looking for indications of mold growth and indications of water intrusion and accumulation readily visible and identifiable during our walk-through survey.

6.2.2 RESULTS

The microbial growth and mold evaluation performed pursuant to the scope of this assessment found no indications of mold growth. Management and maintenance did not report any current areas of known microbial growth or mold. Musty or stale odors were not present during our observations.


As part of the building walk-through, general observations were made for evidence of water/moisture intrusion or damage, water staining or building material dampness, visible mold growth, and evidence of noticeable musty/mildew odors. No evidence of noticeable mold/mildew growth was present. We did observe some areas with stains that appeared to be related to past incidents of water intrusion probably due to previous plumbing leaks. No active roof leaks were reported or observed.

Recommendations


6.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS ESTIMATE

PSI did not perform a seismic evaluation of the property because it is not located in Zones 4/Alpha as defined by the Uniform Building Code (1997) and International Building Code (2000) respectively. These zones are areas of high probability of damaging ground motion in earthquakes.

35

APPENDIX A – RECOMMENDED NEEDS SPREADSHEETS

RECOMMENDED NEEDS SPREADSHEET PSI Proj. No.: 0753-208-Rev 2 Property Age 36 YearsProp. Name St. Petersburg Pier Number of Buildings/Units 1Address: 800 Second Avenue NE Units 78,356 Square FeetCity, State St. Petersburg, Florida Reserve Term 5.0 YearsWalk-Thru: November 5-18, 2009 Total IMMEDIATE NEEDS 284,750 $

Reserve UNINFLATED 5.84 $/SF/YearReserve INFLATED 6.10 $/SF/Year

IDENTIFICATION

IMMED.

Item Rpt. Qty. Unit Unit RUL NEEDS 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TotalNo. Sec. Building Component Costs ($) Years Year 0 Year 01 Year 02 Year 03 Year 04 Year 5 over Term

1 5.3.3 Clean, seal and paint the applicable exterior surfaces of the building 1 LS 250,000.00 1 250,000 250,000

2 5.3.3Clean and paint aluminum railings located around the Cha Cha's patio deck

640 LF 2.75 1 1,760 1,760

3 5.3.4Remove and replace double leaf hollow core metal door that leads to penthouse mechanical room. The existing door is heavily corroded.

1 EA 3,000.00 1 3,000 3,000

4 5.3.4

Remove and replace glass curtain wall systems that are original to the 1973 construction of the inverted pyramid portion of the building. The existing glazing systems are approaching the end of their useful life, do not meet current energy codes and do not meet the Florida Building Codes requirements for impact resistance.

6,800 SF 50.00 1 340,000 340,000

5 5.4.1Replace aggregate surface built up roof areas that are associated with the rooftop mechanical penthouse and part of Cha Cha's back of house restaurant areas.

4,800 SF 10.00 1 48,000 48,000

6 5.4.1 Replace EPDM single ply roof at the first level of the building 30,000 SF 8.00 2 240,000 240,000

7 5.4.2

Replace the waterproofing membrane and reslope the outdoor patio roof area at Cha Cha's. The existing patio surface is not properly sloped to drainage provisions. The patio areas are accessible to the public and pond excessively which creates slip/fall hazards that create liability issues for the property. PSI considers the remediation of the ponding issues at this building area an immediate need.

4,650 SF 15.00 0 69,750 0

8 5.5.2

Due to the age of the building, PSI recommends that a full asbestos survey be performed. Many of the MEP systems are approaching the end of their useful lives and costs associated with replacing these systems can be greatly increased if asbestos containing materials are present

1 LS 5,000.00 1 5,000 5,000

9 5.5.2

Remove and replace abandoned York chiller. The building's original HVAC had two (2) chiller systems for redundancy and maintenance. The building currently only has one (1) operational chiller. The building should be maintained as it was originally designed.

1 LS 350,000.00 1 350,000 350,000

10 5.5.2Remove and replace McQuay air handler units that serve the second through the fifth floors of the 1973 portion of the building. The units are generally at the end of their serviceable life.

5 EA 60,000.00 1 300,000 300,000

11 5.5.2Remove and replace package rooftop HVAC units that serve the first floor of the building. The units have corrosion issues and are generally approaching the end of their serviceable lives.

180 Tons 2,500.00 3 450,000 450,000

12 5.5.2Allowance for the removal of asbestos containing materials that are likely present in a structure of its age

1 LS 100,000.00 1 100,000 100,000

13 5.5.3 Install a lightning protection system at the building 1 LS 150,000.00 0 150,000 0

14 5.5.4Allowance for the removal of abandoned piping installed below the pier. The abandoned piping is extremely deteriorated and could break loose damaging other systems that serve the building

1 LS 15,000.00 0 15,000 0

15 5.5.4Allowance to replace domestic water supply system and drain systems that are associated with the 1973 portion of the building

1 LS 200,000.00 1 200,000 200,000

16 5.7.2 Replace the aging central fire alarm system 1 LS 50,000.00 0 50,000 0Notes LS - Lump Sum 284,750 1,597,760 240,000 450,000 0 0 2,287,760

EA - Each N/A 1.030 1.060 1.090 1.120 1.150 N/ASF - Square Foot 284,750 1,645,693 254,400 490,500 0 0 2,390,593SY - Square YardLF - Linear FootNA - Not Applicable

Note: Cost estimates are to be considered a rough order of magnitude only. The subject building is located in a unique marine setting which can significantly influence cost estimates

Yearly Total, INFLATED

REF. ESTIMATES NEEDS DISTRIBUTION ($)

NEEDS OVER THE TERM

Yearly Total, UNINFLATEDInflation Factor, w/ Inflation Rate = 3.0 Percent

Page 1 of 1

36

APPENDIX B – PHOTOGRAPHS

PSI Project No. 0753-208

Photo 1: St. Petersburg Pier location in St. Petersburg, Florida. The facility is owned and maintained by the City of St. Petersburg. The facility generally consists of a 5-story inverted pyramid structure that was constructed in 1973 surrounded by 1-story perimeter building areas that were added on in the late

1980’s.

Photo 2: The pier generally contains various restaurants, shops and other retail outlets. The original inverted pyramid portion of the building is a steel reinforced masonry structure. The 1-story perimeter

additions that were performed in the late 1980’s were generally built using conventional framing technique with exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS) for exterior finishes.


Photo 3: The pier building was the focus of our survey with other adjoining areas being excluded from the scope of work for this project.

Photo 4: The pier building was constructed over a concrete deck that is elevated above Tampa Bay. The concrete deck is generally supported by concrete piles and other steel reinforced concrete sub

structures. These areas were also generally excluded from the scope of this project. PSI did however survey the underside of the concrete deck for overall general conditions.


Photo 5: The structure’s exterior finishes were reportedly last painted in 2005. The building is starting to have a dated physical appearance and should be repainted. The facilities location adjacent to a salt

air environment also makes the repainting of the exterior finishes a priority to reduce corrosion and physical deterioration.

Photo 6: Primary public entrance located at the west side of the building. This entrance and one (1) of the building elevators were added during renovations that were performed in the late 1980’s.


Photo 7: All levels of the building are protected by a wet type sprinkler system, Siamese fire department connector shown here.

Photo 8: Progress Energy provides power to the site from a pad mounted step down transformer. The building’s power distributor systems are generally in fair to good overall condition.


Photo 9: Aggregate surfaced built up roof areas located at the rooftop penthouse and the back of house area associated with Cha Cha’s restaurant are showing signs of their age and should be

scheduled for replacement.

Photo 10: The aggregate surfaced built up roof over Cha Cha’s back of house areas is physically in poor condition and should be scheduled for replacement in the near future.


Photo 11: The rooftop patio areas next to Cha Cha’s restaurant at the fifth floor of the building have drainage issues that require remediation. This area ponds excessively creating slip/fall hazards.

Remediation will require the removal of the 2’x2’ pavers, underlying waterproofing membrane and resloping the underlying deck to provide proper drainage.

Photo 12: Railings located at the perimeter of Cha Cha’s patio area generally require painting.


Photo 13: The building’s roof mounted cooling tower was replaced in 2005 and is in good overall condition.

Photo 14: The building has one (1) operational chiller system that was manufactured by Carrier. The unit was installed in 2005 and is in good condition.


Photo 15: The building has another abandoned chiller that was manufactured by York. The building was designed to operate with two (2) chillers to provide redundancy and maintenance options. The

abandoned York chiller should be removed and replaced with a functional unit.

Photo 16: Doors located at the penthouse mechanical room are corroding and should be scheduled for replacement.


Photo 17: The building has six (6) elevators that provide primary egress between floors. Elevators have generally been refurbished and are in good current condition.

Photo 18: Glazing systems associated with the original structure developed in 1973 are approaching the end of their expected useful life. The curtain wall systems do not meet current energy codes and do

not meet the Florida Building Code requirements for impact resistance.


Photo 19: Window systems associated with original portions of the building have also been adversely impacted by the accumulation of bird droppings over time. New glazing systems should be installed

that do not provide ideal roosting conditions for birds in the area.

Photo 20: The single ply roof system at the first floor of the building has also been adversely impacted by the accumulation of bird droppings. This roof system is showing signs of deterioration and is

expected to require replacement early in the term.


Photo 21: Four (4) Trane package units primarily provide the first floor of the building with conditioned air. These units are corroding and are reaching the end of their expected useful lives. Replacement of

these units is expected early in the term.

Photo 22: Missing walk pads were observed at the single ply roof system at the first floor of the building. The absence of the protective pads is expected to accelerate roof deterioration.


Photo 23: McQuay air handlers are generally in poor condition and should be scheduled for replacement.

Photo 24: Water supply and drainage provisions have been added on to, piecemeal replaced and are generally in poor condition. Wholesale replacement of these systems is recommended.


Photo 25: Interior finishes are generally in fair to good overall condition.

Photo 26: Some ADA upgrades have been performed but the facility is not considered fully ADA compliant. These issues are generally addressed during renovations since these areas were developed

before ADA laws were in place and are not required to meet current code unless alterations are performed.


Photo 27: The building’s fire alarm system is aging and does not fully meet current fire code requirements. The system should be replaced as an immediate need.

Photo 28: The building appears to be structurally in good condition with no significant issues observed.


Photo 29: PSI surveyed the underside of the pier structure to observe general conditions. These areas are periodically surveyed and repairs are performed as required.

Photo 30: Most of the trunk lines that provide the building with power, gas and water have been replaced and are in fair to good condition. Many abandoned piping systems were however observed.


Photo 31: Abandoned piping systems should be removed from the underside of the pier. These systems could potentially break loose and damage building systems that are still in use.

Photo 32: Risers associated with a domestic water supply and drain lines have not generally been replaced. These systems should be completely replaced. Internal roof drain lines associated with the

original piping should also be replaced.

Documents

REPORT OF PROPERTY CONDITION ASSESSMENT … · The inverted pyramid 5-story portion of the structure was built in ... smallest and each upper floor being ... that are original to