A Teaser - DMV Building Timeline
Below please find the timeline for the
Discussion regarding the DMV project. Mr. Schrader indicated that we are able to compensate with the DMV being at the Courthouse by working around it. Ms. Tytler indicated that the State DMV requirements for a new facility are such things as License plates storage. They do not provide input regarding lay out and design. Mr. Williams would just like to see this project go forward. Members of the Committee requested that the Engineers be invited to next month’s meeting to discuss the DMV space. Mr. Schrader indicated that he will invite them.
Mr. Schrader indicated that he needs direction from the Committee as to how to design the new Department of Motor Vehicles Building. He indicated that they can use the existing agreement with Barton & Loguidice of which the County could contract for the development of the DMV building design or they could go out for RFP’s (Request For Proposal) for this design. Professional services do not have to go to bid. Time is an important issue. A RFP could take 90 days or more. We could get a fee schedule from Barton & Loguidice. Mr. Schrader indicated that we could use different firms for different projects. Mr. Williams commented that in a few years we are going to be having major construction and maybe going to a RFP would bring others on board. Mr. Schrader said that when we start the jail project we would go out to for RFP’s because that project is specialized. Ms. Price said that she would like to see the DMV project move forward. Mr. Waldbauer asked what the approximate cost would be. Mr. Schrader indicated that the cost is roughly between $100 and $150 a square foot and the design cost is 7% of that. Mr. Waldbauer agreed that we should get moving on this project. Mr. Loomis indicated that he is happy with Barton & Loguidice and Mr. Schrader commented that Joe Maryak is extremely good.
MOTION BY MR. WILLIAMS – 2ND BY MR. HARTNETT TO DIRECT MR. SCHRADER TO
Ms. Tytler asked if there is a possibility that the Board of Elections could go to the
Mr. Schrader provided proposal requested at the
On motion of Mr. Loomis, second by Mr. Troy Agenda No. 8 was introduced. Ms. Tytler stated that the 2007 Ad Hoc Committee recommended that all documents be provided to the County in PDF format. Mr. Schrader said that we have a survey on this property on PDF form and we are doing that as part of our administrative policy and I can include it in the letter of commitment to this firm. Ms. Tytler added that a statement be included for follow up sessions for public forums. Mr. Schrader said he is sure they will do that at no cost and will also include it in the letter of commitment. Mr. Spaulding asked if the Port Watson address was correct. Mr. Schrader stated that the parcel is on the tax rolls as Port Watson however when sub division takes place it will formally be changed to
Mr. Maryak spoke about the DMV. He presented a drawing to demonstrate where we are on the project. They have looked at combining the DMV with the Elections Office. With the new guidelines for the storage of the new voting equipment, elections need over 2,500 square feet. DMV needs around 4,000 square feet. Therefore, they are looking at designing a 7,500 square foot building instead of a 6,000 square foot building. The projected parking spaces are approximately 75. Mr. Williams asked if these spaces will be segregated. Mr. Maryak indicated that the spaces could be segregated, however, consideration needs to be taken about snowplowing and clearing. Mr. Schrader indicated that the company that is currently plowing the parking lot will plow the County-owned parking spaces for free. The building on the diagram is shown at a project 7,500 square feet. Mr. Schrader indicated that he has a problem with the 50 feet setback the City is requiring for the building, but he will discuss that with the City. Mrs. Tytler asked if there will be a basement. Mr. Maryak responded that this will be on a concrete slab. He also indicated that there must be a loading dock in the building for the Elections Office. Mr. Williams asked about the storage of the voting machines – is the rack system still being considered? Mr. Maryak indicated that the voting machines themselves can be stacked, but remember there is additional equipment to be attached to the voting machine to provide a “booth” and to provide an actual ballot box. He also indicated that the papers that will be used for scanning for the ballot need to be maintained for a specific period of time. This storage space is included in the prospective plan. Mrs. Tytler asked if it is feasible to look at the AAA situation on
Mr. Maryak spoke about the
Mr. Daniels entertained a motion for item number 1, which was for the sale of properties on
There was no decision made at that 6/19 meeting as to the final size of the building. Presentations were made of the DMV project and the Aging projects.
On motion of Mr. Daniels, second by Mr. Cornell Agenda No. 4 was introduced. Mr. Tagliente said he is against a 7,500 or 6,500 building. It is obvious that there is space available for the Election Office at a different site. The 7,500 square foot building will cost taxpayers 1 million dollars; the 6,500 building ¾ million dollars more than we originally planned and urged legislators to stay with that plan. Mr. Willcox agreed. Mr. Waldbauer said this is different than the
Mr. Daniels pulled Agenda Nos. 5 and 6, Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 6,500 Square Foot Building for the Department of Motor Vehicles on River Street and Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 4,000 Square Foot Building for the Department of Motor Vehicles on River Street.
Mr. Loomis informed the committee that he had received the drafts from Joe Maryak for the proposal for the Aging facility. He said that he expected a proposal of the same for the DMV site. At that time he will call a special meeting for the Buildings and Grounds committee. Stated that the proposals for the DMV would be close to the same scope. Asked if the committee would rather have a meeting, days prior to legislative session or a day prior to session. Mr. Williams suggested that a separate meeting would be better. Mr. Daniels stated that a separate meeting would be more beneficial as more Legislators would be available to ask questions.
Mr. Loomis made a motion to receive and file a proposal from Barton & Loguidice for the design and construction of the DMV facility. A second was received from Mr. McKee.
Mr. Williams inquired what it meant to receive and file the report. Ms. Wilcox objected believing that doing so would lock the Legislature into spending roughly $153,000. Mr. Schrader explained that the motion would only be to receive and file the report. He stated that he was sure that Mr. Loomis would follow with a separate motion. Ms. Wilcox expressed a concern with the fact that the document had just been placed on their desks and there had been no opportunity to review it. Chairman Daniels informed the Legislature that if they approved this motion another motion would be made in order to discuss it. Mr. Williams stated that he had no problem receiving and filing the report as long as it did not encumber them. Chairman Daniels informed the Legislature that would not be. There was a unanimous vote to receive and file the report.
Mr. Loomis made a motion to accept the proposal and authorize the work laid out in the term agreement. He respectfully asked for a second in order to keep the project on track. A second was received from Mr. Cornell. Mr. Tagliente stated that he didn’t believe this should pass the full legislature with 2/3 votes, as it authorizes a 7.5 million building as opposed to others. He stated that the Legislature should be looking into all options and did not need a building of that size. Chairman Daniels informed them that the building size had already been voted on. Mr. Tagliente stated that when it comes down to money the proposal would have to pass with 2/3 votes. Mr. Schrader informed him that it only needs to be approved by simple majority because the money has already been set aside. Mr. Tagliente inquired why a 2/3 vote was needed for approval of the Health facility. Mr. Schrader replied that part of the approval was authorizing a bond for the construction costs. He explained that bonding for a facility requires a 2/3 vote. He informed the Legislature that money has already been set aside for the project through the Tobacco Reserve. Mr. Daniels asked for further explanation of the cost. Mr. Schrader stated there was an understanding that the facility would be built between $150-$200 per square foot. He stated that 7,500 square feet was the maximum for the building and predicted the actual square footage to be between 6,000-6,500 square feet. He stated that the reason for the lower square footage was that the voting machines took up less space than originally anticipated. He explained that the design phase services were a little high due to the request to make the facility a green facility. As a result, the engineering costs for the design would be increased. Ms. Tytler inquired if it would be a green building or a lead certified green building. Mr. Schrader responded it would be just a green building. Mr. Williams inquired if the proposal would return to committee and then to full legislature if the contract for the design were approved. Mr. Schrader said no. He explained that a resolution was passed by the Legislature at the last meeting directing that a proposal be brought to full legislature for approval, which is what has been placed on your desks. In regards to a contract, a contract has already been established with Barton & Loguidice. He explained that the contract was used to derive the proposal. He further stated that the fees that are delineated in the agreement have been used to draft the proposal. Mr. Williams inquired if by accepting this they would be approving the design. Mr. Schrader stated that construction documents would be created per the schedule. Mr. Williams asked if it was too late to stop the project or if the next time they would have any contact with the project would be when they went done to get their licenses. Mr. Schrader stated that the project had already begun, but that didn’t mean the Legislature could not stop the project. He stated there were still contracts that still needed to be approved by the Legislature per the attached timetable. He stated that if the Legislature felt that the bids came in too high or if they felt the bids were unacceptable, they would have the opportunity to change it. Ms. Wilcox inquired why the Aging facility timetable was attached to the proposal when that facility was not even being spoken on. Mr. Schrader replied it was there to address some concerns that were raised at the last Legislative Session. One specific concern with the timetables was the inclusion of public comment into the projects that the Legislature was considering. It is attached to show that the concerns are being addressed. Mr. Willcox inquired what the final size of the building was. He was unsure if it was going to be 7,500 square feet, 6,000 square feet or 4,000 square feet. Mr. Schrader replied the final design would be approves in August by full Legislature. Mr. Willcox asked if the 4,000 square foot building was no longer being considered. Mr. Schrader replied that was a correct statement. For Mr. Willcox’s clarification, he asked if the building cost would be 6,000 – 7,500 square foot multiplied by $200. Mr. Schrader stated that would be true. Ms. Wilcox inquired if the full Legislature would be voting on a resolution on August 28th for the approval of the project and authorizing a contract for A & E. Mr. Schrader stated only if it was the wish of the Legislature. Ms. Tytler inquired what A & E was. Mr. Schrader responded that it stood for architectural and engineering. He said it basically would approve the final design and the project. Ms. Wilcox inquired if it would be before the project goes out to bid. Mr. Schrader stated that was correct. Ms. Wilcox stated that the Legislature would be approving spending $101,000 for the design and if they didn’t like the design the money would be gone. Mr. Loomis inquired what was not to like. Ms. Wilcox responded there was a lot not to like as they had not seen the design. Mr. Loomis informed her that the design had to be paid for in order to have the design created. He stated that the Legislature has agreed on the size and had the intent to the project forward. He stated that they have the responsibility to provide the tax payers with a green building that may cost a little more in design, but will save them in the long run. We have a building: that provides what the DMV needs and is a place that can house the Elections’ voting machines which is climate controlled. He stated that the design was a basically an open floor plan with some outlets. He did not foresee the building cost being escalated by the price of lights and outlets. He urged the Legislature to move forward so other progress could be made in other areas of the County and encouraged all to vote in favor. Chairman Daniels stated that in terms of a timeline it was predicted to have the facility built by June 1st. He stated that the longer the wait to approve, the higher the cost will be. Mr. Willcox agreed; stated that under the last administration they were looking into a 4,000 square foot building that would cost $600,000, now they were at 1.5 million. Ms. Wilcox asked for the Aging timeline to be pulled from the proposal. It was agreed to do so. Mr. Loomis informed the other members that the intent is to have the DMV proposal to be on the next Building and Grounds agenda for discussion. He urged all members interested to attend. Mr. Williams stated he was more comfortable voting knowing there would be prior committee and legislative review in August.
It was noted that Mr. Willcox asked if the costs for construction still were estimated at $200 per square foot. Mr. Maryak stated that he will know better in a few days as the design work moves forward.
Mr. Loomis directed any specific comments or concerns to himself or Mr. Schrader’s attention. He stated that the concerns will be sent back to the consultant for review and consideration. He discussed an addendum if need and it taking two weeks if one was needed. He stated that if a concern or question does arise, please bring it the attention of himself or Mr. Schrader quickly so they can stay on schedule.
Mr. Loomis reminded the committee that the opening of bids for the DMV project was to be held Friday Oct. 10 at
Scott
Even thought the project bids came in within 3% of the B&L estimate (pretty good in this volatile economic times) there were some big ticket items that surprised me in terms of their costs when we were developing the documents. If you want to rebid and consider a September-October 2009 opening inlieu of June and let the contractor choose whether he works over the winter you could consider the follow:
1. Omit the drive thru and associated site work(this would be only the 2nd DMV drive thru in the state)...save +/-$100,000
2. Omit the skylights and associated roof work and increased number of roof drains...save +/-$100,000
3. Remove the FFE package from the contractor's price and pay for it with other funds...remove $90,000
4. We could tweak the finish packages and the electrical lighting package and save +/-$25,000
Even thought it will cost to have B&L rebid, it may be worth the reductions. The total bid package could be closer to $1,800,000. We would need a week to 10 days to modify the drawings.
Just some food for thought.
Joe
RS Means reports that the average office building construction type of steel frame and masonry veneer built in
1. Furniture, fixture, equipment and contingencies of $17/ sf
2. Site work of $53/sf
Subtract the above 2 items and the building square foot cost drop to $224/sf. That puts the project on the high end of the average spectrum.
However we have 2 items that are not common to the average office building construction, the drive thru and the skylight system. Based upon the bid breakdown these 2 components account for approximately $28/sf of costs. Subtract those costs from the total and the approximate building square foot cost drops to $196/sf. Well within the average of the 2007 reported market. We had hoped to be closer to the $185/sf low end.
Joe
Mr. Loomis introduced Mr. Mason and Mr. Lotito for Barton and Loguidice to discuss the next step in the DMV project. Mr. Lotito said the approximate cost of the four bids came to about $2.1 million. Mike said that B&L has worked with Joe Marioch about eliminating some aspects of the building that could reduce the costs. Mr. Daniels asked what the original estimate was for the project. Mr. Lotito said it was about $2 million. Mr. Willcox asked about the original estimates for a 4,000 square-foot building. Mr. Lotito said that estimate was around $1.4 million. Mr. Willcox asked how that number was estimated. Mr. Lotito said that they considered the cost of site development and the cost per square foot. Mr. Mason said that in this region and at this time of the year the average costs are between $180 to $220 per square foot. About a year ago the costs were much less, around $150 to $175 per square foot. Mr. Mason said material costs lag behind energy costs by about three months, and when this project was bid, material costs were at a peak. If the project were re-bid now, or in the spring, he would expect bids to be a bit lower with lower material costs. Mr. Mason said there are two different approaches to take. The first is scaling back the existing design, or a new design with a smaller building. Mr. Mason said there are three major items that could be reduced with the existing design, and they are eliminating the drive-through, which could save about $100,000, eliminating the day-lighting windows, which could save another $100,000 and substituting other interior materials like tiling and detail work, that could cut about another $100,000. This would bring the project cost around $1.8 million. Mr. Loomis pointed out that the $100,000 reduction is based on material costs now. Mr. Loomis talked about the potential cost savings of working during the summer months, rather than through the winter. Mr. Mason said that is difficult to calculate, depending on weather any type of heat the contractors use, but there would be some cost savings. Mr. Mason said relaxing the time frame for completion could also save some money. Mr. Mason said another alternative is to look at an entirely different, smaller building, just for the DMV, around 4,700 square feet, with different structural aspects, and a shorter life-span. An estimate for a project like that would be around $1.3 million. A re-design of a smaller building, there could be the potential for the Board of Elections to have a bid-alternate attached to the DMV building, which would push the price up, perhaps into the $1.4 million range. Ms. Larkin asked about how much money the county would save with the green incentives proposed in the design. Mr. Mason said this design is not meant to save money, but be more environmentally friendly, and it would be a 15-20 year payback on savings. Mr. Walbauer asked what the practical value of the drive through is. Ms. Larkin said there is only one other drive through in
Motion made by Mr. Loomis. Seconded by Mr. Troy. Mr. Tagliente asked about the status of the DMV project, and where the voting machines are being stored. Mr. Schrader said the Buildings & Grounds Committee is looking at scaling back the scope of the building, and are getting proposals from the engineers. Mr. Schrader said the current proposal is to go back out to bid in the spring with a scaled back project, including cutting the skylights, a re-design of the roof and possibly eliminating the drive through, and drainage issues. He said that the voting machines are being housed in the basement of the CareerWorks building on
Mr. Dean Mason of Barton & Loguidice said that he has evaluated some cost savings measures and distributed a copy of these to the committee. (see attached). He said implementing these suggested measures would drop the price of the building to about $1.75 million, based on bid prices received. He said there may be additional savings if commodity prices go down. He said if the committee wanted to build the 4,500 square-foot building, the design would include the same cost reductions, and would be an estimated $1.3 million. Mr. Willcox asked what these costs estimated per square foot. Mr. Mason said it was about $200 per square foot. Mr. Loomis pointed out there was about $200,000 in allowances in the project as well, for signage and contingency. Mr. Loomis asked what can be done as alternates in a re-bidding process, and needs to be redesigned. Mr. Mason said most interior reductions could be done as alternates, but most exterior items need to be redesigned, and both plans would have to be included in the re-bidding process. Mr. Waldbauer asked if there was a potential revenue increase from the drive-through. Mr. Schrader said no, it was merely for convenience, but that the county clerk might disagree. Mr. Willcox asked about the cost of a redesign. Mr. Mason said the redesign for a 7,100 square foot building was $35,000, and the design for a 4,500 square foot would be about $85,500. Ms. Tytler asked what the original estimate of the building costs, and what the bids actually came in at. Mr. Mason said the two numbers were within three percent. The original estimate was $2 million, and the bids came in at $2.06 million. Mr. Maryak said it will take between two to three months for the re-design, and to get the best pricing the county should re-bid in March or April. Ms. Tytler asked by making the proposed changes if the durability of the building is being compromised, and if that would impact maintenance. She said she would like to leave the curbing in the project. Mr. Maryak said exterior pre-cast panels is just an aesthetic change, and would not change the life of the building. Interior changes, like the porcelain tiles with vinyl tiles, will have a reduced durability. Mr. Mason said the plan for this building is for a 50-year lifespan. He said a cheaper building could certainly be built, but it would be exactly that, a cheaper building with a shorter lifespan. Mr. Mason said he would not recommend reducing the curbing for maintenance reasons. Mr. Maryak said the biggest savings will be in eliminating the skylights, which will result in reduced costs in roof drains as well. Mr. Waldbauer asked if it would be practical to re-bid the building exactly as it is, as well as re-bid the new package with re-designs. Mr. Maryak said eliminating the skylights is a major re-design, and all the other options could be included as alternates in a re-designed bid package. He said that while re-bidding in the spring should save money due to commodity pricing, it will not save enough to build a $1.5 million building. Mr. Loomis said there seems to be about a $400,000 cost difference between the two buildings. He said cutting the gap between the buildings will include a $50,000 cost in engineering fees, the cost of leasing space for election machines at $20,000 per year, which over 5 years is $100,000. Mr. Willcox said if the county had leased a building for DMV it would be open already. Mr. Waldbauer said he would like to re-bid in the spring with the suggested cuts as alternates. Mr. Loomis asked how the fees addressed using alternates. Mr. Mason said the estimated fees were based on incorporating the suggested cuts into a redesign. He said while using them as alternates is a possibility, but that the skylights is a major aspect that needs to be redesigned. Ms. Tytler asked if there were any internal spaces that do not have windows, where the skylights were the source of natural lighting. Mr. Maryak said yes. Ms. Tytler noted that the staff lunch room would have no natural lighting, and she did not think this was a good idea, and suggested the possibility of a transom to allow natural light throughout the building. Mr. Miller said he would like the curbing to remain in for snow removal and summer maintenance. Ms. Tytler said that there were specific reasons that the county clerk wanted a drive through and that the company should not cut it from the project without input from Betsy Larkin. Mr. Loomis asked if the committee agreed to have the building redesigned eliminating the skylights and subsequent drainage, and leaving the other suggestions as alternates in the re-bidding process. He referred to the hand out and said the Mr. Maryak noted that if the bids are going to have that many alternates, it could make for a complicated process when the bids are awarded. He said the county will have to prioritize which alternates are the most important and award the bids in that manner. Mr. Loomis noted that there is time to do that, and said he thought the drive-through would be the last alternate to be accepted. Mr. Loomis asked about when the final bid package could be expected by the committee. Mr. Maryak said bids should be received around the first of April, and that re-designed plans could be expected by the first part of February. Mr. Schrader said a resolution could be drafted to authorize Barton & Loguidice to re-design the building with these recommendations. Mr. Schrader said previous resolutions have already directed this committee to carry out these actions, but being that there is a change in scope of the project it would be a better practice to have the full legislature once again bless the actions of the committee. Mr. Spaulding made a motion to forward a resolution for the Dec. 18 meeting to approve the $35,000 re-design proposal, as well as the cost reductions eliminating the skylights and including the other items as alternates. Seconded by Mr. Piombo. All members voting in favor. None opposed.
Mr. Wilcox said a large amount of money has already been spent on the design of this project. Mr. Loomis said poor timing of the bid process lead to the county rejecting the bids, and this resolution allows for a reduced cost to the overall facility. He also said re-bidding in the spring has the potential to save the county money with a reduction in material costs. Mr. Daniels asked about the price of redesigning for a smaller building. Mr. Loomis said that has already been provided, and the cost for redesigning to a 4,000-square-foot facility would be about $85,000. Mr. Troy said that in the past he supported a larger building, but that now the legislature should be considering a smaller building. Mr. Loomis said the consultant said the difference in costs of actual construction between the 4,000 and 7,500 square-foot building is about $400,000. Ms. Wilcox made a motion to table the resolution and send it back to committee to consider. Seconded by Mr. Willcox. A roll-call vote was taken. All members voting against the motion to table, except Mr. Tagliente, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Williams. The motion to table failed.
Chairman Daniels called the vote on the resolution as it stands. All members present voting in favor, except for Mr. Willcox, Mr. Dafoe, Mr. Tagliente and Ms. Wilcox. The motion was approved
Note that corrections shall be recommended to be made to the minutes as noted below:
Mr. Loomis asked the committee their thoughts on the project as it stands. Mr. Schrader stated that the county as paid about $130,000 for the design of a 7,500 square-foot “green” building with a drive through. Mr. Hartnett asked if the Tobacco Money earmarked for this project could be used for bridges and roads. Mr. Schrader said that it could be used for bridges, but not roads. Mr. Hartnett asked if it was too late to consider renting property to house the DMV, and use the money for bridge repair. Mr. Schrader explained that there would be a capital cost associated with renting as well because there would not be an available building in move-in condition for the DMV. Mr. Daniels mentioned the possibility of reducing costs by building a lighter-frame building, though that would also reduce the life of the building. Mr. Williams said that for the purpose of a DMV building he agrees that a light-frame construction would be fine. Ms. Arnold asked about the long-term costs of building and owning a building, versus renting a building for 20 or 30 years. Mr. Schrader noted that this work and analysis had already been done by a DMV Ad-Hoc Committee. Mr. Williams asked what the revenue stream figures are for the DMV. Mr. Schrader said that there is about $200,000 in revenue per year. Ms. Wilcox said she would like to review the proposal from Mr. Armideo to build a building and lease it on Schrader LOOMIS told the committee the ASKED THE COMMITTEE WHY WE APPEARED TO BE REVISITING THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING
The B&G Committee was always proceeding at the direction and the will of the Legislature to complete the project with the best long term goals and lowest cost to the residents of
No comments:
Post a Comment