COURT
FACILITIES AND
MAY 5, 2010
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, D. Fanton, G. Benson, D. Cady, P.
Curran, C. Crandall (Absent: D. Russo)
Others Present: M. Alger, M. Armstrong (Bovis), M. Balling (Bovis),
D. Burdick, D. Button, A. Finnemore, J. Foels, M. Healy, T. Hopkins, M. Kukuvka
(LaBella), J. Margeson, T. Miner, T. Parker, B. Riehle, D. Roeske, K. Toot, N.
Ungermann
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David
Pullen
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of April 7, 2010, were approved following a
motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Benson and carried.
COURT FACILITIES PROJECT, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER UPDATE:
Mark Balling and Mark Armstrong from Bovis Lend Lease
presented a progress report (copy attached to original minutes).
Budget Review – Cost Report:
Change Event Log (All events reviewed; Committee approval needed for those over
$20,000):
·
#1 Storm Piping Revisions – Credit of $2,210 – Same as last month; part of Change
Order #1.
·
#2 Temporary Enclosures for Type M2 Window Infills – Was $5,042, now 0 – cancelled.
·
#3 Site Utility Redesign – $25,554 – Includes a 15-day time extension for the
delay period for redesign and ordering equipment. The actual cost of utility work is about $6,200,
but the three-week time extension needed to be part of the change order so that
a revised completion date could be established and enforced. The delay portion is worth about $19,000, and
was derived as a prorated portion of the general contractor’s “general
conditions” line item on their payment application. (“General conditions” includes supervision,
project management, trailer, dumpsters, toilets, and basically anything that’s
not bricks and mortar related in the project.
Javen’s cost per month for that is $25,000.) The delay period began when the contractor
was told to stop work while Bovis investigated the existing utility elevation
differences, included the time LaBella had to redesign the way the utilities
were going to run, and extended until the new materials were ordered and
delivered. The cost will come out of the
construction contingency. This change event
for $25,554 will require Committee approval (see action at end of change event
listing).
·
#4 Building Management System Separation of Courthouse
from
ü
Separate controls for
ü
Base bid temperature control scope deleting
·
#5 OCA Directed Electrical Changes – $4,970 – They discovered that the OCA requested
changes are no cost. The charge that
shows here is actually for the voltage increase to the boiler pumps. The change involved up-sizing the transformer
and panel. Mr. Balling was able to
confirm that this change event has nothing to do with OCA, but is part of
another change order dealing with electrical issues.
·
#6 AHU-1 Phasing Conflicts – $11,298 – Part of Change Order #1.
·
#7 Revise Second Floor Steel Framing at Ramp Location – $2,263 – Includes shop drawing time and increased
wait. Part of Change Order #1.
·
#8 Exterior Courthouse Window Infill Revisions at North
Elevation – Was $10,058, now 0 –
cancelled, but next item is related.
·
#8A Opaque Film in Law Library Windows – $500 – Issue where some windows that will look out
onto a block wall and were called to be demolished don’t technically have to be
demolished because film can be placed on the back of the windows, rather than
removing and infilling the windows. It’s
more cost effective to leave the window and put film on it so it looks like
there’s a dark room behind it. In the
case of the law library, LaBella felt that from a historic standpoint, it would
be nice if those windows remained.
Legislator
·
#9 Replace Clay Tile Pipe at Sanitary Lateral 313 – $447 – Clay tile pipe repaired.
·
#10 Relocate Roof Access Hatch and Ladder – $0 – No cost.
·
#11 Construction Manager Trailer Equipment and
Cleaning – Credit of $3,022; amount
of credit has to be resolved.
·
#12 Time Extension – Cancelled; see in #3 above.
·
#13 Undercut Unsuitable Soils – $5,000 – There are some existing soils on the
building pad that need to be removed to get to an adequate bearing grade. Javen provided unit prices that are
acceptable for excavation and backfilling.
They will know the exact cost at the next meeting. This is an unforeseen condition, and is not
uncommon. It doesn’t always show up in
soil and core samplings. They estimated
the amount of soil to be removed at 197 yards.
·
#14 Temporary Feed from Panel LPB to MDP-1 – $1,002 – Phasing issue – part of Change Order #3.
·
#15 Temporary Feed from Automatic Transfer Switch, ATS-1
to Panel L-S2 – $2,387 – This was a similar
situation with the electrical where they had to relocate an existing feeder in
order to get the new construction installed.
·
#16 Revise Electric for Increase in Size to Elevator
Motors – Estimated at $2,500 – Just
issued; no price yet.
·
#17 Relocate MDP-2 Feeder – $2,636 – Part of Change Order #3.
Committee
approval was needed for Change Event #3/Change Order #2 for Site Utility
Redesign, which includes the 15-day time extension, amounting to $25,554. The Change Order was approved following a motion
made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Benson and carried.
Change Order Summary Report:
Allocated Allowance Summary:
Safety Report:
April to May Work Summary:
·
Foundation
footings and walls (ongoing)
·
Temporary removal
of the chiller
·
Storm water catch
basins
·
Excavation of
building pad (ongoing)
·
Storm water
pollution protection plan (SWPPP) fencing and inspections
·
Sanitary manholes
and piping
·
Electrical
ductbank
Mr. Pullen noted that with the temporary removal of the chiller,
there is no air conditioning and no windows that can be opened in the small
courtroom, and asked for a status report he could take back to court
personnel. Mr. Armstrong estimated that
the chiller work should be done by the end of next week (05/14/10).
Sixty-Day Look Ahead (May and June):
·
Installation of
water line
·
Reinstallation of
the chiller
·
Sanitary sewer piping
and structure inspections (starts Friday, 05/07/10)
·
Storm water catch
basin inspections (will start soon)
·
Excavation of
building pad (ongoing)
·
Foundations and
footings (being done on a daily basis; some foundation walls are up)
·
Backfill and
waterproofing foundations
·
Start structural
steel erection
·
Installation of
steel joists and metal decking
Schedule of Activities:
Equipment Procurement:
Mr. Balling noted that regarding equipment and furniture
procurement, nothing has been officially recommended as a dollar value. They’re waiting on the cost for the County-provided,
non-OCA furniture. LaBella will work
with the County on state bid pricing.
The high-density shelving for the courts is coming in substantially under-budget. The amount budgeted was $265,000, and two
bids came in under $90,000. The reason
may be that it was a large order and that brought the pricing down, or the
estimate could have been bad, or the estimate may not have included state
contract pricing. Chairman Crandall
questioned where these gains in the budget would show up as things are closed
out. Mr. Balling replied that the bottom
line will change and the uncommitted funds line item will increase. Right now the total budget variance shows we
are under budget by $2.1 million.
Mr. Pullen commented that in the original timeline, we
were looking at the move into the addition to take place over the holidays at
the end of year when the courts are closed, and questioned if we are still on
schedule. Mr. Balling responded that was
no longer possible due to the site delay and the fact that the award took a little
longer than anticipated. Currently, the date
for completion of phase two, which is the addition, is February 2, 2011, and the
date for completion of phase 2 is July. They
will have to coordinate for the move with OCA and court personnel as they get
closer to that date.
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SHOP, FUNDING FOR
DESIGN:
OFFICE FOR THE AGING/VETERANS’ FACILITIES AT
CROSSROADS:
COUNTY OFFICE SPACE NEEDS STUDY UPDATE:
Development Director John Foels
addressed the possibility of having the
Legislator Cady opposed moving
forward with the space study update at this time. If the former jail is to be included in the
study, he felt that the stubs of the bars should be removed before any planning
for that space takes place. Mr. Cady
questioned if the proposal was open-ended.
Mr. Kukuvka from LaBella Associates replied that it would be good through
2010 at least. They tried to give a very
affordable price with the proposal because they already have a lot of the information
and don’t have to start from scratch. LaBella has an architectural planner on staff,
and this person also assists and specializes in County government
projects. LaBella has a long history
with the County. Mr. Cady felt that it
might be better to do the update after all the changes take place. Mr. Kukuvka noted the changes in the nursing
component of the Health Department, out-sourcing of some groups, and other
employment shifts that have taken place since LaBella began working on the last
study one and one half years ago prior to the Board’s direction to focus solely
on the Court Facilities Project. He
pointed out that this proposal is on an hourly basis with a not-to-exceed price
of $7,000; if they can complete the study for less money, they will. The process would include inventorying
spaces, getting a new head count, interviewing department heads, and then providing
some proposals or scenarios on where best to put staff here in the County
Office Building or outside of the building.
Legislator Fanton questioned if the
former jail space was included in the proposal, because there hasn’t been
support for renovating that space.
Without that support, we can plan, but it won’t go anywhere. If we plan to put people in that space and don’t
get funding, it will impact everything else. Mr. Fanton supported the study but questions
time spent on the jail space. Mr. Kukuvka
responded that the former jail was part of the proposal, and it can be talked
about conceptually, but if there’s no momentum, it doesn’t have to be done. The study would be updated with known
changes, and if the request is to omit the jail, they can do that. This service is not for design, just concept
scenarios for consideration to determine whether to entertain the possibility.
Chairman Crandall commented that the
proposal includes flexibility for the County to use the services to the extent
they feel they need it. Space allocation
is big at the moment and will become bigger.
When the spaces in the Health Department nursing, Room 8, and
potentially Public Works become vacated, we’re going to need a reasonable plan
on how to proceed, regardless of the jail space, and each of the floors is
affected. We may find existing space to bring
groups such as the Board of Elections and some of the others back in. How do we balance that out? It can be tossed around amongst the
Committee, but what was put together before included the relationships between
the departments and the needs that were put together in the first study. Chairman Crandall sees it as needing an
update, if not now, it will have to be addressed soon, for whatever way we
decide to move forward. Otherwise you’re
just going to have vacant spaces with a free-for-all as the jail space is. Right now,
we don’t have any plan beyond what was scratched one and one-half years ago,
and we have to address it somehow.
Legislator Cady noted that the
building, except the former jail, is already established pretty well without
needing many renovations, just a few adaptations. He commented that he wouldn’t support the
jail space being included in any plan until some of the things get done up
there first, but would support anything outside of the jail.
Legislator Fanton suggested moving the
resolution back to the full Board, and we can coordinate with LaBella on how
much they actually do with the changes we already know about. Mr. Pullen questioned if it would be better
to wait for a couple of months until the Public Works changes are
confirmed. He reiterated that there are
some significant changes, apart from the jail, and some are very definite, but
determining exactly what the configuration should be is where we need to go
back to department heads and look at their current needs and the available
spaces that we didn’t know we’d have.
Chairman Crandall pointed out that no motion is needed because the Board
can just remove the resolution from the table whenever they want to move
forward with it. His concern is that the
Committee should understand exactly what they’re asking for, and he questions
if the full Board understands it due to some of the comments made at the Board
meeting. There needs to be clarification.
Legislator Curran spoke against the expenditure
because he felt it didn’t seem like we’d accomplish anything by doing an
additional study now, rather than doing it ten months from now when we’re
closer to completion of the Courthouse addition and can see where people will
be shifting to. Mr. Kukuvka remarked
that if the County doesn’t foresee any other major changes for the
Legislator Curran commented that the
plan from one and one-half years ago isn’t any better than this little update to
the plan will be in a couple of years.
We’re in flux right now; we’re in the middle of a building project. We’re not anywhere near moving anything,
except for the Crossroads offices, and we know who’s moving there. We’re going to open up some space, which we
can certainly afford to use for what’s in the building already. Mr. Curran stated that he had no doubt the
update is necessary, but he only wants to do it once.
Mr. Kukuvka reviewed what was done
on the last plan and all of the changes that have occurred since then that will
vacate space. The timing for the plan
update is for the Committee to decide. Is
now the time to spend a few thousand dollars to update the plan reflecting the
2009 adjustments and end up with a new plan that the Committee could work
from? The Committee could self-perform
some of the work and not necessarily design and hire it out. With a plan, you could keep “squatters” from
moving into empty offices.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, at 3 p.m.
Adjournment: The
meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator Cady,
seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.