Schematic Design Overview Project Review Stakeholder Engagement Project Delivery Method Upcoming Milestones

Transcription

1

2 Schematic Design Overview Project Review Stakeholder Engagement Project Delivery Method Upcoming Milestones

3 Public Safety & Security Secure parking and access for Police, Sheriff, Judge Secure & segregated inmate transport pathways Central public entry point Centralized service counters and meeting rooms After-hours access and security for public & staff Ancillary Results ADA, Building Code, and Life Safety compliance for facility Improved customer access to City services Increased public parking for campus Building efficiency & sustainability, LEED

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 CIP Funding $11.7M in funding approved over FY12,13,14 $5.25M additional approved in FY16 for additional scope $1M spent on Critical Renovations Total Available Budget $15.95 M

18 Total Budget $15,950,000 Feasibility Studies/Preliminary Design $500,000 S27 Fee - Schematic Design $225,000 Remaining S27 Fee $975,000 CMAR Preconstruction Fee/ Phase 1 $100,000 FFE, Commissioning, Relocations, $1,150,000 Contingency Construction $13,000,000 Total Remaining $15,225,000

19

20 News releases Fliers Weekly enewsletter distribution lists Twitter Facebook Youtube Website News Flash subscribers

21

22

23 Event Date Attendance City Hall Tour Jul City Hall/Public Safety Taskforce Aug 1 7 City Hall/Public Safety Taskforce Sep 6 8 Architectural Advisory Board Sep 7 6 Arts and Humanities Council Sep 15 6 Environmental Sustainability Council Sep 15 8 Fall Festival Pop Up Sep Library Board of Trustees Sep 21 6 Community Town Hall Oct 6 13 Economic Development Authority Oct 25 8 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Nov 2 6 Village Preservation and Improvement Society Nov 6 42 City Hall/Public Safety Taskforce Nov 7 5 Planning Commission Nov 7 4 Total 170

24 Internal end-user meetings Programming and space need verifications Employee Advisory Committee 2 meetings Employee Townhall approximately 40 attendees

25 Community Engagement Results: Overall concurrence of proposed solution to address goals, need, core scope Comments received are related to Design Development and all will be assessed during next refinement stage

26 Exterior architecture and aesthetics varying perspectives for refinement Achieve security and safety Accessiblity and wayfinding critical Maximize efficient use of interior spaces Plan for future expansion and growth Construction and phasing impacts on services and staff Maximize sustainability

27 Continued stakeholder involvement Site/Campus layout Walkability Access all facilities Adequate campus parking and campus flow Car and bikes Pedestrians Minimize operation and maintenance costs Verify adequate funding current scope and cost out additional ideas

28 Balancing Comments, examples: Open central front entrance vs maximizing meeting rooms and office space Conflicting site desires: Maximizing parking vs security Maximizing parking vs farmer s market/ special events impacts to Campus flow vs visual impacts to park Out of Scope Recommendations (beyond schematic design program; need CMAR & S27 input; Council approval would be required) Additional meeting rooms Additional site work LEED Gold, above adopted policy Solar options Electric Vehicle Charging

29 City Hall Public Safety Facility Taskforce Design Development Community Engagement for architectural and campus input Town hall Pop up event Social media/ website Site Plan Process Planning Commission AAB, R&P Advisory Board, MRSPL Board of Trustees, ESC, CACT, EAC, etc Key stakeholders

30

31 Construction Manager at Risk 2 contract components Phase 1: Pre-Construction Services Valuable team member in design process CMAR is aware of City construction budget - $13M Constructability Scope and cost alignment Guaranteed Maximum Price Completed at end of Phase 1 contract City negotiates price with contractor to deliver scope within given budget

32 Construction Manager at Risk 2 contract components Phase 2: Construction Services City risk decreased due to CMAR participation in Phase 1 Potential for shared cost savings in buy outs

33 IFQC posted May 19, 2016 Short List developed July firms Detailed proposals submitted Firm interviews November 2016 Final Selection Winter 2016

34

35 1. Approve the award of the Construction Manager at Risk contract 2. Advance project to complete Construction Documents and Guaranteed Maximum Price requires A&E, CMAR, some commissioning

36 Award CMAR Contract and direct staff to proceed to develop Construction Documents and GMP ($1,075,000) Design Development Continued Stakeholder Engagement Site Plan Process Construction Documents Guaranteed Maximum Price If needed discuss Alternative Bid Items Council approval of Construction Contract ($13M) Construction - completion estimated 2019

37 Where are we now, prior to final design and CMAR award: $725,000 expended Feasibility Studies/Preliminary Design $500,000 S27 Fee - Schematic Design $225,000 Remaining S27 Fee $975,000 CMAR Preconstruction Fee/ Phase 1 $100,000 FFE, Commissioning, Contingency, $1,150,000 Relocations Construction $13,000,000 Total Remaining $15,225,000

38 At CMAR Phase 2 award- Construction Documents and GMP: $1,800,000 Feasibility Studies/Preliminary Design $500,000 S27 Fee - Schematic Design $225,000 Remaining S27 Fee $975,000 CMAR Preconstruction Fee/Phase 1 $100,000 FFE, Commissioning, Contingency, $1,150,000 Relocations Construction $13,000,000 Total Remaining $14,150,000

39