Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/1995, 2 - INVITATION TO BID: PARKS AND RECREATION OFFICE BUILDING VM ��U city of San LUIS OBISp0 �D J Ifti me COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Directory"l Paul LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director PREPARED BY: David Elliott, Administrative Analyst'-orr Office SUBJECT: Invitation to Bid. Parks and Recrea Building CAO RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Approve plans and specifications for "Parks and Recreation Office Building, Specification No. 94-13B" 2) Authorize staff to advertise for bids on a construction contract 3) Authorize the CAO to award the construction contract if the lowest responsive, responsible bid is within the cost estimate DISCUSSION Introduction Plans and specifications for the Parks and Recreation Office Building project are complete and ready to advertise for construction bids. Project plans call for constructing a 4,190 square foot office building at the corner of Nipomo and Pacific Streets on about 24,000 square feet of the old Emerson School site. Site improvements include driveways, curbs, a parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and site furnishings. This report focuses on the evolution of the project since its inception, the calculation of final estimates, and reconciliation of the project budget to cost estimates. Project Chronology to Date 02188 To provide for future parking development, the city buys the property at 860 Pacific Street. 03188 To avoid paying rent at the old junior high school, the parks and recreation offices temporarily move into the building at 860 Pacific Street, pending development of new permanent offices. 11190 The city enters into a purchase agreement to buy the Emerson School property for a new fire station and a parks and recreation office building. 10192 Escrow closes and title to the Emerson School property passes to the city. 02193 The Council authorizes negotiations to buy a better site for the fire station at Broad and Santa Barbara Streets. 06193 The Council approves purchase of the Broad/Santa Barbara property and eliminates the parks and recreation office building portion of the project at this new site. ������i�►►►�NNIpIIp llUll city Of San L"IS OBIspO MEEM Al COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 12193 The Council decides to keep the Emerson property for recreation uses and to demolish the existing buildings. 01194 The Council appoints a subcommittee to determine the feasibility of building a new parks and recreation office building at the Emerson site. 03194 The building subcommittee concludes that a new building on the Emerson site is the least expensive way to provide convenient, flexible, and productive offices for parks and recreation. 04194 The Council authorizes a request for proposals to design.a parks and recreation office building. The RFP invites eight pre-qualified firms to submit proposals accompanied by conceptual designs for the new building. The building subcommittee conducts a neighborhood meeting to solicit comments about the proposed office building. 05/94 The building subcommittee reviews proposals, interviews architects, and recommends hiring Bruce Fraser, based on the merits of the conceptual design submitted. 06194 The Council awards a design contract to Bruce-Fraser. The Architectural Review Commission approves the conceptual design. 07194 The Planning Commission approves a use permit for the project. 08194 The Architectural Review Commission approves the schematic design and a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts. 12194 Plans are submitted for building plancheck. Proposed Next Steps 02195 The Council authorizes staff to advertise for bids on a construction contract. 04195 The CAO awards the construction contract. 06195 Construction begins. 01196 Construction ends and the building opens. CONCURRENCES At various stages this project has been reviewed and approved by the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Commission. These commissions requested several project features to mitigate environmental impacts, and they have been incorporated into the project. Among these features are the six listed on the following page: ��������►�►IIII�IIp° liUlll city of San IS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT o extensive tree planting o a prominent exterior bulletin board to display ridesharing information o a shower for commuting bicyclists O a plaque to commemorate the historical use of the site as a school o skylights, natural ventilation systems, and energy-efficient lighting to reduce energy use o facilities for interior and exterior recycling The project site lies within the Old Town historical district and adjacent to architecturally significant buildings like the Biddle House and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. Nearby residents are naturally concerned about preserving historically significant site features and enhancing the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood. On April 27, 1994 the building subcommittee held a meeting with these residents to answer questions and receive comments about the project. These residents expressed two primary concerns: 1) that the building fit comfortably into the architectural setting of the neighborhood and 2) that the building include features to conserve energy and save money over the long term. These concerns were reiterated through public comment received during Architectural Review Commission hearings on the project. In designing the building, the architect incorporated exterior features which echo the historical and residential flavor of the neighborhood. As mentioned above, he also included energy-conserving construction into the design. FISCAL IMPACT Current Project Budget vs. Project Cost Estimate The project cost estimate prepared by the architect is $151,000 higher than the current project budget. The differences between the budget and the cost estimate are summarized below: Current Project Project Cost Budget Estimate Building Area (SF) 3,977 4,190 Site Area (SF) 15,000 24,000 Building Construction Costs $303,000 $397,400 Site Improvement Costs 27,000 64,500 Furnishings Costs 719000 609000 Professional Services Costs: Appraisal Services 5,000 2,000 Geotechnical Services 0 1,700 Architectural Services 33,000 36,800 Contingencies (5 percent) 0 29,600 PG&E Rebate 0 (2.000) Total Cost $439,000 $590,000 ������irN►�IIiII1I�P ��U�U city of san _ .is osispo mugCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Differences in Building_Construction Costs. The$303,000 project budget for building construction was based on 3,977 square feet at$76 per square foot. The$397,400 cost estimate is based on 4,190 square feet at about $95 per square foot. The additional 213.square feet comes from the following four areas which were not included in the original building program: o a janitor closet at 65 square feet o a children's play area in the lobby (as suggested by the former mayor) at 30 square feet o a shower (as required by the Planning Commission for bicyclists) at 60 square feet o extra space in the restrooms (as required by new state accessibility requirements adopted in April 1994) at 60 square feet The additional $19 of cost per square foot pays for 1) design features which help the building fit into the neighborhood and 2) energy-conserving construction which will reduce operating costs over the long term — both recommended as high priorities at the neighborhood meeting for the project. Differences in Site Improvement Costs. The $27,000 project budget for site improvement was based on 11,000 square feet at $2.45 per square foot — enough to pay for minimum paving, curbing, and landscaping. The $64,500 cost estimate is based on 19,810 square feet at $3.26 per square foot. The additional 8,810 square feet provides deeper setbacks and more separation between the building and parking lot than were envisioned in the original program. The additional $.81 of cost per square foot covers demolition, site drainage, site furnishings, and extra landscaping not anticipated in the budget estimate. The cost per square foot to develop the site around the building is slightly more than the cost per square foot for developing a park. So if the city didn't develop this area now as landscaping around the building, it would be developing it as park area at the about the same cost sometime in the future. Differences in Furnishings Costs. The$71,000 project budget for furnishings was based on a quotation from the city's contract dealer for systems furniture. The $60,000 cost estimate assumes that 1) two workstations. will be eliminated because of recent organization changes in the parks and recreation department and 2) some existing furnishings (particularly file cabinets) will be used in the new building. Significant reductions in the furnishings budget are not feasible because calculations of space needs and building size are based on the use of systems furniture. Generally, systems furniture takes up about 15 percent less floor space than conventional furniture, and electrical, communication, and computer network circuits are built into the systems furniture panels. Both of these features reduce construction costs significantly. Differences in Professional Services Costs. The $5,000 project budget for appraisal services at 860 Pacific Street was based on the cost of previous similar appraisal work. Because there was no external sale involved, the scope of the appraisal was reduced somewhat. There was no separate project budget for geotechnical services because staff originally thought they might be subcontracted through the architectural services contract. The $33,000 project budget for architectural services was based on 10 percent of the original building construction ($303,000) and site improvement ($27,000) budgets. Actual negotiated fees amounted to $39,300 and will drop to $36,800 when the contract is modified to reduce construction administration duties which will be performed by public works inspectors. ►���������flIIIIIIP� llUlll city of San . .is OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Revised Project Budget The current project budget is $439,000. A 1994/95 midyear budget request proposes increasing the project budget to $590,000 so that it matches the project cost estimate. $485,000 of the entire project cost will be covered by selling the 860 Pacific property to the parking fund for future expansion of the adjacent parking garage. Debt service on the original acquisition of the 860 Pacific property has been paid from the general fund, so technically the parldng fund must buy this property from the general fund. (See the 1994/95 midyear budget request for acquisition of property at 860 Pacific.) The remaining $105,000 must come from the general fund unappropriated balance. To receive the full sales price of$485,000(instead of just the equity accumulated), the general fund will continue to pay the debt service remaining on the property. Net annual debt service payments have amounted to $65,000 in the past, but have fallen to $35,000 after refinancing. Project Cost-Effectiveness The parks and recreation offices will have to vacate the 860 Pacific building eventually, and there are no other suitable existing city facilities. The existing Fire Station No. 1 has extensive seismic safety problems that would not be cost-effective to repair. The retail portions of the Marsh Street Parking Garage are under long term leases and bring in a minimum rental income of $128,000 annually. Considering this situation, does it make more financial sense to construct a new building on the Emerson site, build on another site not yet owned by the city, or rent space? The following calculations show the annual costs over 20 years of these three options. These calculations do not consider opportunity cost or inflation. The annual cost of constructing a new building on the Emerson site will be $40,300 ($35,000 annual debt service on the 860 Pacific property plus the remaining $105,000 of construction cost amortized over 20 years). The annual amortized cost of constructing a new building on a site not yet owned by the city would be $46,300 ($590,000 building cost plus $336,000 land cost divided by 20 years). The annual cost of renting 4,200 square feet of equivalent office space under a full service lease would be $73,100 (4,200 square feet times $1.45 per square foot per month times 12 months). Constructing a new building on the Emerson site is the least expensive way to provide convenient, flexible, and productive recreation offices. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. r.%WP61wec0FF7