HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/1990, C-7 - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT CONTRACT FOR THE RECREATION CENTER REHABILITATION MEETING DATE:
jIIIIIII city Of San LUIS OBISPO - 9-4-90
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �EM NUMBER:
FROM: J' St Recreation & Parks Prepared by: Kathy Koop
SUBJECT: Asbe s Abatement Contract for the Recreation Center Rehabilitation
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, authorize the CAO to execute a contract with REMTECH Restoration
Corporation in the amount of $58,000.00, (fifty-eight thousand dollars), for the abatement
of asbestos at the Recreation Center.
DISCUSSION:
In April of 1990 staff received City Council approval to proceed with the comprehensive
rehabilitation of the San Luis Obispo Recreation Center. It had previously been
determined that asbestos was present in the building and abatement of the asbestos was
a necessary part of the rehabilitation project. With approval of the comprehensive
rehabilitation, staff prepared and advertised a Request.for Proposal for complete asbestos
abatement of the Center. At the closing date for submittal of RFPs, July 27, 1990, five
(5) proposals were received and logged by the office of the City Clerk.
As prescribed by City Purchasing Policy, the firms submitting proposals were interviewed
to develop a priority list for negotiating a contract to perform the work. Interviews were
held on August 3, 1990 and the following priority list of firms was developed from their
responses during the interview and from review of their submittals to the Request For
Proposal.
1. REMTECH Restoration Corp.
2. Precision Works Inc,
3. APC Contractors, Inc.
4. Walsh & Sons
5. Scientific.Asbestos Control
Staff began negotiations with the firm listed No. 1 on the priority list, REMTECH
Restoration Corp. Negotiations were concluded on August 17, 1990, and the tentative
agreement is hereto attached.
It was the finding of the negotiation panel that the proposed agreement was fair and
equitable to both the City and the proposed asbestos abatement firm, and therefore, the
negotiation process was ended. Staff recommends the approval of the agreement with
REMTECH Restoration Corp. to perform services as indicated for the asbestos
abatement at the Recreation Center.
a -
Al City of san tins oBIspo
MaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CONCURRENCES:
The Recreation Center Rehabilitation project has been reviewed and approved by the
Departments of Public Works, Finance and Fire as well as receiving the endorsement of
the Parks and Recreation Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At the City Council meeting of April 11, 1990, Council approved to fund the Recreation
Center Rehabilitation by a combination of Park-In-Lieu Fees and Debt Financing. This
along with the State Grant of $296,000 will be used to finance the entire Rehabilitation
Project. The negotiated amount of $58,000 for asbestos abatement is below the April
11, 1990 engineers estimate of $65,000.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Form of Agreement
B. Unit Prices
C. Proposal (Available for review in Council Office)
D. Staff Report of April 11, 1990
i
` ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
CALIFORNIA
FORM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this 4 day of September , 19 90 by and between the
City of San Luiika�M San Luis Obispo County, California, hereinafter called
the Owner, and hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as
follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to
be performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary
tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required
to complete all the work of construction of in strict accordance with the plans
and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the Owner,
in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall
be furnished and said work performed and completed under the direction and
supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized
representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The owner shall pay the Contractor as full
consideration for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject toany
additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, the contract
prices as follows:
Approximate Items with Unit Price Written Unit Total
Item Ouantity in Words - Price (in Figures)
Asbestos Abatement Asbestos Abatement of San Fifty-eight $589000.
Luis Obispo Recreation thousand
Center as described in dollars
e attached proposal
The following unit prices shall apply to any additional asbestos
containing materials not identified in REMTECH's proposal.
Transite Ceiling Panels Three dollars $3.50/.
and fifty cents SQ/FT
per square foot
Pipe Insulation Twelve dollars $1.2.00/
per square foot SQ/FT
wf
1 C'A
Item Approximate Items with Unit Price Written Unit Price Tot-1
Quantity in Words J
HVAC Vibration Collar One hundred $100/ea
dollars per
each
HVAC Duct Insulation Ten dollars $10.00/
per square SQ. FT
foot
Contaminated Dirt Two dollars $2.00
per square
foot
II
�i
.,-
payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject'
to the provisions embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract:
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted or
of any extra work which the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the
size of any payment to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract,
said dispute shall be decided by the Contractor.-
its decision shall be final, and
' conclusive.
ARTICLE III. COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The , Contract consists of the
following documents, all of which are fully a part thereof as if herein set out
in full, if not attached, as if hereto attached.
1. Notice to Contractors.
2. Proposal requirements and information for bidders.
3. General conditions, specifications and Special Provisions.
4. Accepted Proposal.
5. Plans.
6. A6_eement and Bonds
�.
ARTICLE Iv. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto
that should there be any conflict between the. terms of this instrument and the
bid or psoposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall 'control and
nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said
proposal conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their
hands this year and date first above written.
r
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
1
' MAYOR
CONTRACTOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
. g
i
SECTION 1. PROPOSAL REOUIREMENTS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT J
City may request any and all information it deems appropriate from
an apparent low bidder in order to determine whether or not the
bidder is competent and responsible, and it shall be the duty of
said bidder to respond 'to all such inquiries in a full, frank and
timely manner.
R. Award of Contract. The City of San Luis Obispo reserves the
right to reject any and all proposals.
The award of the contract, if it is awarded, will be to the lowest
responsible bidder whose proposal complies with the requirements
prescribed. Such award, if made, will be made within thirty (30)
days after the opening of the proposals. /
L. Contract Bonds. The contractor shall furnish two (2) good and
sufficient bonds to the City of San Luis Obispo, California. One
(1) bond shall be in the amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the
total contract price for payment of claims for labor and other
materials, and the other bond in the amount equal ,to one hundred
percent (100%) of the total contract price for faithful
performance.
M. Execution of Contract. The Contract shall be signed by the
successful bidder and returned, together with the contract bonds
and proof of insurance coverage, within ten (10) days, not
including Sundays: or legal holidays, after the bidder has received
notice that the Contract has been awarded.
No proposal shall be considered binding upon the City until the
execution of the Contract.
N. Failure to Execute the Contract. The failure of the successful
bidder to execute the contract and file acceptable contract bonds
and the proof of insurance coverage within ten (10) days, not
including Sundays and legal holidays, after the bidder has received
notice that the Contract has been awarded to him shall be just
cause for the annulment of the award and the forfeiture of the.
proposal guaranty.
O. Withholding of Bidderts security. The bidder's security of the
second and third lowest responsible bidders may be withheld until
the contract has been finally executed. The cash, cashier's checks
and certified checks submitted by all other ,unsuccessful bidders
shall be returned to them within 10 days after the contract is
awarded, and their bidders' bonds shall be of no further effect.
1-3
cell-7'6
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF WORK
i
A. General Scope. The scope of the work shall conform to the I
applicable provisions of Section 4 of the Standard Specifications
and as hereinafter specified. The work to be done, in general,
consists Of furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment,
processes, and incidentals unless otherwise specified, to construct
and complete the contract in a satisfactory and workmanlike manner.
B Specifications. The work embraced herein shall be done in I
accordance with the appropriate provisions of the construction
details of the Standard Specifications entitled, "State of
California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of I
Transportation Standard Specifications, January 1988, " insofar as
the same may apply, which specifications are hereinafter referred
to as the Standard Specifications, and ' in accordance with the
following special provisions. I
Whenever in the Standard Specifications the following terms are
used, they shall be understood to mean and refer to the following: I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT, STATE: Shall mean
City of San Luis Obispo. I
STATE ENGINEER, ENGINEER: Shall mean the City Engineer of the
City of San Luis Obispo, acting either directly or through
properly authorized agents, such agents acting within the scope I
of the particular duties entrusted to them.
TRANSPORTATION LABORATORY, LABORATORY: The designated I
laboratory authorized by the City of San Luis Obispo to test
materials and work involved in this contract.
CONTRACTOR: The person or persons., copartnership, or I
corporation, who have entered into a contract with the City of
San Luis Obispo, as a party or parties of the second part or his
or their legal representatives. I
HIGHWAY: Shall refer to City street.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS: Shall mean the "Standard I
Specifications" of the State of California, Department of.
Transportation, January 1988, as covered in the first paragraph
of this item (B. Specifications) .
Whenever in these specifications the above terms are used they
shall have the same meanings as described above and whenever the I
following terms are used, they shall be understood to mean and
refer to the following:
OWNER: Shall mean the City of San Luis Obispo. I
2-1 Rev. 1/88 I
C-"7-7
SECTION S. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC
Contractor's Insurance: The Contractor shall not commence work
under this contract until he shall have obtained all insurance
required under this Section and such insurance shall have been
approved by the City as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall
Contractor . allow any subcontractor to commence work on his
subcontract until similar insurance required of the subcontractor
shall have been so obtained and approved.
(a) Compensation. Insurance: The Contractorshall take out and
maintain, during the life of this contract, worker's compen-
sation insurance for all his employees employed at the site
of improvement, and in case any, work is sublet, Contractor
shall require subcontractor similarly to provide worker's
compensation insurance for all of the latter's employees, I
unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded
by Contractor. Contractor indemnifies City for any damage
resulting to it from failure of either the Contractor or the
subcontractor to take out or maintain such insurance.
(b) Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance:. The
Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this
Contract, such public liability and property damage insurance
as shall. protect the City, its elective and appointive boards,
officers, agents, and employees, Contractor and any A
subcontractor performing work covered by this Contract from r
claims for damage for personal injury including death, as well
as from claims for property damage which may arise from
Con .ractor's or subcontractor's operations under this
con* ract, whether such operations be by the Contractor, or by
any subcontractor, or by anyone directly or indirectly
employed by either Contractor or subcontractor, and the
minimum amounts of such insurance shall be as follows:
1. Bodily Injury Liability , $500,000. 00 $1,000,000. 00 I
each person each occurrence
Property Damage Liability . . . $250, 000. 00 $ 500,000. 00
each person each occurrence
2 . A single limit for Bodily Injury
Liability and Property Damage $500,000. 00 $ 5001000. 00
Liability combined of . . . . . each occurrence aggregate
PROOF OF CARRIAGE OF INSURANCE: CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE EXECUTION
HEREOF, WITH A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE REQUIRED, WHICH SHALL
CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING:
5-11
r • r, r
SECTION S. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC..
F-.F. Indemnification and Hold .Harmless Agreement. The Contractor
agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold City and its agents,
officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims
asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any
person or property, including injury to Contractor's employees, agents
or officers which arise. from or are connected with or are caused or
claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of Contractor, and its
agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services
herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same;
provided, however, that. Contractor's duty to indemnify and hold
harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the
established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its
agents, officers or employees.
i
1
I
1
1
5-10
'. C lopq
SECTION S. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC.
"NAME AS ADDITIONAL INSURED PARTIES: THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
ITS ELECTIVE AND APPOINTIVE BOARDS, OFFICERS, AGENTS AND ANY
SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK FOR THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO. "
THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO OF ANY REDUCTION IN INSURANCE OR OF CANCELLATION OF
INSURANCE.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
5-12
i
C-7-1c
CSECTION 6. PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS. 11
A. Subcontracting. Attention is directed to the Provisions of '
Section 8-1. 01, Subcontracting, of the Standard Specifications and
these Special Provisions. t
The Contractor shall give his personal attention to the fulfillment
of the contract and shall keep the work under his control.
i�No subcontractor will be recognized as such, and all persons '
engaged in the work of construction will be considered as employees
of the Contractor and he will be held responsible for their work,
which s',all be subject to the provisions of the contract and
specifier tions.
When a portion of the work which has been subcontracted by the it
Contractrr is not being prosecuted in a manner satisfactory to the
City Eng:.neer, the subcontractor shall be removed immediately on
the request of the Engineer and shall not again be employed on the !I
work.
B. Ass-_ynment. The performance of the Contract may not be j
assigned, except upon the consent of the. City of San Luis Obispo. i
Consent will not be given to any proposed assignment which would
U relieve theoriginal Contractor or his surety of their
responsibilities under the Contract nor will the City consent to
any assignment of a part of the work under the contract.
The Cor ractor may assign monies due or to become due him under
the =or. _act and sach assignment will be recognized by the City if
given F _ oper notice thereof, to the extent permitted by law, but
any ass -. 3nment of monies shall be subject to all proper set-offs
in favor of the City of San Luis obispo and to all deductions 1
provided for in the Contract and particularly all money withheld,
whether assigned or not, shall be subject to being used by the City
for the completion of the work in the event that the Contractor
should be in default therein.
C. Beginning of Work. The Contractor shall begin work within 15
days from the date of the notice to proceed, and shall diligently
prosecute the same to completion within the time limit provided in
the special provisions. The date of execution of the Contract
shall be the date that the last signature, eitner the Contractor's
or the person authorized to sign for the City, is placed on the
Contract.
Should the Contractor begin. work in advance of the contract being
fully executed, any work performed by him in advance of the said
�. ate of execution of contract shall be considered as having been
done at his own risk and as volunteer unless said Contract has been
fully executed.
—7• It I
j
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
Contract Bonds. The contractor shall furnish two (2) good and
sufficient bonds to the City of San Luis Obispo, California within
ten (10) days of contract approval. One .W bond shall be in the
amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the total contract price for
payment of claims for labor and other materials. and the other bond
in the amount equal to one hundred percent (100%0 of the total
contract price for faithful performance.
1
ATTACHMENT
R(MTECH
Restoration Corporation
I. UNIT PRICES FOR ACM REMOVAL & DISPOSAL
The following unit prices shall apply to any additional asbestos containing
materials not previously identified in REMTECH's proposal.
1. Transite Ceiling Panels $3.50/SF
2. Pipe Insualtion $12.00/LF
3. HVAC Vibration Collar $100.00/each
4 HVAC Duct Insualtion $10.00/SF
5. Contaminated Dirt $2.00/Lb.
II. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
REMTECH shall mobilize a mimiinum of two (2) men within 24 hours for
any emergency during renovations.
C
C`
4060 Palm St., Suite 602 • Fullerton, CA 9263,5 Phone 714.680-3077 • FAX 714680-3472
License No. 585674
ATTt1C['.1,1N1T "D11
MEETING DATE:
i�lh�► �ileil!up�ili��ll'!I city of San tuts OBISPO
0028 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: _Jim Stockton, Recreation & Parks Director BY: Kathy Koop
SUBJECT: Recreation Center Rehabilitation
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a report from staff and the project architects, West and
Doubledee and authorize staff to proceed on the comprehensive
rehabilitation of the San Luis Obispo Recreation Center at an
estimated cost of $973,900.
OVERVIEW:
The San Luis Obispo Recreation Center is the city's only multi-
use indoor recreational facility. Due to the failing systems of
the aging building, meeting program demands has .become
increasingly difficult and in some cases impossible to
accomplish. Realizing this, staff applied for and received grant
funding from the State of California.
Continued inspection has revealed that the level of
rehabilitation necessary to return the building to a state of
usefulness exceeds the original project budget. In an attempt to
retain the functionality of the building, and in light of the
decision to postpone the community/senior center master plan
study, staff with the assistance of the project architects have
proposed several options.
These are: 1. Comprehensive Rehabilitation
2 . Do Nothing
3. Phased Comprehensive Rehabilitation I
4. Demolish and Rebuild I
5. Partial Demolition
6. Commercial Exchange
Project architects from the firm of West and Doubledee will
provide a detailed presentation of these alternatives during the
April 4, 1990 Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In mid 1986 a grant was received for the rehabilitation of the
Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center. After receiving
notification of the grant award, staff prepared and distributed
Request For Proposals to provide architectural design and
interviewed prospective architecture firms. . A contract was
awarded to West and Doubledee for design services in Spring,
1987.
i
C74
I I
A 1 city of san tins osIspo
MaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
a epo
Page 2
It was the intent of staff and the architects to provide a
durable, low maintenance facility that was cost effective to
rehabilitate. With this in mind, the architects completed a
first set of design plans in late 1987 and submitted them for
initial review. The first architectural proposal called for a
stucco exterior with metal doors and windows to withstand the
usage associated with a recreation center and in addition make it
easy to maintain. When the proposal reached the Cultural
Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission, it was
determined that even though the building was not on the list of
historical properties, the facility was of historical
significance as it is one of the last remaining examples of
buildings constructed during World War II for use as a USO
center. This determination necessitated a redesign of the
exterior to include a more costly wood siding and wood window
trim that would recall the original appearance of the building.
The project was resubmitted for review to the Architectural
Review Commission: In April of 1988 staff was notified by the
Project Planner who interpreted the ARC's recommendation, that in
addition to making the exterior alterations, a parking and
landscape plan would be required before a building permit would
be issued. Originally no parking alteration or landscape plan
was required because the project was considered a rehabilitation
and the existing foot print of the facility was not disturbed.
In fullfilling this requirement, staff solicited bids for a
landscape architect firm to develop plans and specifications to
complete a parking and landscape plan.
A more inclusive inspection of the building revealed the presence
of extensiveamounts of asbestos. Rehabilitation would disturb
the asbestos laden areas and this necessitated asbestos abatement
prior to start of project. Aside from contributing to time
delays these items additionally escalated the rehabilitation
costs. In addition to the asbestos abatement costs, the building
has experienced further deterioration rendering major systems and
portions of the facility disfunctional. What began as a project
with a budget of $373,000, and an initial project estimate of
$450,000 is now estimated at a project cost of. $973,900.
Realizing that this cost approaches that of new construction
staff has intensively investigated alternatives and is providing
several options for council review.
Outlined below are several options for Council's consideration.
These options will be presented in detail by the project
architect during the council meeting of April 4, 1990.
city of sa. Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report -
Page 3
REHABILITATION OPTIONS:
1. COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION: This option addresses the
safety, health, structural and aesthetic deficiencies of the
building. The scope of this option includes the project, for
which the construction documents are already completed and meets
details requested by the Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission. The project includes: asbestos
abatement, re-roofing; replacement/repair of all exterior
materials; replacement of doors and windows; partial
reorganization of interior spaces; replacement of electrical,
lighting, and mechanical systems; structural stabilization,
landscaping and parking reorganization. Cost of the project is
approximately $97.3,900 which includes contingencies, landscaping,
asbestos abatement, fire sprinklers/alarm system and all
conditions.
For reasons detailed later in this report, staff recommends this
option. In summary, while requiring a substantial investment,
this alternative resolves all safety, weatherproofing and system
issues as well as addresses many aesthetic and functional issues.
Selection of this option requires a long-term commitment to use
of this existing facility configuration, organization and
location.
2. DO NOTHING: Adoption of this alternative would result in
closing the Recreation Center and leaving no long term
recreational facilities available to the community. The
architect lists the following deficiencies with the facility as
it exists presently: asbestos in heating and plumbing;
antiquated electrical distribution system; antiquated and
inoperative heating and hot water system; inadequate sewer and
plumbing systems; major weatherproofing deficiencies, including
leaking roof and failing exterior finishes; nonexistant fire
alarm system; inadequate fire exit pathways; and limited handicap
access.
Closing the Recreation Center would greatly reduce the Recreation
Department's ability to meet this community's diverse
recreational needs. Thus, this option is not recommended.
3. PHASED COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION: Adoption of this
alternative would restrict renovation to minimum items required
in order to maintain use for 5 - 6 years. The amount of work
required to meet this criteria could vary considerably, depending
upon the level of activity to be maintained and the permanence of
renovations instituted. Building modifications would consist of
improvements that would provide an improved facility that would
meet minimum health, safety and aesthetic requirements_ The
first phase would accomplish minimum weatherproofing and safety �(
� city Of sal a-GUIs OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
measures required to allow continued use of facility. Again,
this is a patching up of those items in the facility that are in
disrepair. It would extend to include some painting, patching
and caulking for the purpose of weatherizing the facility. Some
work would be done on the existing electrical system with a
general attempt being made to improve the existing systems of the
building but not include any new systems. The cost of this
alternative approaches $650,000 and includes asbestos abatement,
landscaping and sprinkling for fire suppression.
This option does not provide permanent solutions for existing
facility deficiencies, does not address significant aesthetic or
functional issues and may increase long term costs of facility
operation. In light of the successful completion of the Senior
Citizens Center rehabilitation, it is important to keep in mind
the unanticipated expenses that may be encountered as a part of
this rehabilitation project and allow for contingency costs.
That is included in the above cost estimate.
Staff does not select this as a recommended. option as it does not
address historical renovation requirements. Additionally it
provides a limited life expectancy and useability of the
facility. Experience in this and other communities indicates
that partial rehabilitation of older structures presents many
problems and is not a workable solution.
4. DEMOLISH AND REBUILD: The existing facility is 14,000
square feet. Complete demolition and construction of a new
facility could yield a recreation facility of 14,000 to 26,000
square feet constructed over a 350 space parking garage. This
option is mentioned conceptually and has not been researched_ in
depth. Approximate cost of a 14,000 sq. ft. facility is
$1,400,000 to $1,650, 000. Approximate costs for a 26,000 sq. ft.
facility is $2,600, 000 to $3,200,000.
This alternative requires a large capital expenditure and would
waive the historical significance of this facility. Additionally
staff would have to rewrite the existing grant and submit it to
review by the State of California which may result in the loss of
the $296,000 grant funding already received by the City.
However, when completed, the new facility might better address
existing recreational needs and long term goals for the downtown.
5. PARTIAL DEMOLITION: The gymnasium is the most redeeming
feature of the facility. This option would provide for
demolition of all of the facility except the gymnasium and
reconstruction of the adjacent building.
= city of sa_^ lugs osIspo •
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
The architect's preliminary review indicates that a balance could
be achieved between parking and useable recreational space and
still retain the quality of the existing gymnasium floor which is
the most desirable aspect of the .existing building. The
operation of the facility would be greatly reduced due to the
space required in order to accommodate parking. Approximate
costs for this alternative would fall between options 1 and 3,
($650,000 and $973,900) .
Disadvantages of this alternative include the large capital
expenditure in relation to the net useable space achieved.
Planning restrictions caused by attempting to retain the
gymnasium may limit planning flexibility and facility size.
6. COMMERCIAL EXCHANGE: Several inquiries from private
businesses have been received by the Recreation Department for
the purchase of the facility, with some form of rehabilitation
and continued use by the City. Staff has received a preliminary
proposal for the rehabilitation/lease of the Recreation Center
and will work to acquire a formal proposal for Council review, if
Council is interested in this kind of public/private approach to
the project. The staff believes it is inappropriate to consider
the sale of this property for commercial purposes and believes
that rehabilitation of the building under private sponsorship
raises more issues than it solves.
RECOMMENDED OPTION:
In the absence of a community center master plan study to
identify alternative recreation center sites, it is assumed that
the current location, size and configuration of the existing
facility is the best available option for a recreational center.
Additionally, considering the failing status of the existing
center and the community's demand for and extensive use of the
existing facility, the comprehensive rehabilitation option is
recommended.
Failure to perform any rehabilitation on the facility would
negate the Recreation Department's ability to .meet the
community's diverse recreational needs. Most of the youth, teen,
adult and many senior activities would be discontinued as
alternate facilities for these programs are not available for use
on a long term basis.
Community feedback as well as staff and architect review indicate
the Recreation Center is in a state of failing condition. The
architect lists the following deficiencies with the facility as
it presently exists: extensive asbestos in heating and plumbing,
antiquated electrical systems, inadequate sewer, plumbing and
handicap access, failing weatherproofing systems including a 'I
aFAI city O� Say.. �uIs OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
leaking roof and failing doors, windows and exterior surfaces and
inadequate fire suppression system. One room is presently closed
to use because of asbestos contamination, the heater/boiler
system is inoperative and heat is being supplied through the use
of space heaters. Security is nearly impossible because of
inadequate and failing doors and windows.
While requiring a substantial investment this alternative
resolves all safety, weatherproofing and system issues as well as
addressess all historical, aesthetic and most functional issues.
Selection of this option requires a long-term commitment to use
of this existing recreation facility.
Finally, it should be noted that staff worked for a considerable
period of time with the project architect to develop a less
costly alternative to a full scale rehabilitation. In the end,
staff and the architect believe that an attempted "piecemeal"
approach is likely to escalate in cost as the work proceeds, and
when completed, the project may prove a disappointment to the
City and to our recreation program users.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Under the contract with the architectural firm of West &
Doubledee approved by the Council on April 7, 1987, $80,600 has
been committed for this project to-date for schematic design,
design development, and construction documents. Based on project
concept changes since this contract was originally executed, an
additional $3800 in consultant service costs have been incurred.
As detailed in the Architect's Estimate (Attachment A) , the
projected construction cost for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation
Option is $973,900 summarized as follows:
Construction
Remodeling $ 7188800
Contingencies @ 15$ 107,800
Total Architect's Estimate 826,600
Bidding assistance and project administration 27,300
Acquisitions (equipment and furnishings) 25,000
Asbestos abatement 65,000
Landscaping 30.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - CONSTRUCTION PHASE $ 973,900
city or sar-.-Luis oBispo -
M=I=ZV
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
Grant funding in the amount of $296,000 has been awarded from the
State of California for this project. Under the terms of the
grant agreement executed on April 9, 1986, 80% of these funds
($236,800) will be distributed to,the City upon award of
contract, and the balance ($59,200) will be allocated upon
completion of the project. Significant progress on this project
(such as bid award) must be demonstrated by June 30, 1990 in
order to retain the City's eligibility for this funding although
an extension can be requested.
The 1987-89 Financial Plan (page E-10) designated $373,000 for
the construction phase of this project, with $257,000 to be
funded from grant sources and the balance ($116,000) to be funded
from park-in-lieu fees. As discussed above, the Architect's
Estimate is significantly greater (by $600,900) than original
budget estimates, which is partially offset by an increase of
$39,000 in grant funding. Three alternatives have been
identified in funding the additional $561,900 in City resources
required to finance the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Option:
Park-In-Lieu Fees
At the end of Fiscal Year 1990-91, the 1989-91 Financial Plan
reflects an ending fund balance for park-in-lieu fees of $828,400
(page G-9) . As indicated above, park-in-lieu fees are currently
the designated funding source for the City's share ($116,000) of
this project. Accordingly, it might be appropriate to fund the
remaining balance required ($561,900) from this source. However,
this approach would significantly deplete the accumulated
resources available for neighborhood park improvements, resulting
in a revised projected ending fund balance of $266,500 at the end
of Fiscal 1990-91.
Debt Financing - Capital Outlay Fund
This project meets all of the criteria established in the 1989-
91 Financial Plan (pages B-7 and B-8) for the use of debt
financing in meeting the City's capital improvement needs. At
the $561,900 level, annual net debt service over 25 years would
be approximately $60,000, which compares favorably with any
rental or leaseback alternatives. The primary concern with this
approach is whether the debt service period (25 years) is greater
than the remaining useful life of the facility in either
programming or structural terms.
Combined Park-In-Lieu Fees and Debt Financing
Under this alternative, the City's total share of the project,
($677,900) would be funded evenly from park-in-lieu fees and debt
financing. This option continues the commitment to use park-in-
lieu fees for this project ($3381900) compared with original
city Of sa• IM S OBISPO
ffftMa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
C Page 8
Financial Plan designations of $116,000 but at a level which
retains adequate resources ($605,000) for future neighborhood
park improvements. With this option, net annual debt service to
be supported through the Capital Outlay Fund would be reduced to
$35,000; or the annual debt service requirement indicated above
could be retained at $60,000, and the term reduced to ten years
to better match the "program life" of this facility.
Any of these alternatives adequately meet the funding needs for
this project as well as the City's overall financing policies and
capabilities. At this time, staff recommends the Combined Park-
In-Lieu and Debt Financing alternative as the most balanced
method of funding this project.
NEXT STEP: .
With Council approval of the recommended option and financial
plan at the April 4 meeting, the next step in the Recreation
Center rehabilitation project will be to review the already
completed plans and bid specification package. Additionally the
department of Finance will begin compiling -the package for debt
financing. Due to the City's positive cash flow at this time
completion of the debt financing process is not necessary prior
to beginning project construction. The project will then return
to Council at the May 1, 1990 for approval to advertise to bid.
CONCURRENCES:
This document has been reviewed by the Department of Finance,
Fire, Public Works, Community Development and the comments of
these departments have been considered in the development of this
report. The City's Building Official concurs that a partial
rehabilitation approach will not be cost effective or desirable.
The Parks & Recreation Commission has received regular reports on
the project and concurs with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Cover letter and project estimate
�7�
ARCHITECTURE
WEST+DOUBLEDEE ARCHITECTS PLANNING �
19
March
1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Recreation Department
860 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Kathy Koop
Rc: SAN LUIS OBISPO RECREATION CENTER REHABILITATION
Construction Cost Estimate for "Option 3, Substantial Rehabilitation"
Dear Kathy:
In response to your request made at our review meeting on tuesday the 13th H•e have reviewed the cost
estimate for "Substantial Renovation" (Option 3). The estimate for this option is based on the completed
contract drawings and was last updated to S 716,205.00 in August of 1959.
The attached updates the estimate for this option to March 1990. The current estimated construction cost is
S 526,6129.00. The following outline briefly describes this option.
OPTION 3. SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION r'
This alternative corresponds to the project for which construction documents have been completed.
The intent is to correct all structural safety and weatherprooling deficiencies.
The scope of work includes:
1. All new Roofing
2. Replacement and/or repair of all exterior materials.
;. Replacement of all doors and windows.
4. Partial reorganization of interior spaces.
5. Replacement and/or repair of interior materials in the front portion of the building.
6. Replacement or most electrical service, distribution and lighting
7. Replacement of mist plumbing including fixtures
8. Replacement and/or repair of all Heating and ventilation systems..
9 Structural stabilization
Also included in the project, but not included in this estimate is:
Asbestos abatement
Landscaping
As we discussed we will be available to present the options to the City Council and answer any questions as
ncccss:l n•.
Sincereh, _
7LI)onDI uhlcdcc -
1
II 11 O Q t: I N I ANA ! U 1 1 1 21 • 1t U N R.U B A ,' , f. A I 11 0 K R I A 9 ) I t / • " n / 7 S u O tl n.�.�
WEST+DOUOLEDEE ARCHITECTS
CSLO REC CENTER 143-A-87 MARCH 1990 _
SAN LUIS OBISPO "RECREATION CENTER' REHABILITATION
DIVISION TRADE ESTIMATE TOTAL
1 GENERAL CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS $45,582.95
OVER $68,374.43
PROFIT $56,978.69
$170,936
2 SITEWORK&DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION $7,800.00
SITEWORK $10,400.00
HANDICAP RAMPS $22,880.00
$41,080
3 CONCRETE
CAST-IN-PI ACE CONC $0.00
50
4 MASONRY
MASONRY $0.00
50
5 METALS
MISC.METALS $4,160.00
$4,160
\.'UOD ANO Pl ASTICS
ROUGI I CARPL N I RY $27,352.00
FINISI I CARPFNTRY $16,640.00
C MILLWORK&CAI31NIII'S 518;720.00
562,712
11 It RNIAL&MOISTURE
SIDING 549,920.00
ROOFING $26,000.00
EIFS (STUCCO) $54,080.00
INSULATION 5151600.00
FLASH ING&SHT.MI.1. 56,240.00
$151,840
n DOORS AND WINDOWS
DOORS 58,320.00
WINDOWS 536,400.00
IIARMAVARF 54,160.00
$48,880
IIVltil ll:5.
GYPSUM DRYWALL 59,880.00
PIASTER 50.00
SUSPENDED CFILINGS $18,720.00
TILE 518,720.00
CARPET $9,360.00
SHEET VINYL $2,080.00
PAINTING 520,800.00
WALL COVERING $0.00
$79,560
10 ACCESSORIES
TOILET PARTITIONS $5,200.00
TOR FT ACCESSORII'% 51,560.00
S6,760
�7�3
HEST+DOUBLE DEE ARCI-11TECTS
DIVISION TRADE ESTIMATE TOTAL
11 EQUIPMENT
KITCHEN EQUIPMENT $1,560.00
ATI ILETIC EQUIPMENT $520.00
$2,080
12 FURNISHINGS
FURNITURE $0.00
ART $0.00
$0
13 SPECIAL CONST
SPECIAL CONST 10.00
$0
14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS
CONVEYING SYSTEMS $0.00
10
15 MECHANICAL
HEATING&VENTING $36,400.00
AIR CONDI IIONIC, $0.00
PLUMBING 110,800.00
FIRE PROTECTION $36,400.00
193,600
16 ELECTRICAL
SERVICE $8,320.00
DISI RIOUTION $26,000.00
LICIIIING $15,600.00
COMMUNICA I IONS $2,080.00
AI ARn1S $5,200.00
$57,100
SLJOI OTAL 1718,808
CON IINGIN(YAT 150; $107,811
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUC1ION COST 5826,429
t
I
J