Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2005/10/03 (2) CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL Monday, October 3, 2005 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus _______ 1. Presentations A. Mounds View School District in regard to future planning and decisions by the school district B. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Presentation (Louis Jambois) C. Park Building Discussion 1. Groveland Recommendations 2. Random/Clubhouse Recommendations _______ 2. Citizen Communication A. City Hall Message Board – Continue operations? (verbal report) ________ 3. Development and Planning A. Review Medtronic Development Stage Plans for their CRM Campus Project B. Initial Allocation of Land Proceeds _______ 4. Review//Discuss Effective Council Meetings Articles Next Council Work Session: Monday, November 7, 2005 (New Brighton City Hall) Next City Council Meeting: Monday, October 10, 2005 (New Brighton City Hall) Item No. 1C Meeting Date: October 3, 2005 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Park Building Review and Recommendations GROVELAND PARK BUILDING Background: Bids for the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project were received on Thursday, July 14, 2005 at City Hall. The bids were composed of the base bid to perform the construction of the building and a bid alternate for the air conditioning of the building. A total of two (2) bids were received for this project. The low bid of $289,700.00 was submitted by Unicorp, Incorporated of Saint Paul Minnesota. The bid alternate for air conditioning was $7,000.00. A complete bid summary follows: BIDDER’S NAME BASE BID BID ALTERNATE Unicorp, Incorporated $289,700 $7,000 Meisinger Construction $302,000 $5,500 The engineer's estimate was $227,000 -- 27.6% less than the lowest actual bid. On July 25, 2005, the bids were presented to the City Council. It was recommended that, should the City Council wish to proceed with this project, the City should utilize the construction services of TKDA to oversee the project and ensure that the contractor adheres to the plans and specifications. TKDA had submitted a letter of agreement in the amount of $14,000.00 to provide these services. Based on the bids received and the estimated construction services, the following estimated total project cost summary was presented on July 25, 2005: TKDA Plan Preparation $19,600 Construction $289,700 AC – bid alt. $7,000 TKDA construction services $14,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $330,300.00 As per resolution 6558, Sixty-five percent (65%) of the total project cost would be financed utilizing Park Dedication Funds (Account No. 285-4470-3030), and the remaining 35% would be derived for the Special Project Funds (Account No. 280- 4180-7050). $214,695 - 65% financed by Park Dedication Fund $115,605 - 35% financed by Special Project Fund At the July 25, 2005 City Council Meeting, the City Council rejected the bids citing that the project was too expensive and asked the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission to look at alternatives. Discussion: On July 28, 2005 the Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission began discussing and exploring alternatives for the replacement of the Groveland Park building. Discussions and investigation have continued over the past several months. The following is a brief summary of several options were explored: Public Works crews to do the demolition The Public Works crews could do demolition if necessary. However, this may not represent that great of a savings. Having limited labor resources may also be an issue. The demolition would most likely occur in late winter/early spring. This is when other, perhaps more critical, activities such as spring park duties, street repair, street sweeping, and boulevard repairs occur. Review Bid Items The Commission requested a list of line items associated with this project from the low bidder. Unicorp, Incorporated submitted a list they used to develop their bid. This list is attached for the City Council’s review. There were no items that were easily identifiable that could be reduced or eliminated to save costs. Identify Fixed Costs The Commission was concerned as to how the project was presented to the City Council on July 25, 2005. A list of all project related costs was presented. These costs totaled $330,300. The Commission suggested that a more equitable way to view the cost is to identify fixed costs and remove them from consideration – essentially identifying the increased cost from the “do nothing option” to replacing the Groveland Building. Two such costs that were identified were the demolition costs and plan and specification costs. These costs have been or will be incurred, regardless of what option is selected. Since the City will need to remove the Groveland building at some point in time regardless of whether it is replaced - should the demolition costs be removed from the overall costs? The demolition cost is estimated to be $8,000 to $10,000 and the cost to develop the plan and specifications amount of $19,600 has already been expended. Need to look at what items are needed The Commission went through an exhaustive review of the proposed building to see if there were items that could be eliminated in an effort to reduce the overall cost of the building. The restrooms were discussed. The question was raised -- ”Is a restroom needed?“ Lambert does not have a restroom. However, it is also not being used to any great extent. When looking at shrinking /eliminating amenities in this building, the Commission also looked at the impact of the usefulness of the building. The Commission recommended that the building continue to retain restrooms. The question of whether the building should be heated was raised. With the recommendation to retain the rest rooms, it was also unanimously recommended to heat the building. The Commission looked at the need to have two restrooms. Could one unisex restroom be created? This is a possibility. The plan would be to simply not include the fixtures and retain the second bathroom as storage. To eliminate the room would require a redesign of the building plans. The Commission discussed that it could be included as a bid alternate. However, it should be pointed out that the removal of a toilet and sink may not be that great of an overall cost savings. Reducing the building’s overall square footage was reviewed. This is a fairly basic space. It was suggested by the Commission that the proposed building retain the space as planned to be used for its current functions. It was also stated that this is a public building – not private. Because of this, there are additional requirements such as restroom floor space that need to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Commission recommended unanimously to maintain the planned floor space. There is double door to the mechanical room. Is there a need for this second door and is there a savings to reduce to one door? It was determined that the opening could be reduced to require one door. However, it was also determined that it is beneficial to retain the double doors and that the reduction to a single door does not represent a cost savings due to the additional cost of material needed to fill in where the second door would be. The firm of TKDA was contacted to get their recommendations for reducing costs. TKDA stated that this is a very basic building and that there are no real “extras” on it. When asked if lower quality materials could be used, TKDA stated that the materials specified are the “middle of the road” and they would not recommend lesser material in a public building. There was a consensus from the Committee not to change the plans and lose any amenities in the building at this time. The Commission felt that this is a very basic building without any unnecessary amenities but would still serve the public. A comparison was made to New Brighton’s buildings, which have fireplaces, knotty pine walls and ceiling, dividers, very nice restrooms, etc. Masonry construction versus “stick construction” The Commission asked, “Would TKDA need to start over with plans and specs with a stick building?” It was determined that TKDA would not need to start over since there are many shared design construction features of the two. However, how much re-work of the plans is needed to develop a stick design is uncertain at this time. The line item bid list that was submitted by Unicorp, Incorporated showed the Concrete/Masonry line item to be $59,800. This cost would include a concrete floor, which would also be specified in a stick building construction. Also, considering that wood material would need to be added to the bid list, there doesn’t appear to be that great of a savings for substituting stick construction over masonry. Given the minimal cost difference, the overall durability, the increased longevity and maintenance reduction cost, the Commission recommended that masonry construction be considerer. As a note, the existing Golf Course Clubhouse was constructed in 1995. It is a “stick” constructed building with a total square footage of 1380 sq. ft. The total cost to construct Golf Course Clubhouse including construction, inspection, and engineering was $231,657.98 in 1995. The ENR Construction Cost Index from July 1995 was 5484. As of July 25, 2005, the ENR CCI is 7422. Therefore, to convert a project cost from July 1995 to July 2005, the 1995 cost should be multiplied by 1.3534. Doing this the current estimated cost to construct the Golf Course Clubhouse is $313,525.91 Groveland Clubhouse Total Cost $330,300 $313,525.91 Square Footage 1217 1380 Cost per sq. ft. $271.41 $227.19 Construction options: Volunteers The Commission looked into whether high schools, trade schools, vocational schools or colleges would be capable of building the Groveland Park Building. It appears that it is possible. A great deal of coordination would be needed. There was also the issue - can this be done legally? The City's legal counsel and the City's insurance agent were contacted. In summary, the City could allow a volunteer group to construct a park building with few legal or insurance issues involved. The main problem would be that if a volunteer group were to be covered under the City's insurance policy, the City would need to supervise the project. Given this, and the fact that the material cost would remain the same, there probably would be little advantage to this option. Other options - Prefab construction This is an option. However, the issues of maintenance costs, durability, and longevity exist. Bidding / Contract Options There are three possible bid revision options: 1.) Revise the plan – this was reviewed and discussed by the Commission. There are little recommended changes other than perhaps having a single bathroom as a bid alternate (and keep the AC unit as a bid alternate). 2.) Increase the construction timeframe by revising the specifications to allow for construction any time during the 2006 construction season. This option was also recommended by TKDA 3.) Increase the number of potential bidders – develop an information campaign and target smaller bidders who typically do not use the Construction Bulletin to know of potential projects and those contactors who do not typically bid on government projects. Commission Recommendation A motion was made to direct Staff to bring this issue back to the City Council with a summary of the options that were reviewed, discussed, and investigated by the Commission; also, to present the Commissioner’s recommendation to re-bid this project in an effort to obtain more favorable bids. This would done by changing the specifications to give the contractor the entire 2006 construction season to complete the project – have a December 1, 2006 substantial completion date. There would also be an advertisement campaign to reach the smaller contractors who typically do not bid on public contracts. The bid would also include a bid alternate for the air conditioning unit it be installed. RANDOM PARK BUILDING / GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE Background: In 2002, the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) indicated that the Random Park Building was scheduled for replacement in 2006. However, due to budget restraints this project was later moved back in the CIP schedule to the year 2013. Discussion: With the closing of the Golf Course, the City has been investigating the feasibility of moving the Golf Course Clubhouse to a new site within the City. There are two feasible relocation sites for the clubhouse: Groveland Park and Random Park. The Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Commission have been discussing and exploring these two sites. Assuming that both the existing Groveland and Random Park buildings were in the same condition and were both scheduled for replacement at this time, the Random Park building would make a much better choice for replacement with the Golf Course Clubhouse. The Random Park building is used exclusively for classroom style and similar type activities. Conversely, the Groveland Park building is used for social gatherings during the spring and summer months and as a warming house in the winter. A stick constructed building, such as the Golf Course Clubhouse, would be subjected to far greater wear and abuse at the Groveland site versus the Random site. This would certainly affect its longevity. The City has received four (4) quotes to move the clubhouse. They ranged from $28,500 to $96,000. The quotes did not include tree trimming, power lines work, or intersection help/removal. These would be additional costs. Moving expenses for the clubhouse may be Tax Increment Financing (TIF) eligible. The City’s Economic Development Coordinator will continue to look into this possibility. There would also be costs associated with the setup of the Clubhouse on a new site. These include: removal of any existing building ($8,000 - Groveland or Random), utility work ($5,000), foundation construction ($52,000), removal and replacement of interior surfaces ($50,000). The total estimated cost could be around $115,000. Total project including moving the building is estimated to be $150,000. The Commissioners had questions regarding the doors (entry and interior) of the Golf Course Clubhouse. The interior doors are hollow wood doors and would be susceptible to damage – especially in a warming house setting with ice skates. The Commissioners were concerned that the clubhouse is not a park building type of structure. There are three general options regarding the fate of the clubhouse: 1.) The clubhouse is demolished by Medtronic – no expense to the City. 2.) Remove the clubhouse and relocate it somewhere within the City – the Commissioners should provide recommendation as to the preferred site and identify any associated issues. 3.) Remove the clubhouse and sell it– is there a salvage value? Commission Recommendation After exhaustive study of the options pertaining to the fate of the Golf Course Clubhouse, and detailed evaluation of park needs at Random Park versus Groveland Park, the Park and Recreation and Forestry Commission voted unanimously to recommend that, should the City retain the clubhouse, that it be relocated to Random Park. Furthermore, there was a consensus of the Commission that should the Random Park site be selected as the preferred relocation site of clubhouse, a neighborhood meeting should be conducted to present the proposal to the community and allow them the opportunity to provide comments before final City Council resolution. It was discussed and concluded that it would not be economically feasible to move the existing Random Building to Groveland Park. Recommendation: Parks and Recreation and Forestry Commission, along with Staff, is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, the Commission is looking for Council input on re-bidding the Groveland Park Building Replacement Project and input on the fate of the Golf Course Clubhouse. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works