HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 0820 CC REG ITEM 09CTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION
ITEM °I • c•
MOORPARK CITY COUNCILImnG �d
AGENDA REPORT �, u 14
The Honorable City Council (5-0)
By: W >�,�.,..
Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works
August 4, 2003 (Council Meeting 8- 20 -03)
Cost Reduction Alternatives for the Corporation Yard
Project
A. Backaround
In June of this year
the City Council
approved the preliminary
layout for the new
Corporation Yard
[Exhibits
1 & 2], but
directed staff to
confer with the
project
architect to
identify possible cost
reduction measures prior
to proceeding
with the final conceptual design. The
cost of the
four options
initially suggested
by the architect,
are
summarized as
follows:
With Covered
Without Covered
Building Type
Parking ($)
Parking ($)
Concrete Masonry
3,836,420
3,406,663
Pre -Fab Steel Building
3,563,178
3,133,421
B. Maior Cost Reduction Measures
The architect has identified a number of design changes which
would generate significant cost savings. These changes are
listed in prior order (as viewed by staff) as follows:
Item Delete Reduced Cost Savings ($)
A. Cover for Outside Storage
B. Wrought Iron changed to chain link
C. Electrical Charging Station
D. LNG Fueling Station
E. Skylights
F. Reduce Paved Area
G. Covered Parking Area at Building
H. Reduce Building Footprint
I. Refuse Handling Facility
Total
CorpYard costs 0208
X 258,000
X 74,000
X 35,000
X 27,000
X 20,000
X 109,000
X 183,000
X 80,000
X 120,000
✓ �./ v Y � � -r V
Corporation Yard Costs
August 4, 2003
Page 2
The location of the above listed facilities is shown on the
diagram attached as Exhibit 3.
The major cost cutting options listed above are described in
more detail below, along with comments and recommendations.
A. Delete Cover for Outside Storage [$258,000]:
1. Action: Delete the proposed covers for the outside
storage and parking areas along the north and the west
fence lines.
2. Effect: This change would delete protective improvements
designed to increase the useable life of equipment and
materials.
3. Recommendation: Delete from the project scope (or
possibly show as an Add Alternate).
B. Fencing [$74,000]:
1. Action: Replace wrought iron fencing with chain link
along the perimeter of the facility, except the westerly
entry area where wrought iron would remain.
2. Effect: This change would only slightly diminish the
aesthetic presentation of the facility, as seen from
adjacent properties. The adjacent Caltrans facility uses
chain link fencing.
3. Recommendation: Delete from the project scope.
C. Delete Electrical Charging Station [$35,000]:
1. Action: Delete this facility from the plan.
2. Effect: This action would impede the City's ability to
utilize low- emission, fuel- efficient vehicles in the
future.
3. Recommendation: This feature can be funded from Traffic
System Management (TSM) Funds. Do not delete this
facility.
D. Delete LNG Fueling Station [$27,000]:
1. Action: Delete this facility from the plan.
2. Effect: This action would impede the City's ability to
utilize low - emission, fuel - efficient vehicles in the
future.
3. Recommendation: This feature can be funded from Traffic
System Management (TSM) Funds. Do not delete this
facility.
E. Delete Skylights [$20,000]:
1. Action: Delete this component of the building design
from the plans.
2. Effect: Such an action would eliminate possible
electrical energy cost savings which could be derived
from the use of skylights.
3. Recommendation: Do not delete skylights.
CorpYard costs 0208 .. v >v........
Corporation Yard Costs
August 4, 2003
Page 3
F. Reduce Paved Area [$154,000]:
1. Action: The draft concept plan called for paving the
entire site except for the expansion area at the east
end of the property. The action would be to limit the
pavement to only the shaded area shown on Exhibit 4. If
this change were to be implemented, the surface for the
area north of the "shaded" area [approximately 32,000
sq. ft.] would be left in a gravel or base material.
2. Effect: Such an action would diminish the usability of
the facility, while increasing the long -term maintenance
costs. An unpaved surface is less "user- friendly" and
durable than an asphalt surface.
3. Recommendation: Do not delete implement this change.
G. Delete Covered Parking Area [$200,000]:
1. Action: Revise the building roof structure to delete the
roof for covered parking along the north side of the
building.
2. Effect: Such an action would not only delete the shelter
for vehicles and storage in this area (increasing wear
and tear), but also eliminate the sheltered work area
for re- stocking trucks and related activities. Such a
change would also encourage the continued use of storage
bins for primary work activities and for the storage of
supply and materials.
3. Recommendation: Do not delete implement this change.
H. Reduce Building Footprint [$80,000]:
1. Action: Reduce the building foot print 800 sf, generally
as follows:
> Conference Room: reduced 200 sf
> Quad Office: reduced 200 sf
> Quad Office: reduced 400 sf
800 sf
2. Effect: Such an action would reduce the useable building
area.
3. Recommendation: Do not delete implement this change.
I. Delete Refuse Handling Facility [$120,000]:
1. Action: Delete this facility.
2. Effect: By lowering the bins and raising th
3.
areas, the planned design will enable City
contractors to easily and efficiently dump
refuse into forty (40) cubic yard bins for
recycled materials, without the need for doub l
or the use of heavy equipment. An action to
facility would require the continuation of t
practice of "double" handling, requiring the
manpower and equipment costs related thereto.
e "dumping"
crews and
debris and
refuse and
e handling
delete this
he current
additional
Recommendation: Do not delete implement this change.
r
CorpYard costs 0208 r' Fir 'w
Corporation Yard Costs
August 4, 2003
Page 4
C. Other Minor Chancres
Certain other design changes were identified by the architect,
which have a lesser cost savings significance. Those possible
design changes are listed as follows:
Item Delete Reduced Cost Savings ($)
1. Chain link instead of roll -up doors x 10,400
2. Landscape / Hardscape x 540
3. Monument Sign x 4,000
4. Shower x 3,500
5. Change north wall to chain link x 21,000
Total 39,440
It is not recommended that any of these changes be
implemented.
D. Fiscal Impact
1. Total Project Cost Estimate: The estimated cost range for
the project previously presented to the City Council is
summarized as follows:
Note: This amount does not include any revenues which might be
derived from the sale of Parcel "C ", the approximately
one -half (',�) acre lot at the west end of the site.
2. FY 2003104 Budget: The current FY 03/04 Budget for the
project is as follows:
High End
Low End
Description
Amount ($)
Amount ($)
Design
210,000
210,000
Environmental Document
25,000
25,000
Land Acquisition
920,792
920,792
Construction
3,840,000
2,518,421
Inspection
250,000
200,000
Total
5,245,792
3,874,213
Note: This amount does not include any revenues which might be
derived from the sale of Parcel "C ", the approximately
one -half (',�) acre lot at the west end of the site.
2. FY 2003104 Budget: The current FY 03/04 Budget for the
project is as follows:
DO'�F%r '^
CorpYard costs -0208 v, �,�,�
Estimated
FY 03/04
Total
Description
Prior Years ($)
Budget ($)
Project ($)
Design
50,000
229,208
279,208
Land Acquisition
920,792
0
920,792
Construction
2,500,000
2,500,000
Inspection
200,000
200,000
Total 970,792
2,929,208
3,900,000
DO'�F%r '^
CorpYard costs -0208 v, �,�,�
Corporation Yard Costs
August 4, 2003
Page 5
3. Funding: The approach taken in funding the subject project
is summarized as follows:
Component
Design
Land Acquisition
Construction
Inspection
Percent
Endowment
Gas Tax
Fund 2800
Fund 2605
Total
70
30
100
70
30
100
85
15
100
85
15
100
4. Budget Amendment: If necessary, a budget amendment will be
prepared to fully fund the estimated cost of the scope of
the project approved by the City Council.
E. Photovoltaics
In response to interest expressed by the City regarding this
matter, the architect is investigating the cost /benefit of
providing for the installation of photovoltaic systems at this
facility. A report on this option will be provided to the City
Council at a later date.
F. Summary / Conclusions
It is the view of staff that the original recommended design,
calling for the construction of a masonry building, be
approved with the deletion of Items A (perimeter cover) and B
(wrought iron fencing east of the entry) above. The revised
construction cost with these changes is noted as follows:
Description Amount ($)
Original Construction Cost Estimate 3,836,420
Less: A. Perimeter Cover [ *Add Alternate] (258,000)
Less: B. Wrought Iron Fencing East of Entry Area (74,000)
3,504,420
As noted above, it is recommended that this be included in the
project design and the bid documents as an `'ADD ALTERNATE ". If
it is at the time of award of contract, that the Perimeter
Cover can be constructed, the ADD ALTERNATE can be added to
the scope and cost of the construction project.
With regard to the other items listed in Section B of this
report [Items C thru I] , it is the view of staff that the
long -term costs, in terms of efficiency, equipment life - cycle,
usability and capability, exceed the cost - savings which would
be generated in the short -term.
CorpYard costs 0208 `� ^`"� 4
Corporation Yard Costs
August 4, 2003
Page 6
G. Schedule
It is anticipated that the Conceptual Design (Phase 2) and the
Final Design (Phase 3) will be completed in approximately
eight (8) months. During that period, staff will have an
environmental document prepared, select a Construction
Management firm and complete the required Bidder Pre -
Qualification process. Construction is planned to commence in
July 2004.
STAFF RECObMNDATIONS
Approve the preliminary design for Construction Option `A'
(masonry construction with covered parking), with the deletion of
Change Item B [portion of wrought iron fencing] and the inclusion
of Change Item A [cover for perimeter parking / storage areas] as
a Bid Add Alternate.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Site Plan
Floor Plan
Location of Suggested Changes
Site Plan [Revised Paved Area]
CorpYard costs 0208 T-
t -i !+ E -1 t i I _ - l 1! 1 i .l I. i l— l I! I i I I i a.F �, y A _-
r
I!_II` III�LII�!IIII�II� }1111111 IlI'4 IIl1I.1 II °Ai�aal�cs I I1IiI�II_II
! I r l i I 1 1 1 4 1 1 I i l r�-T 1 1 1 1 1 l i� 1 f 1 1 1 1 I I
L __. — _ —_. iVf__ _ _ _ _ _ _ L.--r _ _ J'�_. -. r{ _ r'! - _. ._ Win! - -..— -__ _. -.
TRV-,C CONTM. DCVC� YNGR AA* ( STWW TRAY PUN,C "KS ! ALL .tRJNM CPWL SW7 CIAMUTA'CJ CWNX I N wk -•
1 •/ MhMf[WNCL aiYY1M'�'•F_Q': S '. Vf Kt4s / ASP'Mlt �COMtAWVt main= o. Aon�s I I ' ou ooat�0 � wn 4OR1fZ ARFAS STORAGE U uu u H H 1 aP � CWKMW V.Mms swfxx
/.�
LOT PORTION 'C v I-- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- PARNANECTOR
AREA TO BE SOLO - mMrRa e
OR LEASED
(NOT A PART
OF THIS PROJECT)
0.58 ACRE
AWA
- — -- i Eno+ MOU
ELE04M WWI
0WONG STAIN!{
LOT PORTION "V
CORPORATE YARD
2.16 ACRES
irf KiAo11M i1UETY
- - -.
-t t
0
. • 1Ai15t'.19RG'
eotec�ro�SaE
tRS1GN Acass
I I
I
I I
I CALTRAN'S YARD
+ a
A.
I
I
I
E
E111W= EMPLOYEE PAROC A VWM RWIMC
OWP nta OR
TANK -
" LMR
-
E /tMw CAS I '
PuEUMG AREA
t I
-
I I
1. -J
uww
I
jL.
801 Non0 ♦-. n
i
BIN NaUP *r�—�
. RECR]ARE f it
lRlLAG
�
I
I
1
,i�
1
sw LOWER g
BIM Nl
a =_
utc
v nfr
LOT PORTION'S"
FUTURE do ACCESSORY
— — USE AREA
1.06 ACRES
1
SU&{:MIRACION
SU NG Gf0
z rn. Buss PAIMC
>, tAIOSGWE/lilCE R0.DL nMB I
1
l OUT OF M "CU 3
d II N
I
SITE AREA = 4.13 ACRES
CORPORATE YARD =2.16 ACRES
AREA FOR FUTURE EXPANSION = 1.06 ACRES s�°
ro
l
.i
.I
1
t—
i
7
_ -... ___________ ___ __ _____________ _______ ______
________________________ ______
S
� e a o 0
-- o - -- -� _..._.
1 , I
f
' I 1
C ;� 4
It�n1° ,•.vr ��� ain �n � I \- wsl�� _ oun I i
a •u" n I
I i �
o.. L —
f.n oa:�onna i Jn`i.^^ •w. m� I i ��. , I I '�
w., f•mn `
MTY 1) ENCI CStC ARIA: 9,200 S.F.
CCVFR7.11 WORK & PARKING AREA: 4920 S.
CIA
' arvNa f 3 <
I I �
FLOOR PLAN — _ -- — -- — -- — -- - NORTH
G 5 10 17 JO
2
M
,.
!-,-)
'Irr`1��I�I irr��r *7 VIII.. T jl I- El.illi.iiir1.L _ il_r. Intl -t�
I
i
L
I�t rr�, rrr Ir I:I ;rr ,,+
.as --- - -- -�r.r __ -rr _ ..r r: -i_ _fin {. - -'- - -' --
"71ACTC :A7i7f701 �EVCE/ YaOR ASR'Al7 . -5767Y IUW "iftc wOricS ! A:.:al%w .G-v 1 S" /cgkm"TJ C;�PP( _ - - I —_ . MA
�. .. .- _ �_ �-�� gEla4 + L 1Ww'i w�Ct �wvV.+Y Kr•CLS_ M1.C.S5 I A5.'�x: 1 ( .- .. _ _
//1 COr7A•V-
-, •'ter--{ -^/. �' T7'TS'7n/71- !E�TLi'T �_'�--`�f�� -L
J � '
>ErCAL �
STR SWEEPER 1
NL7OP
MIL V w
LYIK /• Sw LA10E9
l I
I I
II
I I
i I n
L�
i•3
CALTRAN'S YARD
1
1
l
1
1
1N
Mw Tmjm 02
S-OP LOWER
a `I
M E � I
N I
SITE AREA = 4.13 ACRES m
CORPORATE YARD =2.16 ACRES
AREA FOR FUTURE EXPANSION = 1.06 ACRES
i G
�•1
L"I
I
I I
I I
� f
I
I � I
�1 I
�I I
1
1
l
1
1
1N
Mw Tmjm 02
S-OP LOWER
a `I
M E � I
N I
SITE AREA = 4.13 ACRES m
CORPORATE YARD =2.16 ACRES
AREA FOR FUTURE EXPANSION = 1.06 ACRES
i G
�•1
L"I
�1 I
�I I
I r
WlflAl)
.
_���
BX R
00,
)
IOtIY
i
IC�
rr_
IAHU i
I I
ttR6E BM
I
anyn
\
I
1
1
l
1
1
1N
Mw Tmjm 02
S-OP LOWER
a `I
M E � I
N I
SITE AREA = 4.13 ACRES m
CORPORATE YARD =2.16 ACRES
AREA FOR FUTURE EXPANSION = 1.06 ACRES
i G
�•1
L"I
PARTIAL SITE PLAN.
MODIFIED PER REDUCED COST ESIMATE
-®r,
PARTIAL SITE PLAN.
MODIFIED PER REDUCED COST ESIMATE