The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19 - Civic Center UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 19 November 10, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, City Manager 949/644 -3002 or dkiff @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Civic Center Update ISSUE: What should the scope of the Civic Center project (at 1100 Avocado) look like and how will the Project be funded? RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. DISCUSSION: This item is a follow -up to the October 27, 2009 Study Session agenda item about the Newport Beach Civic Center. At that Study Session, the City Council reviewed a spreadsheet with staff that outlined a range of approaches to the Civic Center Project. The discussion was primarily about cost issues — including project scope, phasing, bid climate, and "value engineering" (the latter being ways you can substitute one product for another, or redesign something to get to something less expensive, or reduce scope). Recall that the components of the Civic Center Project include: • An 89,000 square foot (SF) City Hall. • A new 150 -seat Council Chambers and a 275 - person Community Room. • A 450 -space parking structure. • A "South" Park parcel and Civic Green, more lushly landscaped. • A "Central' Park parcel, which includes the wetlands. • A "North" Park parcel, which includes the dog park, surface parking, and is north of San Miguel. • A pedestrian bridge over San Miguel linking the Central and North parcels. • A 4,800 SF set -up dedicated Emergency Operations Center. • A 7,000 SF expansion of the current Central Library. • A "library connection" (9,150 SF) — connecting the Central Library to the Civic Green. At the Study Session, the City Council offered its thoughts as follows: Civic Center Update November 10, 2009 Page 2 EOC. The Council directed staff to still consider the inclusion of a functioning, set -up facility for emergencies and disasters. They asked to see how the large room that would function as our center would fit if it were in the City Hall basement (recall that the basement level is actually the same level as the 1s` story of the Library), instead of built as a bunker separate from all other buildings. The critical distinction is this: while this room will be set -up, ready to go in the event of a disaster (and useable for training), it would not be in an "essential services" facility if it is in the City Hall basement. Community Room — Council Chambers. Council asked that the architect provide a sketch showing what a combined Council Chambers and Community Room might look like, and such combination's pros and cons. That diagram is attached. Justify the need for a larger Community Room. Council asked the staff to communicate with the Library and the Library Foundation to better refine and explain how a large community room in the Civic Center Project might function — how often it would be used, for what programs, etc. This analysis is pending and will be presented on Tuesday evening. Value- Engineering. The Council generally was supportive of allowing the Council Building Committee (Mayor Selich and Council Members Webb and Rosansky) to continue to "Value Engineer' the Project to see what costs could reasonably be reduced from the Project without compromising program and aesthetics. LEED. The Council generally agreed that a goal of LEED "Silver" was optimal, but that "low Silver' should be the true goal rather than high Silver or reaching LEED Gold. LEED (Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design) works on an overall point system — so various components of the Project that earn LEED points could be swapped out based on cost. For example, the photo - voltaics ( "PVs" or solar energy systems) have a point value that may be more costly than a graywater system. This analysis will continue into the Design Development phase. Project Phasing & Overall Costs. The Council decided that the main candidate for phasing could be the San Miguel Bridge first, then the North Park. They "straw voted" and ruled out any construction that did not include the Central Park parcel. They asked to see costs on having "just the dog park" in the North Parcel as an interim use. A more detailed discussion over overall project costs follows. The estimates presented to the Council ranged from $82 million to $140 million for the entirety of the Project. This is a significant range. The $140 million number comes from the City's estimators, CW Driver and CP O'Halloran, who include in the larger number components like: • $13+ million in contingency, both a "design" contingency (money that will be reduced to zero as the design is refined — in some cases, the funds allocated here will go towards a component of the design that today is less concrete in the architect's drawings) and an "owner's contingency (money set aside in case something goes awry during construction); A 4.8% inflation factor for construction materials and labor over time, yet the current market is characterized by flat cost of living changes or deflation; Another $9.8 million in design fees. About $9.4 million in overhead, profit, and "general conditions" associated with the construction team that may get the bid to do the building; and Civic Center Update November 10, 2009 Page 3 About $6 million in excavation costs to sink the buildings and parking structure below the View Plane. The range also reflects various phasing alternatives. If you phase significant portions of the projects and make assumptions about contingencies, earth moving and bid climate, you reach the $82 million amount. As a reminder, the $140 million to $82 million range reflects estimates. Not actual bids. Here is how projects like this one are constructed: 1. First, a project proponent develops a general design ( "Concept Design ") based on program needs. 2. The proponent works refines that design with an architect and in the City's case, a construction management firm that has extensive experience in constructing similar projects. This is called the Schematic Design ( "SD ") phase. 3. During SD, the construction management firm keeps a running estimate of what components of the design might cost if a vendor was asked today to provide that product (i.e. calling glass manufacturers to say, "what would it cost today to get XXX panes of XX' glass ? "). If the designer is unclear about exactly what type of plant or type of molding he or she will put in a specific spot, the estimator puts in a dollar amount assuming the worst. We are now in this place in the process. 4. The design is refined from SD to "Design Development." Generally, the SD phase is over by November 24, 2009. DD takes about 4.5 months. A new estimate is done by the end of the DD phase — as the design gets refined in DD, so too does the estimate get refined. 5. Next comes the "Construction Documents" (CO) phase, where the design is refined even more to documents from which the project can be constructed. This brings us to Summer 2010. With CDs in hand, the City pulls grading and building permits and puts the Project's components (typically in one large bid package, but possibly with "bid alternates ") out to the private sector market to bid. 6. When the bids come back in, the City would generally select the lowest responsive or responsible bid. This is assuming that the City uses a specific method of project delivery — there is an alternative to this project delivery method that the City generally leans toward known as "Construction Manager at Risk" or CMAR. CMAR is similar to longstanding private sector construction contracting in a public sector setting. It allows the City to choose the construction manager ( "CM") before the design is complete. The CM is chosen based on qualifications, and then the entire operation is centralized under one contract. The City has retained CW Driver as our CM. The City's architect, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) and CW Driver are working together in order to cultivate and assay the design. Using CMAR, upon completion of the DD phase, CW Driver will give the City a guaranteed maximum price, prepare bid packages for the various components (building trades), prequalify bidders, and coordinate all subcontract work. Cost savings are realized in CMAR in a number of ways. By hiring the CM during the design phase, early coordination is possible, which can increase the speed of the project and Civic Center Update November 10, 2009 Page 4 strengthen coordination between the Architect /Engineer and the CM. Since the City hires the CM based on qualifications, it ensures a CM with a strong allegiance to the City, because their business relies on references and repeat work. The CM manages the project and serves as the general contractor for a "not to exceed" fee. Any savings in the actual construction costs are returned to the City less any agreed to incentives for bringing the project under budget and ahead of schedule. Finally, transparency is enhanced, because all costs and fees are in the open, which diminishes adversarial relationships between components working on the project, while at the same time eliminating bid shopping. CMAR is viewed by many as an alternative procurement method that still retains enough of the traditional "design- bid - build" process that it assuages some fears concerning alternative project delivery methods. Furthermore, CMAR enables the contractor to get involved in the project at an early stage, thereby delivering many of the efficiencies not found in traditional delivery methods. At this point in time (likely Summer 2010), the Project has a formal budget and a schedule — a budget based on bids that is no longer based on the estimates discussed in Item #3 above. This is the first time a Project has a formal budget and schedule. The City or construction manager then seeks the performance bonds and insurance from the winning bidder(s), and the bidder starts work. This project is assumed to take 18 -24 months, depending upon weather, availability of materials and labor, and more. For the Civic Center Project, the City envisions a construction manager being on -site managing the project on the City's behalf. Staff will have an updated cost presentation on Tuesday evening that updates the spreadsheet provided on October 27, 2009 by including Council's direct guidance from the meeting that afternoon. The cost presentation will also include feedback from the Finance Committee's discussion on Monday, November 9'" that looks at the Civic Center project in the context of the City's Facilities Replacement Plan (FRP). Environmental Review: Environmental review for the project involves an Environmental Impact Report, which is scheduled for Council review and certification on November 24, 2009 Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: t(� Dave Kiff City Manager Attachment: Sketch of Community Room - Chambers Combination 1 i i 1 i i I 11 1 I , e + i' -0` ° i GouNtll. �'' °t1 t I CDMM\YO I't t PPM 3 Co 15W> SL , 1 i 1 { i� �1111I{I{ 1 i N Ln i e E p I I 11 4 1 , 1 rol A 4cTloA 117,0 Newport Beach Civic Center Project Update Newport Beach City Council Tuesday, November 10, 2009 Not Just a City Hall The Civic Center includes: City Office Building (89,000 SF), plus Council Chambers — seating 150 Community Room — seating 275 Three park sections (— 14 acres): Southerly park & Civic Green — —4 acres Central Park (more natural in style) — —7 acres North Park (with dog park and belvedere) — —3.5 acres Library Expansion (2 stories - 7,150 SF) Library Connection (2 stories — 9,500 SF) Parking Structure (450 spaces) Emergency Operations Center (4,800 SF) Pedestrian Bridge over San Miguel Excavation (about $6 million in direct costs) Library Addition — I St Floor • .Wnrcmi Y.wl •..On: Yp. ME - ;O 1 Ope'sVons Center � WW 4�1�.Iem IIIIL,•��.� �� 01111111III�I I n = n • II II II II II II 11 �•� 11 II II 11 � � 11 II 11 ImnM .. C3 C3 ImnM .. Library Addition — 2"d Floor �1 nl l.P•. o WOIIYY e e.neb..m �r e Mr 4r asrYP e �rrer+ua uNPMr a.r 1 vapa.a Wlr 1 CYeI MpWt. . ew Ile I/ww 1 M NelaM Me1�W 1 IMN OppY1T.cP YI.. t I rne.lv H n.«.. vre llM 1 UnO.r <uuT« tllnr.p. C.bin.l. _ V V 0 ' 111 Gn.eA au, W.A Iy. VN, `� N111c.n.ry aw_L Pcrnl 1 ,'rAfY r_ 1 JI r 0 avW. COUn`.r r ly- :. b.m r4. Pol.tla.rr ] I.IW 1'v..lsw Nlpmto.. Ya'.P. �1 O:aunn lY.IC. O.ua ` }� f Ige.PV.nru �1 f19 ear aw.rae. u...lY o Ql�anD 41� I �� o Rte' a 111 turin d e- ' -- �' a _� Y 0 jj/1 •, i W IIl EXISTING LIBRARY C� C7 U! 4! LLI lU UI p C1 41 W IU IU YI II O ¢ IU lU W W Q Q tU UI IU IU E IU Ul IU W arw M.m w»-, .c.r. s....r W 6 , i.1-Fr - ----------------- D03 EOC m Center - Option 2 - �` o n � VV I V,n[N a) T ` W .w I - -- ,N .bb .WVY .,w r L_ Parking Structure The North Park " -` __ it _-g n r I� � ��• \ 4�� / l / �;� � / � � 2=� aY` n} � "C•'1` is � I �I ' 1 IN ginoS- luJIuaD Jo uoPJOd 1 eJluaD South Portion of Central -South �.-> r .RV��o} ,.x�r ,��.� 1�- , -�rt "�( I I � �•1 j 1, � 1. � I. ! �3 i' 1 =Y- 11 N,�, a''1 1 1 1 1 I I I r �3l{ �� I •��^ � N i I 11 lFt m � 1° i A i �i�!�� 1 � 1 1 i 1 , 1, Ij�' Ik7li _' -ll 1-�O I N •.i �_...Ln II.. i i 1 �`_I 1 f11��1�� ®I� —11 IYI I "t 1411YIfM� �1 1 1 I m41m�if� ! ", tk I - I UIj I 1 Community Room - 300 i I T• 1 •`r i i f -1 _ I ' 1 1 I ................... 1 ♦f i. \.... /• ..11.11 _111 1.� 11r I I r-- i I I I I 11 I I 1 f 1 I 1 I i I I Combined CC- Community Room B<j 'Gf 3a 4ViS I 1 n yx, J 1 , Combined CC- Community Room 0 SE�TIa N 1= jo DSLS Program Attendance Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale 2009 Kennerly Kennerly El Erian El Erian Greene Greene Manji Manji TOTAL Friday Saturday Friday Saturday Friday Saturday Friday Saturday Total 173 178 255 245 242 251 175 202 1721 sales Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale Door Sale 2008 Beah Beah Hawken Hawken Wright Wright Bergman Bergman Friday Saturday Friday Saturday Friday Saturday Friday Saturday Total 229 221 178 202 237 240 181 235 1723 sales ewport Beach Civic Center Pro Scope Reductions Possible Savings Phasing 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 Project as $ - $ - $ - $ - Options ' Phasing Iteration Proposed $ 100% of Probable Someone wants Good Bid 20% of Contingency 3,545,892 North Park Parcel November 1 FI• , Relocate EOC [o Value Engineering the dirt, comes and Environment- $ Pedestrian Bridge and Pedestrian 2,674,971 Basement Llst Ad opted *20% gets it (assume 10%Under Used, in nett phase Bridge in next 12,621,406 $ of Possible YE 70% savings) Estimates Inflation =2% $ 12,621,406 phase Project Scope - City Office Building & South Park -EOC - Library Connection - Library Expansion - Parking Structure - Central (Main) Park Parcel - North Park Parcel - San Miguel Pedestrian Bridge - Excavation Total Direct Cost Estimate $ (5,432,455) $ (3,831,316) $ (9,292,519) $ (1,959,868) $ (5,273,S70) $ 56,467,298 $ 56,467,298 $ 56,467,298 $ 56,467,298 $ 56,467,298 $ 56,467,298 $ 2,252,394 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 3,545,892 $ 3,545,892 $ 3,545,892 $ 3,545,892 $ 3,545,892 $ 3,545,892 $ 2,674,971 $ 2,674,971 $ 2,674,971 $ 2,674,971 �$ 2,674,971 $ 2,674,971 $ 12,621,406 $ 12,621,406 $ 12,621,406 $ 12,621,406 $ 12,621,406 $ 12,621,406 $ 4,616,351 $ 4,616,351 $ 4,616,351 $ 4,616,351 $ 4,616,351 $ 4,616,351 $ 3,313,702 $ 3,313,702 $ 3,313,702 $ 3,313,702 5 3,313,702 $ - $ 1,959,868 $ 1,959,868 $ 1,959,868 $ 1,959,868 $ - $ - $ 5,473,308 $ 5,473,308 $ 1,641,992 $ 1,611,992 $ 1,641,992 $ 1,641,992 $ 92,925,189 $ 90,672,795 - $ 85,240,340 $ 86,841,479 $ 78,157,331 $ 78,157,331 $ 76,393,450 $ 73,411,118 Above the Line jATQ Markups (23%) - Design Contingency (7.5 %) $ 6,969,389 $ 1,172,360 $ 1,145,902 $ 1,101,167 - Inflation (4.8 %) $ 4,460,409 $ 1,563,147 $ 1,527,869 $ 1,468,222 - Overhead /Profit /Fee(3.2 %) $ 2,973,606 $ 2,973,606 $ 2,444,590 $ 2,349,156 - General Conditions (7%) $ 6,504,763 $ 6,504,763 $ 5,347,542 $ 5,138,778 - Other (0.5 %) $ 464,626 $ 464,626 $ 381,967 $ 367,056 TotolAbove the Line (ATL) Markups $ 21,372,793 $ 12,678,502 $ 10,847,870 $ 10,424,379 Soft Cost Markups (23.16% of ATL +Direct Costs) - Owner's Contingency 16 %) $ 6,857,879 $ 1,090,030 $ 1,046,896 $ 1,006,026 - Remaining Plans /Drawings(8.89%) $ 91000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 - Permits, Tests, Special Insurance (3.3%) $ 3,771,833 $ 3,771,833 $ 2,878,964 $ 2,766,571 - FF &E and FF &E Arch (1.73 %) $ 1,607,606 $ 1,607,606 $ 1,509,275 $ 1,450,354 - Offsite and Misc Utility Costs (0.5 %) $ 2,285,960 $ 2,285,960 $ 1,744,826 $ 1,676,710 - other (1.23%) $ 1,405,865 $ 1405,865 $ 1,073,068 $ 1,031,177 TotolSoft Cost Markups $ 24,929,143 $ 19,161,294 $ 17,253,029 $ 16,930,838 Total Project Estimate (fully loaded) Suggested Scenario $ 139,227,125 �$ 109,997,127 $ 104,494,349 $ 100,766,335 $104,494,349 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA Brown, Leilani PRINTED:" '` , I i I'; c. "L '! From: Karen E. Tringali [karen_tringali @msn.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 5:04 PM To: 'Don Webb', Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Daigle, Leslie; Henn, Michael; Gardner, Nancy; Rosansky, Steven Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani Subject: Civic Center Project - EOC Component On whole, it seems residents have been pleased with the quality of effort that has gone into this project at every level, balancing election commitments, a challenging economic environment, critical, creative and value planning along with resident feedback to deliver a civic center that instills pride and will endure for decades. One of the alternatives recently studied is changing the location of the EOC. As initially designed, our EOC met state and federal "essential services" facility construction requirements. These requirements provide for, among other things, stand -alone power and HVAC systems in a structure "hardened" to withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes. (California Health 8 Safety Codes 16000, 16001, 16007) The recent suggestion to relocate this facility to the basement of the civic center and utilize existing space intended for other purposes undermines the state and federal guidelines of an EOC. The resulting facility would no longer qualify as an EOC, and therefore would no longer be eligible for FEMA construction grants, as well as future infrastructure grants. This is no small bullet to bite. in 2009, FEMA granted up to $1,000,000 per EOC construction project. Tens of thousands more dollars were available as grants for furnishing EOC's and installing necessary systems. As you know, Newport Beach is a recognized leader at both the state and federal level for its emergency services and emergency planning capabilities, and has been very successful in obtaining grant funding over the years for a variety of equipment and programs. Based on our reputation and past performance, obtaining significant grant funds to offset EOC construction costs seems highly likely. Therefore, it is not a $2.3 million problem to solve, but something significantly less when grant money is taken into consideration. Newport Beach would be directly and imminently impacted by earthquakes along either or both the Newport Inglewood Fault and the San Andreas Fault. There is an additional area of concern along the San Joaquin Corridor running along the 73 Freeway. Scientists from Cal Tech, USGS, Scripps and other organizations believe we are long overdue for a major earthquake event. The Great Shakeout Drill of 2008 assumed a 7.8 incident for their exercise, far greater than the 6.6 Sylmar /Northridge quake for that very reason. We certainly remember the far reaching and extensive damage caused by that event. It is this downside risk that Newport Beach should prepare for, and a hardened, compliant EOC would accomplish that. I encourage you to continue looking at alternatives and value - engineering opportunities for the civic center project, but I also encourage you to weigh the impact of lost funding as it relates specifically to the EOC component. Our civic center is being built to last decades, and over that course of time we are likely to suffer major natural disaster events. We should maximize the investment we have already made in developing our emergency management plans and training our city staff and city officials by providing an EOC which conforms to state and federal regulations enabling our city leaders to successfully navigate whatever comes our way. :Karen 7ringali Corona del Mar 949.719.9390 P/F COUNCIL AGENDA N0. IR fl. I0-0 Project Scope Reductions Possible Savings Phasing 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 as - City Office Building & South Park $ 56,467,298 5 56,467,298 5 $6,467,298 Proposed P 56.467,298 100% of probable $ 56,467,298 S 56,467,298 - EOC $ Ht FOC to VaWe [npnelnrrB List SOmMnt wants the G000 &4 tnn:onment ?ft ol COntlnBeMY fMestnan Bn4Bem north Part Par[H and $ - dnt. comes and Bets a - Library Connection Used. 3.545.892 Pe4etpun Bn44e m S 9, 1WfMrMt l 4Mprcble (astume 70% savings) 10%Undv Eftim)te3 1n0auon 1 7% next MJSt next pbau S 3,545,892 - Library Expansion Possible VF VE 2,674,971 5 2,674,971 5 2,674,971 S 1S.4324SSI 5 (3.831.316) 5 (9.]9],519) s 11959.8681 s (S.273,90) Project Scope - City Office Building & South Park $ 56,467,298 5 56,467,298 5 $6,467,298 S 56.467,298 $ 56,467,298 S 56,467,298 - EOC $ 2,252,394 S - 5 - 5 - $ - S - Library Connection $ 3.545.892 S 3,54S,892 S 3,545.892 5 3,545,892 S 3,545,892 S 3,545,892 - Library Expansion $ 2,674,971 5 2,674,971 5 2,674,971 S 2,674,971 S 2,674,971 S 2,674,971 Parking Structure S 12,621,406 S 12,621,406 S 12,621,406 5 12,621,406 5 12,621,406 5 12,621,406 - Central(Main) Park Parcel $ 4,616,351 S 4,616,351 S 4,616,351 5 4,616.351 S 4,616,351 5 4,616,351 - North Park Parcel S 3,313,702 S 3.313,702 5 3,313,702 $ 3,313,702 5 3,313,702 S San Miguel Pedestrian Bridge 5 1,959,868 5 1.959,868 5 1,959,868 S 1,959.868 5 - S - Excavation 5 5,473,308 S 5,473,308 5 1,641,992 5 1,641,992 5 1,641,992 $ 1,641,992 Total Direct Cost Estimate $ 92,925,189 5 90,672,795 5 85,740,340 S 86,841,479 5 78.157331 5 78,157,331 S 76,393,450 S 73,411.118 Above the Line (ATL) Markups (23 %) - Design Contingency (7.5%) 5 6,969,389 5 1,172,360 5 1,145,902 $1,101,167 - Inflation (4.8 %) 5 4,460,409 5 1,563,147 $ 1,527,869 $1,468,222 - Overhead /Profit /Fee (3.2 %) $ 2,973,606 5 2,973,606 S 2,444,590 $2,349,156 - General Conditions (7 %) $ 6,504,763 5 6.504,763 5 5,347,542 $5,138,778 - Other (0.5 %) 5 464,626 $ 464,626 $ 381,967 $367,056 Total Above the Line (A TL) Markups S 21,372,793 $ 12,678,502 5 10,847,870 5 10,424,379 Soft Cost Markups (23.16% of ATL a Direct Costs) - Owner's Contingency (6 %) S 6,857,879 5 1,090,030 $1,046,896 $1,006,026 - Remaining Plans /Drawings (8.89 %) 5 9,800,000 $ 9,800.000 5 9,800,000 $ 9.800.000 Permits, Tests, Special Insurance (3.3 %) 5 3,771,833 5 3,771,833 $2,878.964 S2,766,571 FF &E and FF &E Arch (1.73 %) 5 1,607,606 5 1,607,606 $1,509,275 $1,450,354 - Offsne and Mist: Utility Costs (0.5 %) 5 2.285.960 S 2,285,960 $1,744,826 $1,676,710 - Other (1.23 %) $ 1,405,865 5 1,405,865 $1,073,068 53,031,177 Total Soft Cost Markups 5 25,729,143 5 19,961,294 $18,053,029 $17,730,838 Total Project Estimate (fully loaded) Siggested Scenario $ 140,027,125 5 110,797,127 5 105,794.349 5 101,566,335 $10S,294,349