Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Civic Center Project - Handout 2Received After Agenda Printed January 13, 2015 Item No. SS3 Newport Beach Civic Center Lessons Learned (and Implemented) 1- Keeping our Residents Engaged. Through over 100 public meetings, an EIR, a project e- newsletter and webpages and e- blasts, 13 focused mentions of the Civic Center Project in community newsletters mailed to 54,000 addresses, NBTV coverage, and working with our local news reporters, there still were a lot of people not following the effort, including stakeholders who'd prefer a more austere approach than the one built. Lessons: Though we have and continue to use a variety of communication tools and methods to reach audiences of varying demographics and interests, communicating doesn't always equal capturing attention. In today's world of short news cycles and social media, the City must compete for our citizens' attention. The means and the message must resonate. We believe more research, even informal, will help to better tailor projects and the information we provide about those projects. We must also focus more on building new and maintaining existing relationships throughout the community. We learn a lot about what matters to our residents from good, face -to -face conversations (Lesson Learned #1— "LL1 "). As many residents don't have the time to meet with us, we will continue to expand our use of social media and other digital platforms to help reach those citizens in a manner convenient to them. In addition, we will provide easier access to and more transparency in the availability of documents (1-1-2). Implemented Improvements: • Community Outreach in the Community— During the Trash Cart Tour of 2014, staff spent Saturday mornings in the neighborhoods talking with people, answering questions, hearing concerns. (LL1- Implemented Action #1 or "Al") • Informal Focus Groups —Staff members met informally with small groups of residents from different areas of the city to hear their ideas and concerns about outsourcing trash service (LL1— IA2). • Social Media - Staff continues to expand the City's Twitter and Facebook efforts (LL1— IA3). • Community Engagement —Staff is implementing solutions like MindMixer to help plan the West Newport Beach Community Center (LL1— IA4) • Insider's Guide started in 2011 (roughly) — (LL1— [AS) —To help gain attention to items on upcoming Council agendas. • A close -out website is being developed that includes extensive documentation of the Project, including agenda items, contracts, and change orders (LL2 -IA6). 2 - Measure B's Impressions. Measure B's campaign talked about projects, savings, and costs. But it did not put an analytical point on any of these — how big a project? Would costs cover just construction or "all -in "? Did anyone know of new water quality and CEQA requirements? The City is prohibited from campaigning, but we could have provided some facts associated with what we knew at the time. Lessons: Try to engage the community further to provide basic facts and analytical information should a measure like Measure B ever reappear (1-1-3). Implemented Improvements: • Nothing like B has been circulated again, but the engagement concepts above can help if something like it surfaces again (LL3 -IA7). 3 —Early Days —the Design Competition. The design competition in 2008 included Design Parameters that showed recommended cost per square foot for the city office building, the site improvements, and the parking structure (characterized as price per parking space). While the parking structure came in below that pricing, the park /site improvements and the City office building did not. Lessons: There should be a firm tie between expected numbers and delivered numbers. The Design Competition set forth a desired vision, and we should have more firmly secured whether that vision — while liked and desired —was attainable at the costs suggested (1-1-4). Implemented Improvements: If we ever were to do a design competition or similar, there should be an aggressive third party analysis of estimated costs prior to any decision on the design, and respondents should certify to their own analysis of the same (LL4- IA8). Our larger capital improvement projects for public facilities typically have a strong element of community participation and preliminary cost estimating and budgeting. For example: • With the Marina Park Project: o We identified the budgeted amount with reasonable contingencies, and have tracked the project regularly in a public setting. It is proceeding on schedule and under budget (LL4 -IA9) o There was no design competition, but there was a community -based process for the project's elements. (LL4 -IA10) With the Sunset Ridge Park Project: • We identified the budgeted amount with reasonable contingencies, and tracked the project regularly in a public setting. It came in on time and under budget (LL4 -IA9 again) • There was no design competition, but there was a community -based process for the project's elements (LL4- IA10 again) 4 — Moving early on bids - and the bid climate. Going to bid with plans that were not fully complete helped us take advantage of a downturn in the labor and materials market, but it added change orders and some delays to the process later. Lesson: If at all possible, it's best to go to bid with fully complete plans, but be cognizant of the market place and consider alternative strategies to achieve cost and schedule savings (LL5) Implemented Improvements: • This has been done with our Sunset Ridge and Marina Park projects. We expect this will be the same with the Corona del Mar Library, a West Newport Community Center, and more. It is the typical practice for our Public Works Projects (LL5- IA11) 5 — Process Improvements during Project Construction. Several issues arose that staff saw could be improved, such as turn - around time for requests for information, the insurance process, whether or not an independent, third -party project manager was a valuable addition, and more. Lessons: Our contracts did not have formal or informal timelines to turn around RFIs (LL6). We pushed the schedule hard (LL7). We did not set forth reasonable contingencies (LL8). We provided extra insurance to the project, something that gave us "belts and suspenders" protection that was likely more than was needed (LL9). Change orders were many in number, even if still generally within industry norms — this could have been improved by not going out to bid with less than complete plans and with an appropriate contingency (1-1-10). Implemented Improvements: • Any projects that have a design- construction relationship of a similar nature and suggest concern over RFI turnaround time will express recommended times in the contracts (LL6- IA12) • We have more reasonable schedules for the projects ongoing today (LL7 -IA13) • We have normal levels of contingencies in the projects ongoing today (LLB, LL10 -IA14) • We have normal insurance provisions in the projects ongoing today (LL9 -IA15) A note about additional third -party review. We currently have a practice within the Public Works Department where experts in various fields are hired to oversee and /or assist in the delivery of capital projects whenever we feel that the current staff lacks the best level of expertise. Each project is reviewed on a case by case basis. In the case of the Civic Center, our staff had successfully delivered Mariners Library, Santa Ana Fire Station and Training Facility, Newport Coast community Center, and Oasis Senior Center, all on time and on budget. We believe that the current projects underway— Marina Park, for example — have not needed this additional layer of review. 6 — Furnishings. Even as the City stopped making major investments in purchasing chairs, desks, tables, and related furnishings about five years before the move to the new facility, we didn't estimate these savings as an offset to new purchases for the new City Hall. We also would have had to pay the expense of moving the old furniture over —this was avoided, too. And while quality furnishings pay for themselves in avoided repair costs for equipment with poorer warrantees, the chair pricing was viewed as an example of government excess, and we don't blame people for thinking that. However, we believe that the decision to purchase furniture based upon longer term lifecycle costs is a good one. Lesson: Be strongly analytical in comparing lifecycle costs in our purchasing, acknowledge that there are both costs and benefits in doing so and communicate those options to the decision makers (LL10). Implemented Improvements: • We are implementing this standard now with the furnishings package for the Marina Park community center and sailing center (LL10- IA16).