|
<br />necessary, the other items can be addressed with City crews as part of the ongoing facility
<br />renovation/upgrade process.
<br />
<br />BUDGET
<br />
<br />The CIP includes a total of $400,000 for this project. Of this amount, approximately $51,314 has
<br />already been spent or encumbered for architectural design, engineering fees (City and PG&E)
<br />and reproducible expenses. With the three (3) add alternates recommended by staff, the
<br />construction budget is $373,237 (plus a 10% contingency), a total of $410,600. Including the
<br />design and engineering fees, cost of the entire project is $461,600. As a result, there is a project
<br />shortfall of$61,400. A summary project budget is included as Attachment B.
<br />
<br />As the Council may recall, the project architect, ELS, expressed confidence at the meeting of
<br />October 5, 2005, that a custom designed restroom could be completed for a total project budget
<br />of $290,000. This was consistent with the architect's contract, which identified a project budget
<br />of $300,000. In January, 2006, staff issued the bid for this project; however, shortly after
<br />issuance, staff was contacted by a local general contractor indicating the project would far exceed
<br />the initial engineer's estimate of $240,000. In response, staff withdrew the bid documents and
<br />directed ELS to reevaluate the project. Based on this direction, portions of the project were
<br />redesigned to reduce costs. In addition, ELS secured the services of Davis Langdon Associates
<br />to complete an independent cost estimate for the project. The result of that estimate, based on the
<br />revised documents, was $305,000 for the base bid. (The City will not be billed for the redesign
<br />work nor the cost estimate. Architectural fees are expected to remain within the $45,000
<br />budgeted). Based on the redesign and cost estimate from Davis Langdon, staff reissued the bid.
<br />
<br />Since the receipt of bids, staff has had considerable discussions with ELS regarding the project,
<br />including reviewing alternatives capable of reducing the project scope. Discussions also
<br />occurred with the low bid contractor to explore cost saving alternatives. Some ideas explored
<br />included reducing the size of the building, eliminating the family restroom, reducing the number
<br />of urinals and/or toilets, eliminating the anti-graffiti material from the block walls, completing
<br />some work with City crews, modifying materials, removing the trellises facing First Street, etc.
<br />Based on this review, staff has determined that several nonessential items can be completed at a
<br />later date by City crews, some materials can be changed to reduce costs, and eliminating some of
<br />the add alternatives can collectively reduce the cost of the project by approximately $59,000.
<br />Regarding other alternatives noted above, staff determined that they would significantly alter the
<br />project to a degree that it may not meet the needs of the public on both a practical and aesthetic
<br />basis. Regarding the option of having City crews take an expanded role in completing some of
<br />the construction work, State law restricts general law cities from engaging in new construction.
<br />As a result, flexibility in completing work with City crews is limited. Further, City crews are
<br />more focused on maintenance operations rather than new construction and use of specialized
<br />contractors would likely be necessary, resulting in costs similar to the bid amounts.
<br />
<br />SR 06:086
<br />Page 4
<br />
|