Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-02 PACKET 12.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 6/2/2010 PREPARED BY Administration Ryan Schroeder ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Workshop: Public Safety /City Hall Project. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Ryan Schroeder. ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ❑ OTHER: COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED OTHER Documentl To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator Date: May 20, 2010 Subject: Public Safety / City Hall Project On May 19, 2010 the City Council received updated comments from Public Safety, Community Development, and Finance regarding the 2006 Space Needs study which projected space requirements for general government and public safety through 2040. On that same date City staff emailed RFQ's (request for qualifications) to a dozen architectural firms that specialize at least in part on projects of this nature. Responses to the RFQ's are due by June 4, 2010. The intent is to winnow the list of interested firms to a manageable number that then would be requested to respond to an RFP (request for proposals). These firms would be formally interviewed. In preparation for the RFP process we are requesting a bit of edification on the characteristics that are perceived as important in this project. These characteristics may be objective and /or subjective in nature. In order to gain direction we are suggesting some for your consideration: 1. Sustainability: Is SEED certification important? We would suggest that it should not be in that it is a burdensome and potentially expensive process. However, some sustainable features may be appropriate if reasonable paybacks can be achieved for initiatives such as the use of a geothermal in -floor heat source; access to natural light for most areas of the building, depending on the site landscaping that has positive impacts upon energy and maintenance costs such as native landscapes; inclusion of energy efficient lighting with occupancy sensors; water flow and auto toilet/sink valves; roof runoff "cisterns" for irrigation and the like. 2. Statement: We would believe that the building should make a statement of stability and strength with an eye toward a positive and successful future and yet just a bit understated perhaps (use of materials that have longevity, not trendy, not top drawer but somewhere above the mean). 3. Operating Efficiencies: We would believe that the building should support operating efficiencies; breaking down silos to the extent that they could exist in the future; provide cohesion amongst staff to the extent possible excepting that there is an inherent need for confidentiality related to some functions although certainly not as many functions as might have been assumed in past generations. 4. Consider Future Technological Advances: The building should be malleable (elimination of bearing walls to the extent possible) and should prepare for work methods for the future, not today. Included would be laptops versus desktops, cloud computing (web based) versus servers (for many functions at least), wireless versus hardwired, paperless, central storage versus individual office storage, cross departmental work teams versus rigid expertise areas (subject to Federal /State confidentiality requirements), multi - position help desks versus central /disparate departmental reception; customer self help stations; multiple conferencing opportunities within work areas and as accessible to the public. 5. Site leveraging: The project has the potential to leverage additional development and we should take advantage of the opportunity to the extent possible and affordable. Opportunities may present themselves to co- develop our project with the Washington County library, a community center or non - profit or private fitness center or a retail development. The Cottage View site, Langdon, West Point Douglas, Home Depot, Norris Square and 70 /Keats provide the potential for leveraging (some more than others, some more expensive than others, and some easier to develop than others) while sites such as the Fire Station 2 site do not provide that opportunity. The Ravine Park site may provide some leveraging opportunity (unclear at this point). The project would be considered a development amenity to any commercial area (and industrial for that matter). It would be much less of an amenity in a low density residential area. While there has been the suggestion that the project should be centrally located we would question the actual value of that assumption. Within the current facility, which is within walking distance of many homes, we do not experience actual walk- in traffic. Reasonable transportation (transit ?) access is much more imperative than centrality of location. 6. Project Team /project approach: The identified project team from 2006 was the City Administrator, Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Finance Director, Community Development Director and Public Safety Director. To that we would suggest adding a Public Safety Deputy Director and (as was the case with the Ice Arena project) two members of the City Council. Additionally, the entire Council would be intimately involved in the site acquisition, any partnerships, exterior elevations and site improvements, budget, agreements /development approvals, project approach and bid awards, design of public spaces and final design approval. 7. Project Scope: The space needs provides for 2040 needs for general government, police and fire administration. The 2006 Council direction did not include apparatus space for a fire response from this building. This direction is somewhat site dependent. If the project site is adjacent to a Fire Station it is believed, at least in general terms, that additional apparatus space is not necessary. If the chosen site displaces a current fire facility it is assumed that facility would be replaced. However, the budget presented on May 19 does not include apparatus space. Depending upon the site we should gain direction on if the budget should be increased or if apparatus space is designed in for a future expansion. lasing numbers from the 2006 Space Needs the addition of eight (8) apparatus bays could increase project costs by $3.3 million plus soft and site costs. 8. Disposition of the current City Hall: It is assumed that the City Hall would be placed on the market for disposition. There is a scenario where the County Library system might be interested in the land (but not the building). A scenario could be envisioned where disposal of the building could be part of a development agreement related to construction of the new project. There also might be other governmental or non - profit interest in the existing building as there had been in the past. 9. Project Funding: We have been growing the Building Fund to provide for a down payment on this project to reduce the amount financed. In general terms we would recommend that use of cash be limited to accessing that funding source to ensure legitimacy of other restricted funds. 10. Project alternatives: An option potentially exists to expand this building with a relocation of the Washington County Library. As the Library is planning on exiting the site at some point in the next five or ten years regardless of our plans that option would potentially provide a cost effective alternative to a new facility. Potentially, we could connect the two buildings and provide remodeling of the existing structures. Costs could vary dramatically dependent upon method of building connection and extent of remodeling. Council Action: Based on Discussion The City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, is seeking proposals for professional services to provide architectural service for a new Public Safety /City Hall project. The project scope is estimated at 42,531 SF of office and 15,309 SF of enclosed or lower level parking but is subject to change through the schematic design/final programming process. The construction estimate is $11,405,000 plus site improvements /landscaping/exterior parking. An outline of the RFP process and timelines, RFP details, project scope and information on the proposed project follows: RFP Process and Timeline: Interested firms shall submit 10 copies of a written proposal, to: City of Cottage Grove Attn: Ryan R. Schroeder, City 7516 80 Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Proposals are due to the City of no later on July 1, 2010. The City will review all proposals Interviews will be scheduled for the Project Team will inake a recommen make the final selection of the Archite and rotervi , . ew the most qualified firms. ek of July with the Project Team. The the City Council. The City Council will Any at (651) 458 -2822. A ProjectTeam has beein established for the Public Safety /City Hall project. The Architect will be expected to attend'the monthly City Project team meetings. The Employer Representative will be Ryan Schroeder. Attendance at City Council meetings will be requited at primary steps in the process (ie: bid award et al) but beyond that additional Council meeting attendance should be expected to be infrequent. The Project Team includes the following: Project Team Leader: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Bob LaBrosse, Chief Building Official Craig Woolery, Public Safety Director Pete Koerner, Deputy Public Safety Director Howard Blin, Community Development Director Robin Roland, Finance Director Two members of the City Council -1- Pre - Qualifications: Interested firms MUST have designed three (3) Public Safety and/or City Hall buildings of similar size that have been built within the last ten (10) years to be qualified to submit a proposal for consideration. Also the firm must demonstrate continuity in the design team that worked on submitted projects. RFP Details: The proposal shall include the following: 1. Background and Organization — Identify name, address, and description of the firm, including an overview of the services you pigvide in -house and the number of years your firm has provided PubliciSafetykit Hall facility design services. Identify any consultants that you anticipate utilizing for this project. 2. Identify the firm's Public Safety /City Hall design experience z:'' Include detailed narrative descriptions of representative; ,projects, including project budgets and percentage of change orders against construction costs (categorized by owner, unforeseen condition or design professional). Emphasize the firm's experience in handling 'prgjeets of similar scope and dimension to that of the project planned by the City, of Cottage Grove. 3. Describe your professional fees, basic services ' deliverables for planning, Schematic design,' final design,; 'the bid proess and management of the construction stage. Professional fees should be provided separately as a percentage;of fiction costs with "a not to exceed fee proposal. List any reimbursable expenses that ,you anticipate for this project. Describe your firm's' ability to provide innovative and cost- effective solutions to the design including sustainability features with cost recovery estimates. 5. Describe any other relevant professional services offered by your firm and how these services may be able to benefit the City of Cottage Grove. 5. Describe evoui budget /cost control methods. 7. Identify team members, from design through construction, that will be assigned to the project, including their credentials, especially relating to similar facilities experience. 8. Discuss what distinguishes your firm from others that might be considered for this project. 9. Provide three (3) Public Safety (primarily law enforcement) /City Hall facilities' references in the last five years that the City may contact regarding -2- your performance. Provide an outline of the duration of each project and the completion date. 10. Please provide an estimated timeline from initiation of the services contract to a move -in date and how that timeline may change between a design- bid -build and a design -build project method. Scope of Project Site: At this time the project site has not been selected.,. That selection will be made prior to initiation of a services contract. Site selection' is estimated to occur on or before October 1, 2010. 2. Sustainability Features: 3. Project Statement/Vision: 4. Operating Efficiencies: 5. Technology: 6. Expandability: Estimated Construction Cost: $11,405,001 -3-