Loading...
CCMtg09-14-10Min(SP) LINGWOI i1► CITY COMMISSION Longwood City Commission Chambers 175 West Warren Avenue Longwood, Florida SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEM E 14, 201 5:00 P.M. Present: Mayor John C. Maingot Deputy Mayor Joe Durso (arrived at 5:49 p.m.) Commissioner Bob Cortes Commissioner R.O. " utch" !., undy Commissioner 'Irian Sackett Dan Langley, City Attorney Katrina Powell, City Administrator • Sarah M. Mirus, City Clerk John Peters, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Michelle Longo, Executive Assistant to City Administrator • 1. CALL TO ORDER. • Mayor Maingot called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF THE PR IISPOSAL FROM ASSOCIATED CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ACi) FO • THE PU I LIC WORKS FACILITY. Ms. Powell reviewed Exhibit A in detail, which was the project budget for • the new Public Works Facility for in -house design with Associated Consulting International (ACi) Assistance (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] Certified). She stated the project would not require competitive bidding for construction services. Mr. Langley said it's his understanding staff was utilizing the Johnson - Laux Construction Contract under the Job Order Contracting (JOC) and an request for proposal (RFP) was completed in 2008. He said this was a unique process and was new to the State. He said the RFP provided Johnson -Laux Construction to do small -to- medium size projects, up to an aggregate of $1 million per year. He said as long as the City stays within the bounds of the contract and the RFP, he said the competitive bidding requirement from State Law there was a good argument that the process had procured and complies with State Law. CC 09- 14- 10/303 • • Ms. Powell continued reviewing Exhibit A in detail and stated the total cost was $2,256,511.95. She then reviewed the funding sources and the in- house shell design schedule and said moving day would be on April 1 2011. She said the City would need to rent trailers and the grand total cost was $36,207.11. Mayor Maingot inquired what the plans of the trailers being utilized for. were Ms. Powell responded stating that was where staff would be housed during the construction of the building. Mr. Peters said there were a total of eight (8) trailers needed and it was needed to put the inventory in. Mayor Maingot asked if they checked with the School Board to see about utilizing their trailers and said that was something that needed to be explored. Ms. Powell stated this was worst case scenario. Ms. Powell reviewed Exhibit B in detail, which was the project budget for the new Public Works Facility for ACi Contract with a minimum LEED Certified Facility. She said the project would not need to be competitively bid for construction services. She stated there were quite a few services not included in the proposal and outlined those services. She stated the total cost was $2,084,589.15. She then.reviewed the Public Works • Facility Schedule and said moving day would be on May 13, 2011. Ms. Powell reviewed Exhibit C in detail, which was the project budget for the new Pubic Works Facility for ACi Contract with a LEED Certified Building. She stated the total cost was $2,320,064.25. She stated what needed to be determined today was the scope of service the Commission wished to provide, and direction was needed on two (2) other matters, so they can finalize the design and construction process. She stated she needed to know what level of design would the City Engineer be allowed to engage in on this project and any future projects. She said the dialogue on September 7, 2010 created a great deal of confusion as to the acceptable level of liability the Commission was comfortable with accepting. She then requested direction on this matter from the Commission and City Attorney. Commissioner Bundy inquired about the Site Plan Consultant at the cost of $20,000 being listed on two (2) of the Exhibits. Ms. Powell responded in the affirmative and stated the site plan would be completed by staff. CC 09- 14- 10/304 • Commissioner Cortes said in Exhibit A and Exhibit C everything was identical as far as the building costs. He asked if the City would be exceeding the $1,000,000 threshold for Johnson -Laux Construction that • was mentioned earlier by the Attorney. Ms. Powell stated the City would need to extend the contract and was $1,000,000 per contract and per year. Commissioner Cortes asked if this was to be done by calendar year. Ms. Powell said it was to be done within a twelve (12) month period of a contract. She stated Johnson -Laux Construction Contract would expire on October 7, 2010. She said they would need to renew the contract before October 7 and would need to issue two (2) purchase orders. Mr. Langley said in the stated contract for the first term was twelve (12) months and then the parties could mutually agree to extend to four (4) additional contract terms, which were twelve (12) month terms. He said to use the contract past October 7 the City would need to do another extension, which would have to be mutually agreeable to both parties. He said the contract provided for the duration of each contract term, which was twelve (12) months, or when the job order was equal to the maximum contract term value, which was $1,000,000 and occurred first. Commissioner Bundy said they would have to do a contract extension on October 7th and once it exceeds the $1,000,000 in value, they would need to do another contract extension. He expressed his concern and said this created problems several years ago in the State of North Carolina purchasing contract with a vendor and used purchase orders to get around the competitive bid process. He said he met with Ms. Powell and Mr. Peters yesterday and his biggest concern on using the JOG method was price protection. He stated he was assured by Ms. Powell and Mr. Peters what they were going to do was formulate it so there is a hard cap on costs, which would preclude them from cost overruns that were not previously approved, and the incentive would incentivize the contract. He said if they save the City money, then they would receive a certain percentage of the savings. He said it's still a cost plus type contract and expressed his concerns. He said he was concerned with that type of contract in general for this size of project. Conunissioner Cortes said in reference to the $20,000 fee for the Site Plan Consultant and he inquired if that was the $910 per -site visit or if that was an additional cost. Ms. Powell said that was separate and they could only go five (5') feet outside the building. CC 09- 14- 10/305 Commissioner Sackett said he liked the proposal, and the proposal was corning from ACi and he would like to hear from them regarding the difference in Exhibit B and Exhibit C. John Cunnin ham Executive Vice President of ACi, 955 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Winter Park, said the biggest difference in Exhibits B and C was ACi would be the signing and sealing architect. He said ACi would also have the responsibility and the liability thereof. Larry Adams, President of ACi, 955 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Winter Park, said in Exhibit A was the original proposal and ACi was taking on the LEED role. He said the difference in Exhibit B and Exhibit C had to do with the level of sophistication and the size of the project. He stated if the City went for a higher LEED Certified building, there would be more involvement in the engineering of the project, the building was also bigger in scope, and it was a matter of where the City would put the value of where the City's requirements needed to be met. He said both Exhibit B and Exhibit C were LEED Certified Projects and would strive to make the project as high and elite certified as possible. He said they worked over the weekend and have started with a concept. He stated regardless of what would be approved tonight, they were taking this as the ability for this project to win, and calling it an Industrial Building Award and not a Corporate Office Building Award. Mr. Cunningham said they took Mr. Peters concept and have moved forward with it. He said the team prepared questions in anticipation for the kick -off meeting which had been tentatively scheduled for Thursday. Mr. Adams said regarding the weekly visit cost that was an additional request by the City Administration's Office and Mr. Peters, and it was to evaluate the level of care and attention the City wanted on the project. He said it was an optional request. Mr. Cunningham said they had general construction administration as required by the contract, which was general observation and was not in depth observation. He said the $20,000 fee was for the City to hire the continuing services civil engineer to complete the site plan, and would make sure the water flows down hill and have St. John's Water Management District agree with it. He stated it was a separate fee. He reviewed the conceptual for the site plan of the Public Works Facility. He then reviewed the conceptual for the North Elevation, South Elevation, and West Elevation. Deputy Mayor Durso entered at this point of the meeting. Commissioner Cortes said there was a discrepancy outlined in the timeline in ACi's proposal and Mr. Peter's proposal and inquired why the difference. CC 0944- 10/306 Mr. Adams said that was from Mr. Peter's perspective and not ACi's. IIe stated those dates were not from them. Mr. Peters said he contacted Johnson -Laux Construction and spoke with them regarding the construction of the building. He stated a cinder block building and a steel frame building typically go up quicker. He said the building they were discussing can be done quicker. He stated they weren't comfortable coming down to five (5) months without having the plans in front of them. He said there was a potential they would be able to complete it within five (5) months. He said they were doing a project that was similar in scope and it was going to be completed within four (4) months. Commissioner Bundy said on the schedules its shows different moving days on Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. He said he understands the reasoning for the different moving days between Exhibit B and Exhibit C due to the difference in the construction time. Mr. Peters said ACi was looking at putting together a complete package before providing it to the contractors. He said he was looking at it as a quasi- design build and would provide the contractors with the structural building shell, and they would bid it and begin working while ACi was completing the pretties. He said he was the point of contact for everything and ACi did not have the direct relationship. He stated when they meet on Thursday; they may be able to discuss that possibility. He said ACT's proposal was based on the traditional full set of plans. Mr. Cunningham said in their contract, they have the early coordination with the civil engineer and landscape architect for the early site package and early structural package. He said they hear loud and clear what everyone wanted and that was April. He said due to the tight nature of the contract, they can't warrant April. Mr. Adams said they believe what Mr. Peter's had stated they needed to have an early bid package ahead of the final package, which would be negotiated in price with the contractor. He said the idea was to work quickly to do the early site package unless you're trying to do early completion. He said this had to do with the site mechanics and logistics of things that needed to be relocated from the existing Public Works Facility. He read an excerpt from Exhibit B and said there was a fast track package 'going on. He said no one knows when the completion date was, and what Mr. Peters and Ms. Powell were stating was they have a strategy in place so they don't get into trouble either way. Commissioner Bundy said he was looking at Exhibit A and it showed building construction and site construction commencing on November 1St He inquired how construction on a building can begin on the same day as CC 09 -14- 10/307 • the site construction. He asked for an explanation on the minimum LEED Certified Facility versus a Silver LEED Certified Facility. Mr. Peters explained the difference in the amenities being proposed for the LEED Certified Facilities and the cost savings. Mayor Maingot asked what justifies the difference in the cost. Mr. Peters said the basic construction technique would get minimum LEED. He said many people would argue if you meet the current Building Code, then you would be minimally LEED. He said to go to Silver and Gold Certified; you would be including amenities that were energy savings. Commissioner Bundy said the difference was the level of LEED's and would need to be able to justify this to the taxpayers. Mr. Peters said the cost savings overtime would pay back within a ten (10) year period. Mr. Cunningham said LEED was a cumulative payback to the environment as a whole and provided an example of a building they completed, and noted the energy savings and the payback. Mr. Adams said the difference in cost was due to the size of the building. He said the City was getting function and facility and not just energy. Commissioner Sackett said he.was pleased with the minimum LEED. Discussion was held regarding the building layout and the staff that would be in the Facility. Deputy Mayor Durso said the LEED Certification was important for the future development in the City and the significaint cost savings that LEED improvements would make to the building. He said he did not necessarily agree with the minimum of the LEED due to dealing with the traditional energy draws that the City was dealing with the current Public Works Facility. He said with the Gold or Silver LEED Certification, the City would be on the cutting edge of new technologies taking a stand environmentally, and would receive a larger payback. He said he believed in investments and not necessarily expenditures, and believes this was an investment. Discussion was held regarding the reduction in the size of the Facilities being proposed and the costs. CC 09- 14- 10/308 Deputy Mayor Durso moved to go with Option A, the in -house design with ACi assistance as. presented. Seconded by Mayor Maingot. Commissioner Bundy said he met with the Ms. Powell and Mr. Peters yesterday, and it was going to be their recommendation to go with either Exhibit B or Exhibit C. Deputy Mayor Durso said staff did not make the recommendation for Exhibit A. He said Exhibit A had always been his favorite and needed to go. Commissioner Sackett said he was leaning towards Exhibit C and going towards the Silver or Gold LEED Certification. He said minimally it needed to be Silver and to hand over the project to the ACi team. Discussion was held regarding the difference in Exhibit A and Exhibit C relative to City staff completing the site plan and site work. Deputy Mayor Durso asked the City Attorney with Exhibit A what - • difficulties it presented the City. Mr. Langley said the potential liability the City would have with having the in -house Engineer be the Engineer of record was if there was a professional negligence claim against the City, meaning a negligent act or omission by the in -house Engineer, the City could be exposed to liability for personal injuries or other property damages as it relates to that negligence. He said however, the. City does enjoy a sovereign immunity • cap which was currently $100,000 per individual and up to $200,000 per occurrence. He said the loss could be potentially insured and may be covered to some extent by insurance. He said the other liability exposure would be to the extent of the negligence of the in -house Engineer, the design work either creates delays, increases in the project costs or constitute some breach of contract, and that type of loss would not be covered by insurance. He said that would be a claim that a contractor would bring against the City and there may be a way to limit that exposure by contract. He said the City had a contract in place with the JOC and discussed the liability of the in -house Engineer. Discussion ensued regarding the liability and insurance coverage for the City and ACi. Commissioner Bundy inquired if staff was still recommending either Exhibit B or Exhibit C. Ms. Powell said her recommendation on this project had not changed from their discussion yesterday, and the City would take over the site plan and CC 09 -14- 10/309 the site work. She said ACi would complete the building design and Johnson -Laux Construction would do the construction. Mayor Maingot withdrew his second to the motion and the motion died for a lack of second. Mayor Maingot moved to go with the Public Works Facility as had been presented as Exhibit C and removing the Site Plan Consultant charge. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. 3. A II JOURN. Mayor Maingot adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. • 71::yor ATTEST: Sarah M. Mirus, MMC, M!: A City Clerk CC 09- 14- 10/310