The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 06-03-2003 - 9cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 2003 Action Agen a Item No. ~~ SUBJECT• Options -Maple View Soccer Field DEPARTMENT: ERCD /Recreation and Parks PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT 1) Staff Memorandum 2) Approved Site Plan INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stancil, 245-2590 Lori Taft, 245-2660 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider options for the proposed Maple View Soccer Field. BACKGROUND: On November 11, the Board of Commissioners approved the site design of the proposed Maple View Soccer Field, to be constructed on 6 acres of land leased by Bob and Chris Nutter, owners of Maple View Farm. Following site plan approval in January, construction drawings and documents were prepared and the project was placed for bid in February. Bids were received from three contractors on February 18, with Polovick Construction of Raleigh the low bidder at $251,000. The last projected cost estimate of the field had been $100,000 -revised upward .from an initial 2001 cost estimate of $60,000 which used the N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation Cost Estimate Guidebook (soccer field only - no amenities and additional facilities). There are several reasons why the low bid for the project greatly exceeded the cost estimate: 1. The State Parks Cost Estimate Guidebook is a general guide and does not take into account additional appurtenances associated with the field or the differential in construction costs from one region to another (the guidebook has just recently been updated) 2. The project as eventually approved included significant costs for landscaping, parking, fencing and irrigation/water storage 2 3. The cost of constructing one field on its own requires a much greater proportional cost of field infrastructure (no economies of scale as might be seen with construction of several fields that can share parking, fencing, irrigation, etc.) 4. Construction costs in the Triangle region trend higher than other areas of the State 5. The expedited timeline for completion of the project (three months) required amore- intensive commitment of contractor crews and this affected the price accordingly. Staff has worked with the low-bidder to adjust the components of the project in the interest of refining the bid while still keeping to the material terms of the Request for Proposals (RFP). This conversation has resulted in a cost of $214,000. The contractor also projects that additional changes within the project might enable the project to be developed for slightly under $200,000. However, additional changes such as the above represent a material change in the scope of work on which bids were submitted, and will therefore prompt the need to re-bid the project. Recognizing the higher-than-anticipated cost, staff has worked to identify options and alternatives for the Board's consideration. Four options are outlined in the attached memo: A. No-build: Look for other land and potential economies of scale B. Re-bid and Build at $215,000 (+/-): Re-bid the project as based on refinements with the low- bidder, with the hope of achieving new bids in the range of $200,000-215,000 C. Public-Private Partnership: Re-bid and build field same as B above, but ask Orange County Soccer Alliance or other organization(s) to participate in funding portions of the project (such as irrigation and landscaping) D. Award Matching Grant and Let Others Build -Forego the project as a County project, but consider awarding a grant from the Soccer Superfund for part of the funding needed to an organization(s) willing to build the field. The organization(s) would then work with the Maple View owners regarding the field construction. This option may require amendment to the lease It should be noted that, given the time involved in evaluating options and decision-making, the field (if it is pursued) would not be open until fall 2004 (Bermuda field) or late 2005 (fescue field). Regardless of the option chosen, the changes to the project will require the formal rejection of bids received from the February RFP and bid opening. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost estimate for the field as identified on November 11 (when the Board approved the site design) was $75-100,000. The revised bid stands at $214,000, with the potential for decreasing to $200,000 (although these changes will require the project to be re-bid). The cost implications vary from $0 to $215,000, based on the options selected by the Board (above). The field construction, as originally identified, was to be funded by a combination of Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Park Facilities funds (current CIP), Soccer Superfund ($500,000 available in current year CIP) and potential contributions from the Orange County Soccer Alliance (amounts unknown). RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board 1) consider the options outlined by staff in the attached memo and provide direction on the preferred course of action; and 2) formally reject the bids received in February. 3 Memorandum To: Board of Commissioners John Link, County Manager From: David Stancil, ERC Director Lori Taft, Recreation and Parks Management Director Date: May 2, 2003 Re: Maple View Field -Possible Options Over the last few months, a staff team comprised of ourselves, County Engineer Paul Thames, Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones and Open Space Design Specialist Kimberly Siran have worked to evaluate the received bids for the Maple View Soccer Field project and identify alternatives or options for the Board to consider for this project. As was conveyed to the Board last month, the reason for this evaluation is the fact that bids for the project came in well over the estimated project cost of $75- 100,000. To recap, on November 11 the Board of Commissioners approved the site design of the proposed Maple View Soccer Field, to be constructed on 6-acres of land leased by Bob and Chris Nutter, owners of Maple View Farm. Following site plan approval in January, construction drawings and documents were prepared and the project was placed for bid in February. Bids were received from three contractors on February 18, with Polovick Construction of Raleigh the low bidder at $251,000. In the end, we think there are a number of reasons why the project costs have escalated. Some of the primary reasons are: 1. The N.C. State Parks Guidebook, the source of the original ($60,000) field estimate, is a general guide and does not take into account additional infrastructure and appurtenances associated with building a field, or the differential in construction costs from one region to another within the State (the guidebook has just recently been updated) 2. The project as eventually approved included significant costs for landscaping, parking, fencing and irrigation/water storage 3. The cost of constructing one field on its own requires a much greater proportional cost of field infrastructure (no economies of scale as might be seen with construction of several fields that can share parking, fencing, irrigation etc) 4. Construction costs in the Triangle region trend considerably higher than other areas of the State 4 5. The expedited timeline for completion of the project (three months) required a more-intensive commitment of contractor crews and this affected the price accordingly. Staff worked with Polovick Construction (the low-bidder) in the interest of adjusting components of the project that would not materially affect the scope of work included in the bid, and these discussions have lowered the cost to $214,000. These refinements have been accomplished by reconfiguring the number of sub-contractors for grading and parking, deletion of proposed laser- grading, and a change in .the sand/soil pre-treatment mix. This contractor also projects that additional changes within the project might enable the project to be developed for slightly under $200,000. However, these changes and discussions have resulted in a material change in the scope of work upon which bids were submitted and will therefore prompt the need to re-bid the project. Possible Options Based on our discussions to date, we have identified three options for the Board regarding this project: A. No-build: Look for other land and potential economies of scale B. Re-bid and Build at $215,000 (+/-): Re-bid the project as based on refinements with the low-bidder, with the hope of achieving new bids in the range of $200,000-215,000 C. Public-Private Partnership - Re-bid and build field same as B above, but ask Orange County Soccer Alliance or other organization(s) to participate in funding portions of the project (such as irrigation and additional landscaping) D. Award Matching Grant and Let Others Build -Forego the project as a County project, but consider awarding a grant from the Soccer Superfund for part of the funding needed to an organization(s) willing to build the field. The organization(s) would then work with the Maple View owners regarding the field construction. This option may require amendment to the lease arrangement. Option A would forego the project in the interest of not committing this level of County funding to a single field on leased land. In a related action, if desired, the Lands Legacy Program could be asked to explore purchasing other land for multiple fields (and economies of scale), if desired. Option B would build the field as intended, absorbing the extra cost from the Soccer SuperFund. On the positive side, this option would get a field built, but on the negative side, it might raise economies of scale questions and questions about the level of funding placed in a leased field arrangement. This option would 5 also make some changes as proposed by the low-bidder, including changing the field surface to fescue instead of Bermuda, and allowing for a longer timeframe for project completion (this lowering the contractor's cost). Option C would include the field as described in Option B above, and may yield a project that would cost the County in the range of $150,170,000, with the remainder funded by outside parties. This might be accomplished by the following additional actions: 1. Ask the Orange County Soccer Alliance or other organizations to contribute funds for the irrigation system (approximately $38,000) 2. Ask the Orange County Soccer Alliance to plant some of the extra landscaping and native grasses that are required (approximately $10,000), Option D would see the County forego this as a County project, in favor of a different approach. Although guidelines for the Soccer Superfund have not yet been formally approved (a memorandum from the two of us in late-May offered some ideas on same), one of the ideas used in other communities and discussed in our drafty is that of matching grants. In this option, the County would step out of the field construction, operation and maintenance altogether, and ask either the Orange County Soccer Alliance, one of the member organizations of the Soccer Alliance, or an outside organization to step in to build the field, working directly with the owners of Maple View Farm. The County might consider a matching grant toward the field's construction to the applicant organization(s), and let that group be responsible for building the field. We would suggest making our design/site plan (which has been approved) available to such a group to cut their costs, or the organization(s) could redesign a field of their own. We realize that the above options are somewhat complicated, and that this may not be an easy decision. One lesson that has been learned by staff through this exercise, regardless of the outcome, is the inefficiency of building a lone soccer field and the loss of potential economies of scale when one field requires its own parking, fencing, irrigation etc. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding the attached. `~ elr...- zoooo Ibaune,il \~ \ ~ 4 PO \ ~~` \ ~V ~[w 101 ,taeCJ~ ~~\\ 1 ~ I \ y ~~ ~ ~ ~`~~ _, PLANTING NOTES: ex p.e a, \\ \` 161 3JV1'~ I AR 4 ~ 91CH ! 1 / 61Cn 161f5 N AR 1 \\ - 71VN \I AR ~\`\\rt~, 1 ~ Seed 1 MC IVN LT /'~~\ / ~ '\ u~ 3.5wau~2~w~ WNe[,~t~Prvuruia YSaM1W rab>N~wti qw ` ~(' ,~ ~ ra L pra.~Cy lydwpe fir. lvAUpe Oe.ga to wa-e bm yv.Fh ba. ~ ~ 'w ., ~d \ \ C w M~. elm ~+N ~'[ ^~y~ \ 1 reblea awasa~en 19x0 oI G,c e[ecse+rveW ~ . \ C ~ d luMr,cb b m~ua,n Gen W .1+urn b. cnpv > ~ M e \ \ , \ ~>a., ~erm xianmupa GV+nvm u4ma r , ~ ~ ` \ Orange County Planting Requlrements~ ~ \ ~ n venlcLe use xxen: bn Re4wW - 1 nry0 an eetwm Ne WrMVMO~ve~A,N naOU~id n~~ N at in>t 5'. wft e r w wyunt ne0 e \ _ bwe re iavW Gm ~ ` ~ g ~nn m .5'> Wrie~~5x maGd,ntew v5/.5[-2xAx3: bnnnPe4. r.ixa5 \ [pwb/ Pre.ya. ~2~9r>YrpS G M[[5 ~ Y Y e rm ewwa fn ecu..ng Fan ue Pere Ppv ` \`e 213izCCTrRONT 6UPP[IC P.~ww: ~mx.,eelw,.+ao.e.e „nw Gee ln. zslPa ~•.,. eaaF..eye d>o•.zo v - •o. x Groe- eoo . zs,.- Iao. - 5oono rm vawv. zo ~.>e crow *.eee. e sro1 rem \ 31 '..fY P[NM[T[R WPreIC rhea[ artl NaM P.operty Lxrn \ ~ P.e.,,m r., G.,ae...,F..m . r an aMe~ I `a„sm \ . ww . v . wwm ee u ia,r..sa s Gen row v - . \ PLANT SCHEDUI.P OT/. KC>' BOTNJICµ Na4C 1 COMAON NnMC sUC ROOT SPOOING 6 AR SB 30 I \ 29 20 JV 4 U 0 lT 35 mC 12 PO ^4 vPLAMTINA PLAN o a \ ~ ~ \, \ \ ~ ` \ Ny`\ Y t~ \~\ ` \ \~~ ~r~an. ,xz.,r \ \ ~ ~ ~ \ grange ~.ount; ~~~ Envlronmen and Resource Conservation Department 306 Revue Rnad PO BOV BI DI Fhll>Wmvgh, NC 27278 P-(9 191 24 5-2590 F{919) 644.3351 LL S 2 ~7'~ i J nnV G 51./ ~ \ 11 ~ 1.~ ~ L y ~vE ~ U T t y Z LA-4 ,~r.ae