HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-18-2013 - 7eORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 18, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -e
SUBJECT: Contract Award for Professional Design Services for the Northern Human
Services Center Community Center Project
DEPARTMENT: Asset Management Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
( "AMS "), Department of
Environment, Agriculture,
Parks & Recreation ( "DEAPR ")
ATTACHMENT(S): UNDER
SEPARATE
COVER
1) November 8, 2012 Agenda Abstract
2) Supplemental Information
3) Charge for the Northern Human
Services Center Informal Resident
Design Advisory Work Group
4) MBAJ Base & Alternate Fee Proposal
Illustrative
5) Agreement for Professional Design
Services
6) Agreement for Professional Design
Services with Alternates
PURPOSE: To:
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeff Thompson, (919) 245 -2658
David Stancil, (919) 245 -2522
1) Receive a history and chronology of events and topics surrounding the operation and
potential re- development of the Northern Human Services Center;
2) Review Board of County Commissioners' actions culminating in the decision to
adaptively re -use a portion of the existing facility into a 10,000 square foot multi -use
community center and de- construct portions of the facility;
3) Approve the suggested Charge for the Northern Human Services Center Resident
Design Advisory Work Group;
4) Consider awarding a contract for professional services to MBAJ Architects, Inc. from
Raleigh, NC, for the not -to- exceed amount of $167,500 for the architectural and
engineering design work associated with the Northern Human Services Center
Community Center project; or
5) Consider awarding a contract for professional services to MBAJ Architects, Inc. from
Raleigh, NC, for the not -to- exceed amount of $208,300 for the architectural and
engineering design work associated with the Northern Human Services Center
Community Center project, including the programming and schematic design of
potential alternates that would preserve the classroom wings for either deferred use
( "mothball "), open air "pavilion" use, or full use; and
6) Authorize the Manager to sign the chosen contract on behalf of the Board.
2
BACKGROUND: On November 8, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners ( "BOCC ")
authorized the Manager to proceed with the development of a 10,000 square foot community
center on the site of the Northern Human Services Center. The agenda abstract for this Board
decision is depicted in Attachment 1, "November 8, 2012 Agenda Abstract ".
The former Cedar Grove School was built in 1950 to serve the African - American community in
northern Orange County. As a result of de- segregation in public schools, the facility was
transferred to County control in 1976, with a deed restriction that the facility be used for a
"public purpose ".
The facility was initially purposed as a human services delivery location for the residents of
northern Orange County, housing numerous County services, including a branch library, social
services, educational offerings (including Durham Technical College classes), Head Start
programs, other child care services, and recreation programs. The Northern Human Services
Center Task Force Future Use Plan, presented to the Board in June 2001, provides a
comprehensive overview of the services housed in the facility and contemplated future needs
(including Cedar Grove Park that opened in 2009). This report is provided at Attachment 2,
"Supplemental Information ", Section A.
The Board has endorsed the formation of a resident design advisory group to be involved in the
programming and design of this facility. Attachment 3, "Charge for the Northern Human
Services Center Resident Design Advisory Work Group ", establishes a purpose, framework and
a set of responsibilities for this group.
Recent History
The Board supported reducing County services programming of the space over the past several
years due to a combination of falling demand and high fixed costs to maintain the facility.
Although the 2001 Task Force report discussed current and potential uses at the time (as well
as subsequent studies examining potential uses of the building), no potential use overcomes
the very high operating cost of the facility (estimated at $100,000 annually when fully
conditioned and operational) and necessary capital improvements. This general facility
assessment summary, not including programming and staffing costs, is attached to the January
24, 2012 regular meeting agenda abstract provided at Attachment 2, "Supplemental
Information ", Section B.
The single most limiting factor for the facility is the lack of conventional water and
sanitary sewer service. The current well and septic system can adequately service a low
volume of flow (2,400 gallons per day) suitable for a 10,000 square foot community center use.
A higher flow volume necessary to support the full facility and its potential capacity (6,000
gallons per day) was contemplated in the 2001 Task Force report. To accommodate this
contemplated added capacity, the Board authorized an engineering study for adjacent land
suitable for septic treatment in 2004. This study yielded the purchase of the adjacent 12 -acre
parcel (east of the facility across Hwy 86 North) that would allow an expansion of the well and
septic system at an estimated cost of $800,000. Information regarding the capacity constraints
of the current septic system is located in Attachment 2, "Supplemental Information ", Section C.
Based upon the lack of program service demand and the cost of improving the septic system,
the Board agreed on June 19, 2012 to de- commission and de- construct the facility with a
3
budget of $250,000. This decision was reflected in the FY2012 -13 Board adopted Capital
Investment Plan. The Board also established a placeholder in the FY2014 -15 CIP for a 10,000
square foot community center to be erected in its place in the amount of $2,000,000. This
budget was established according to a reasonably up- fitted community center program of $200
per square foot. Information regarding the Capital Investment Plan decision is provided in
Attachment 2, "Supplemental Information ", Section D.
As a result of this decision, the facility became fully vacant on December 31, 2012, except for
the office of the Cedar Grove Park supervisor. All utilities services have been reduced to the
level required to preserve the plumbing lines and control humidity.
Public Input Process and Results
After the decision to invest in a community center, at the direction of the Board, staff engaged
the public in a process whose purpose was to 1) facilitate a dialogue regarding the community
center project; 2) receive input regarding community needs and desires that could be supported
by the community center; and 3) solicit volunteers for an informal resident design advisory
group to work with the County staff and its design consultant on integrating these needs and
desires into the facility design and operation.
Staff held two public meetings to meet these objectives. The first was held over two sessions
on March 19, 2012, and the second on September 25, 2012. Both meetings were held in the
cafeteria of the Northern Human Services Center.
March 19, 2012
Staff solicited participation through a mailed flyer sent to every property owner of parcels within
a one mile radius (per County Geographic Information Systems information), retail outlet
postings along NC 86 North, and area churches. Individuals who participated in the Cedar
Grove park master plan public input sessions held in 2004 and 2005 were also noticed via mail
for the meeting.
Approximately 30 -40 individuals attended the two sessions. The attendees received an update
on the Board's decision to deconstruct the facility, the reasons for the Board's decision, and the
Board's intent to construct a community center on the site. Staff also conducted a survey
soliciting a desired preference among a series of potential activities and features of the facility,
as well as an "intensity of preference" metric (solicited through a "dot" voting exercise) to
measure the intensity of those surveyed preferences.
Staff collated the comments and opinions of the attendees into three categories: 1) "Mixed
Opinions "; 2) Strong Opinions` and 3) Moderate Opinions ". Staff also ranked the intensity of
responses from "most intensive" to "least intensive ". A summary of these desires and needs
communicated by the group include:
Mixed Opinions (1:1 ratio in favor):
• Deconstruction of existing facility with appropriate
"memorialization" of the original facility, as opposed to adaptive re -use
and renovation of the center portion of the facility (cafeteria and
gymnasium)
0
Strong Opinions (greater than 3:1 ratio in favor):
• If new building, it needs to be a closed building, not an open shelter;
• If new building, preferred to be near site of existing building;
• Locating cell tower on the property would be okay, if it meant improved
reception
• The facility (new construction or adaptive re -use) should be able to
accommodate:
o Family reunions
• Community meetings
• Stage for performances /speakers
• Kitchen (warming /catering kitchen)
o Rooms to be used for classes
• Rooms that can be used for summer camps
• Rooms for games and indoor athletics (basketball, etc.)
Moderate Opinions (generally 3:1 to 2:1 ratio in favor):
• If new building with warming kitchen, needs an exterior window for exterior
concessions use;
• Preference for a park- and -ride lot at the facility (just under a 3:1 ratio in
favor)
Intensity of Preference, ranked from highest to lowest intensity:
1) Keep cafeteria and gym (center section) and perform the adaptive re -use
renovation (27 votes)
2) Accommodation for family reunions and community meetings (16 votes)
3) Build a new structure to replace existing facility (13 votes)
4) Not opposed to a cell tower on site to improve reception (9 votes)
5) If new building, should be an enclosed structure (9)
6) Have an exterior kitchen window for outdoor concessions (8 votes)
7) Accommodation for classes of various types (7 votes)
8) Accommodation for space for summer camps (6 votes)
9) Accommodation for a warming kitchen and a stage (5 votes)
10) If new building, should be on the same spot as original building with
appropriate memorialization (2 votes)
11) Should have a park- and -ride lot, and would personally use this kind of
building (1 vote)
12)lf new building, should be an outdoor structure (0 votes)
The individuals on the mailing list were also sent a summary of the meeting and the next steps
for the process.
Information regarding the March 19, 2012 public meeting, its results, and other related material
is located in Attachment 2, "Supplemental Information ", Section E.
5
September 25, 2012
Staff concluded the March 19, 2012 meeting committed to having a follow -up public meeting to
review the comment and input solicited during the initial meeting. That follow -up meeting
occurred on the evening of September 25, 2012 at the Northern Human Services Center
cafeteria. In similar fashion to the March meeting, staff solicited participation through a mailing
list generated from the March 19 meeting notification process, and flyers were posted in retail
outlets along N.C. 86 North, and area churches. Additionally, participants who signed in during
the March meeting were also notified.
Approximately 35 -40 individuals attended this session. The attendees received an update on
the process, the results of the March meeting, and participated in a listening walking tour of the
full building so that staff could record memories and significant areas of the interior.
Staff made a presentation outlining the comparative advantages and disadvantages of "Option
1" — deconstruction of the facility and building a new 10,000 square foot community center
facility; and "Option 2" — deconstruction of the classroom wings and an adaptive re -use
renovation of 10,000 square feet of the center section. The group was also presented with
schematic renderings of both options, as well as how the preferred uses determined during the
March meeting would potentially be configured. The attendees were ultimately asked to vote by
a show of hands on the preference between options 1 and 2. Approximately 70% of the group
participated in the vote; approximately 90% of the voters preferred Option 2.
The group also overwhelmingly supported not separating the deconstruction phase of
the project from the adaptive re -use renovation construction phase, as originally
contemplated in the FY2012 -13 CIP. Integrating the two phases under one construction firm
would insure that the facility would not be at risk of being partially de- constructed before the full
commitment of the adaptive re -use renovation.
The following is an excerpt from the November 8, 2012 regular meeting agenda abstract
(Attachment 1) summarizing important portions of the public meeting and preferences for facility
features:
"The group validated the top preferences for the facility [from the March 19, 2012 meeting]:
• A meeting room for community meetings, family reunions, etc.
• Space for indoor athletic activities (gym or gym -like room)
• Space for performances
• Warming kitchen
• Rooms for classes, summer camps
• Cellular tower to improve area phone service
Additional uses the group indicated would be preferred included:
• Some type of room with computers and internet access (as the library used to
have)
• Some classrooms — could a few of them be retained?
• Support for an Emergency Services base station — as long as it did not take space
away from the proposed center"
A
Staff also led the attendees through a presentation that depicted conceptual renderings of the
space based upon the group's feedback during the March 19, 2012 session. The conceptual
space plan shared with the September 25th meeting attendees below illustrates how the various
uses could be integrated into the adaptive re -use renovation option
14 11
The Board may note that virtually all of the desired uses discussed during the March meeting
are accommodated in this conceptual plan.
Staff also solicited volunteers for an informal resident advisory design work group to assist staff
and its design consultant to participate in the development of the first phase of the initial and
most critical phase of space needs programming. Eight of the meeting participants volunteered
for this important group during the meeting; their names join seven others who have
volunteered for this work group. The full group is as follows:
Melinda Bradsher
Luther Brooks
Sue Florence
Jacqueline McConnell -Graf
Nancy Graves
Malcolm Hester
Sucovis Hester
Vivian Herndon Latta
Sheila Vanhook McDonald
David Ogburn
Clifford Rogers
Roger Traynham
Hattie Vanhook
Cumilla White
Information regarding the September 25, 2012 public meeting, its results, and other related
information is provided in Attachment 2, "Supplemental Information ", Section F. Larger prints of
the space and site illustratives are included in this section as part of the presentation slides.
This section also includes the October 25, 2012 work session abstract materials as well.
7
Recent Board Actions and Activities
Recommendation of award for professional design services to MBAJ Architecture,
Raleigh, NC
During the November 8, 2012 Board meeting, staff presented the results and recommendations
based on significant public input. The Board approved the adaptive re -use option #2 for
development, allowing a partial deconstruction of the facility (mainly the two classroom wings)
and saving significant portions of the historic and culturally significant building. This would allow
important features of the structure to become integrated within a modern, efficient, 10,000
square foot community center. The Board decided against the option of deconstructing the
existing structure in its entirety and constructing an entirely new facility.
The Board also authorized the Manager to engage a professional design firm for the project
through a standard request for qualifications ( "RFQ ") process.
County staff concluded the RFQ process in March 2013, recommending MBAJ Architects from
Raleigh, NC as the design firm for the project. The RFQ response from MBAJ Architects is
located at Attachment 2, "Supplemental Information ", Section G. Eleven firms submitted written
proposals for evaluation. Five firms were selected to interview with a staff panel consisting of
Susan Mellott (Planning and Inspections), David Stancil (DEAPR), Jeff Thompson and Wayne
Fenton (AMS), and Michael Talbert (Manager's Office). David Cannell of Finance and
Administrative Services managed the RFQ process.
The firms were evaluated based upon the quality of the collective presentation, specifically their
responses in the areas of relevant experience with adaptive re -use design, community center
design experience, and experience with historic and culturally significant projects.
Firms submitting RFQ proposals were:
ADW Architects, Charlotte NC
Building Technology Associates, Oak Park, MI
*Corley Redfoot Architects, Chapel Hill NC
Davis Kane Architects, Raleigh NC
HH Architecture, Raleigh NC
*Isley Hawkins Architecture, Durham NC
*MBAJ Architecture, Raleigh NC
*RND Architects, Durham NC
Robert W. Car The MBAJ RFQ response is r Architects, Durham NC
Summit Design and Engineering, Hillsborough NC
*Weinstein Friedlein Architects, Carrboro NC
*Firms invited to interview
Representatives from MBAJ Architects will be available at the June 18 meeting to answer
questions from the Board.
0
The design scope outlined in the RFQ encompasses all deconstruction work through final
occupancy of the renovated facility. This path ensures that a single general construction firm
will be responsible for the entire project to its finish and subsequent operation.
The design will also consider potential complementary uses such as an Emergency Services
base station and a communications tower to support both emergency communications and
other services such as wireless technology access and cellular connectivity.
April 16, 2013 Work Session Update
As staff updated the Board regarding the recommended selection of MBAJ Architecture during
this April 16th work session, the Board directed to staff to include programming and schematic
design studies (and related cost - benefit benefit analysis) involving: 1) a potential deferred use
option - -"moth- balling" the two classroom wings - -for future use; 2) potentially using some of the
classroom wing structure for non - conditioned, open air spaces similar to the Farmers' Market
Pavilion in Hillsborough, NC; and 3) adaptively re -using the full classroom wings for conditioned,
interior space needs.
With the Board's authorization, MBAJ will provide the additional programming and schematic
design guidance for the three alternative scenarios discussed during the April 16, 2013 work
session. This guidance will allow staff and consultant to provide useful cost - benefit analysis of
these alternatives to the Board for potential action during the schematic design phase of the
project. Attachment 4, "MBAJ Base & Alternate Fee Proposal Illustrative ", provides a
framework of the base contract fees associated with the 10,000 square foot adaptive re -use
project and the additional design fees (as well as associated estimated construction costs) for
the three alternate scenarios discussed during the April 16, 2013 work session.
Once the design process begins within days of the Board's decision to engage MBAJ
Architects with the project, the resident design and review advisory work group will
convene to assist in the critical space programming and follow -on design process.
Assuming a June 18, 2013 appointment, this work will begin in earnest early in the month
of July.
0
The general development timeline may be as follows:
TASK
PROPOSED
END BY
Deferred Use ( "Mothball Wings ")
BEGINNING
DATE
Open Air Pavilion
DATE
$1,339,900
BOCC Action: Approval for Designer Professional Services
6/18/13
6/18/13
Agreement (est.)
Project interior space use programming (in collaboration with
6/19/13
8/15/13
the Informal Resident Design Advisory Work Group)
Project schematic design (in collaboration with the Informal
8/15/13
10/15/13
Resident Design Advisory Work Group)
BOCC Action: Approval of Schematic Design and potential
10/15/13
10/15/13
alternatives (est.)
Project final design, bid document preparation
11/1/13
1/31/14
Project Bid - abatement, deconstruction and adaptive re -use
2/1/14
4/28/14
construction est.
BOCC Action: Bid Award, Budget Approval for Construction
6/20/14
6/20/14
est.
Construction, Commissioning, Opening (est. 8 months duration)
7/1/14
3/1/15
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Board approved the FY2012 -17 Capital Investment Plan ( "CIP ")
that included $250,000 in FY 2012 -13 for deconstruction of sections of the facility in preparation
for the future use on the site. The Board also approved $2.0 million in FY2014 -15 for the
construction of the new facility. Since the project will be completed under one general contract,
these funds are currently available for professional services with regard to the selected designer
for either the base agreement of $167,500 (Attachment #5) or the base agreement plus the
potential alternate programming and schematic design scope of work totaling $208,300
(Attachment #6).
Approval of the contract including the alternate study (Attachment #5) may establish an
expectation for the facility that could result in 1) additional costs that would need to be
appropriated outside of the current contemplated CIP; 2) the potential need for additional septic
system capacity; and 3) a lengthier delivery of an operational facility.
The contemplated CIP amount of $2,250,000 cannot accommodate the design and construction
of the three contemplated alternates discussed during the April 16, 2013 work session. The
total estimated costs for the three contemplated options (and related CIP allocations) are as
follows:
Alternate
Estimated Total Cost
(Design and Construction
Estimated Additional CIP
Allocation Necessary
Deferred Use ( "Mothball Wings ")
$2,842,300
$592,300
Open Air Pavilion
$3,589,900
$1,339,900
Full Interior Use
$4,930,700
$2,680,700
10
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1) Receive a history and chronology of events and topics surrounding the operation and
potential re- development of the Northern Human Services Center;
2) Review Board of County Commissioners' actions culminating in the decision to
adaptively re -use a portion of the existing facility into a 10,000 square foot multi -use
community center and de- construct portions of the facility;
3) Approve the suggested Charge for the Northern Human Services Center Resident
Design Advisory Work Group;
4) Consider awarding a contract for professional services to MBAJ Architects, Inc. from
Raleigh, NC, for the not -to- exceed amount of $167,500 for the architectural and
engineering design work associated with the Northern Human Services Center
Community Center project; or
5) Consider awarding a contract for professional services to MBAJ Architects, Inc. from
Raleigh, NC, for the not -to- exceed amount of $208,300 for the architectural and
engineering design work associated with the Northern Human Services Center
Community Center project, including the programming and schematic design of
potential alternates that would preserve the classroom wings for either deferred use
( "mothball "), open air "pavilion" use, or full use; and
6) Authorize the Manager to sign the chosen contract on behalf of the Board.
11
COPY
1ATTACHMENT1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 8, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -a
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center Project — Next Steps
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environment, PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Agriculture, Parks &
Recreation (DEAPR) & Asset
Management Services (AMS)
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) June 12, 2012 NHSC Project -
Status Report
2) NHSC Development Option
Comparison
3) September 25, 2012 NHSC
Community Meeting #2 Summary
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, DEAPR, (919) 245 -2522
Marabeth Carr, DEAPR, (919) 245 -2516
Jeff Thompson, AMS, (919) 245 -2658
Wayne Fenton, AMS, (919) 245 -2628
Michael Talbert, Assistant County
Manager, (919) 245 -2308
PURPOSE: To provide specific direction to staff on efforts related to the Northern Human
Services Center (NHSC) by:
1. Approving "Option 2" as the development path for the project; and
2. Authorizing the Manager to engage a professional design firm for the project
through a request for qualifications ( "RFQ ") process.
BACKGROUND: In June 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved the FY2012 -17
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that included $250,000 in FY 2012 -13 for deconstruction and
demolition of the Northern Human Services Building (NHSC) in preparation for the future use of
the site. The Board also approved $2.0 million in FY 2014 -15 for construction of a new facility
at the site.
The Board may recall that staff held a public meeting to receive input on the function,
appearance, and characteristics of this proposed new facility. Attachment 1, a June 12, 2012
memorandum entitled "Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) Project - Status Report ",
presents the summary provided to the Board in a work session prior to the summer break. The
community meeting concluded with public consensus on the types of uses the proposed facility
should include within its space plan. However, there were mixed opinions regarding either
building a completely new facility or retaining components of the original facility. A "adaptive re-
use" development model would incorporate components within a design that would retain more
of the character and cultural significance of the original facility.
Staff held an additional public input session on September 25, 2012. The focus of that meeting
was to gather input and consensus on a development path of an approximate 10,000 square
12
foot facility that would follow a new construction path ( "Option 1 ") or the "adaptive re -use"
construction path ( "Option 2 "). Attachment 2, entitled "NHSC Development Option
Comparison ", compares and contrasts these two options.
In summary, while both options are similar in total cost, Option 1 allows for more design and
space planning flexibility. Option 2 maintains the important social, cultural, and historic
elements within the design, but would restrict some space planning and use flexibility.
The September 25, 2012 public meeting produced a strong preference for Option 2, the
"adaptive re -use" path. Attachment 3 is a September 25, 2012 NHSC Community Meeting #2
Summary which provides the salient outcomes of that meeting.
In addition to the preference for Option 2, the public meeting group embraced staff's suggestion
that an informal resident design and review advisory group be presented to the Board for
approval.
This item was presented to the Board during the October 25, 2012 work session. Members of
the public who had previously attended the public meetings were invited to attend this work
session. These individuals have also been invited to the November 8, 2012 regular meeting
and have been informed that they can comment on this item during its presentation.
Should the Board approve the Manager's recommendations, the general development timeline
may be as follows:
TASK
PROPOSED
BEGINNING
DATE
END BY
DATE
BOCC Action: Decision on Manager recommendations
11/8112
11012
NHSC fully vacated
12/31/12
12131/12
Project design RFQ process; Board approval of Designer
Contract
3/1/13
6/20/13
BOCC Action: Approval for Designer Professional Services
Agreement (est.
6/20/13
6/20/13
Project schematic design
6/20/13
10/20/13
BOCC Action: Approval of Schematic Design est.
10120/13
10120/13
Project final design, bid document preparation
11/1/13
1/31/14
Project Bid - abatement, deconstruction and adaptive re -use
construction est.)
2/1/14
4/28/14
BOCC Action: Bid Award, Budget Approval for Construction
est.)
6120114
6/20/14
Construction, Commissioning, Opening est. 8 months duration
7/1/14
3/1/15
13
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are adequate funds within the project account to retain a
professional services design firm through a request for qualifications ( "RFQ ") selection process.
RECOMMENDATION (S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1) approve "Option 2" as the development path for the project; and
2) authorize the Manager to engage a professional design firm for the project
through a request for qualifications ( "RFQ ") process.
14
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Clifton, County Manager
FROM: Michael Talbert, Assistant County Manager
Pam Jones, Asset Management Director
David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation Director
DATE: June 12, 2012
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) Project - Status Report
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on the NHSC project,
results of the March community input session, and planned next steps. The Board
may find this information of use as it completes deliberation on the FY 2012 -13
Budget and the 2012 -17 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The Manager's
Recommended CIP includes $250,000 in FY 2012 -13 for preparation of the NHSC
site for future use, which may involve full or partial deconstruction /demolition of
the existing 1950 structure, and $2.0 million in FY 2014 -15 for construction of a
new facility at the site.
Background
As brief background, the former Northern Human Services Center is located at 5800
NC 86 North, approximately seven miles north of Hillsborough in Cedar Grove
Township. The land for the school was conveyed by the Vincent family in 1946, and
the school was constructed in 1950 (with a 1957 kitchen addition) as the African -
American school for this part of the county.
With school integration in the late- 1960's, the Orange County Board of Education
consolidated schools, and the building and eight -acre property was transferred to
Orange County in August 1976. This deed included a stipulation that the property
must be used "for a public purpose" or ownership would revert back to the Board of
Education. By the mid- 1980's, the facility was in use for a variety of County
purposes, which over the years have included, but are not limited to social services,
a branch library, Durham Tech classes, a variety of child care services and Head
Start programs and a variety of recreation classes and programs.
15
Over the past 15 years, a number of studies were undertaken to determine possible
uses for the building. None of the potential uses, however, fared favorably when
compared to the cost and effort that would be needed to bring the building up to a
suitable standard of operating efficiency. Estimated costs to complete the needed
work in 2001 ranged between $2.1 and $2.4 million. By today's construction costs,
the estimated investment would likely go well beyond $3 million. While portions of
the building have been closed off to help minimize the approximately $100,000
annual operating expenses, the construct of the building systems limit what can be
done in this regard.
One of the primary concerns of the existing facility is septic capacity. Although
additional land for expansion was purchased across the highway from the main
building, the designed facilities carried an anticipated cost well over $500,000, so
the project was suspended.
In 2001, county voters approved a bond referendum which included funds for a
park on 40 -acres previously- acquired behind the structure. The Cedar Grove Park
was constructed and opened in 2008. The last County functions left the facility in
2010, and the only remaining uses are the Cedar Grove Day Care (scheduled to
vacate the building by January 1, 2013), storage of equipment by County
departments, and a former classroom used as the park office by the Cedar Grove
Park manager.
In 2011, as part of capital planning deliberations, $250,000 was earmarked for FY
2012 -13 for deconstruction /demolition of the facility, and in 2012, based on Board
discussions, an additional $2.0 million was included in the Manager's Recommended
2012 -17 CIP for FY 2014 -15 as a placeholder for a new facility. As a part of these
discussions, the Board asked that staff solicit public input on the plans for the
facility prior to final decisions.
Community Input Session - March 19
As a precursor to a public input session, staff from the County Manager's office,
Asset Management Services and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation invited a small group of community representatives who had been
active in the previous park planning effort to an informal pre- meeting, to receive
feedback on how to best solicit community input. This information was used to
develop a Public Input Session that was held on March 19, 2012.
A summary of this meeting is provided as Attachment 1. Flyers were mailed to all
property owners within one mile of the NHSC, distributed to area stores and
churches, and advance notice was posted on the marquee sign outside the building.
16
Over 50 persons attended this input session, held in the cafeteria of the NHSC.
Representatives completed a survey about preferences for the future uses at the
site. There were mixed opinions about whether to try and retain the
cafeteria /gymnasium "center mass" of the facility and retrofit it with new restrooms
and upgraded facilities, or to memorialize and document the existing facility before
taking it down for a new community facility. However, there was strong consensus
on the types of activities and uses that residents favored for this location, including:
• Large meeting room for community meetings, family reunions,
• Stage area for performances,
• Warming (catering) kitchen,
• Rooms for classes, summer camps and gams or some indoor athletics, and
• A cellular phone tower that improved area phone reception
Respondees were unanimous that they would personally use a facility along these
lines.
Follow -up Discussions and Proposed Next Steps
After tallying survey results and a dot - voting exercise conducted at the meeting,
staff met on two occasions to discuss how to proceed. A report to the Board of
Commissioners on the activities to date, and another community input session were
deemed to be the most prudent next steps.
From the first input session, it was clear that residents have a strong sense of place
and community in being from Cedar Grove, and an attachment to some level of
service provision in the community. It was also clear that many present desired
additional information - both about the current status of the existing structure, and
about "what could be" in the way of a new facility. A "vision" of what could be
seemed to be one key piece that meeting attendees desired to be able to see and
discuss.
In that light, staff proposes the following course of action:
1. That this status report be shared with the BOCC as final CIP decisions are
considered to provide an opportunity to provide feedback. (June),
2. That a letter be sent to the public input sessions participants thanking them
for their assistance and attendance, and identifying these next steps and
timetable. (June),
3. The staff work on developing visual images of both the current
gymnasium /cafeteria (identifying and acknowledging both the opportunities
and unique architectural features of the existing building, and the deficiencies
of a 62 -year old building with outdated facilities and infrastructure); and a
17
vision of an alternative building and how it might be laid out and function.
(summer),
4. That staff hold another community input session - starting with a tour of the
existing facility (augmented by the good and bad images outlined above),
and then a visual /graphic oriented meeting showing both current facility
opportunities and challenges, and a visual of a possible future facility.
Attendees would be invited to participate in hands -on design and discussion
of what features of the old structure are most important, how they could be
retained, and what kind of layout an alternative future facility might have.
(September)
5. The results of this input session would be shared with the Board this fall,
along with a staff recommendation on a course of action and an opportunity
for residents to speak their feeling about the options and proposed course of
action. (October), and
6. Board decision on the course of action for the new facility, and
implementation of same as per the directed schedule. (October).
In conclusion, staff was impressed and heartened to see the strong opinions and
feedback provided in the March session. It is clear that Cedar Grove residents feel
passionately about their community, and desire a place for community events to
occur. It is hoped that this memorandum and this possible course of action will lead
to a mutual agreement on the best way to meet the community's needs going
forward.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENT 2
Northern Human Services Center Development Option Comparison
Abatement, Removal
Design, Construction, Equipment
Contingency
Schematic Budget Estimate
Schematic Budget per square foot
Considerations:
Development and Construction Cost
Design Flexibility
Programmed Use Flexibility
Unforeseen Conditions
Original Structure's Use?
Estimated Future Operating Costs
Option 1
New Construction, 10,000 square foot pre -
engineered metal building, standing seam
roof, masonry and /or block accented
exterior walls; standard interior upfit
$220K - $250K
$1.3M - $1.5M
$300K - $350K
$1.82M - $2.10M
$182-$210
Lower
Higher
Higher
Lower
No
Low to Mid -Range
Option 2
Removal of classroom wings, adaptive
re -use of 10,000 square foot center
portion; new roof and building systems;
standard interior upfit
$175K - $225K
$1.36M - $1.58M
$309K - $366K
$1.84M - $2.17M
$185-$217
Low to Mid -Range
Lower
Lower
Higher
Yes
Low to Mid -Range
19
ATTACHMENT 3
Northern Human Services Center (Old Cedar Grove School)
Project
Community Meeting #2
September 25, 2012
Summary
31 persons and five staff were present for the meeting
A building tour was held at 6:00 to look for important architectural features
and share stories or information about the school and its history.
After the tour, the group discussed the locations and topics discussed and
seen in the building. Some of the notes and points were:
• The building was last used as a school in 1969
• There were weekly Friday plays put on by classes at the school
• Often had Dances and Talent shows in the Gym
• Lunches cost .25 a day or $1 a week
• There was a May Pole in the front yard
• There was a small playground behind the school
• The old ballfield was the location for the school's playing field
• Interest in retaining the look of the school
• Interest in reusing bricks, steel poles of the existing school - or
purchasing some items from the school if sections are deconstructed.
• Interest in purchasing salvaged items
• Staff presented pros and cons of different building options:
• The current Capital Investment Plan includes $250,000 for building
deconstruction, and $2.0 million in FY 2014 -15 for a new facility of
some type (to be determined)
• Option 1 - New Pre - engineered 10,000 sf building, with masonry wall
accents (Schematic Budget estimate - $1.93 million)
• Option 2 - Adaptive Reuse of Central Portion of Current Structure
(10,000 sf), remove classroom wings, some reworking and additions
(Schematic budget estimate - $1.96 million).
• Examples and pros /cons of each were shared.
• The group then discussed preferences, important features or desired
components, and a design and review advisory group
• The group had a strong preference for Option 2 (adaptive reuse of central
portion of building - cafeteria, gym, principals office area). Only two persons
indicated preference for Option 1.
• It was noted that some work would be needed to bring the remaining
1950/1957 structure up to building code, including new restrooms.
• The group validated the top preferences for building uses from March:
o. Meeting room for community meetings, family reunions, etc
• Space for indoor athletics activities (gym or gym -like room)
o Stage for performances
• Warming kitchen
• Rooms for classes, summer camps
20
o Cellular tower to improve area phone service
• Additional uses the group indicated would be preferred included:
o Some type of room with computers and internet access (as the library
branch used to have).
o Some classrooms - could a few of them be retained?
o Support for an Emergency Services base station - as long as it did not
take space away from the proposed center
• There was a question about the naming of the facility and the future of the
new playground built with the park (if the classroom wings were taken
down).
• There was interest in having residents serve on an informal design and
review advisory group. Eight members volunteered to serve on this informal
group to help advise on designing the new building as it moves forward.
Conclusions
1. Staff will make a summary of this meeting and the group's
recommendations.
2. The recommendations, along with the proposal to create the informal design
and review advisory group, will be shared with the Board of County
Commissioners at a worksession this fall.
3. Once direction has been received from the Board, a proposed course of
action would be developed for Board approval.
4
21
Section A: 2001 Northern Human Services Center Task Force Report
Section B: General Facility Assessment SU008Fy (attached tD the January 24.2012
regular meeting abstract)
Section C: Current Septic System Capacity Constraints
Section D: FY2012-13 Board Adopted Capital IDVe8t0BDt Plan: Northern HU0O@D
Services Center
c
Section E: p�8[Ch1 9th .20i2 Public Meeting
- Flyer
- Agenda, Survey
- Meeting Summary
- Photos
- Mailing List
- Sign-In Sheet (address and contact information removed)
- Post meeting summary sheet
- Flyer
� - Meeting Presentation
- October 2Sm ' 2O12 Board Abstract
- Sign-in Sheet (address and contact information removed)
- Informal Resident Design Advisory Group Volunteer Sheet (address and
contact information removed)
Section G: MBAJ Architects Request for Qualifications Response
«
22
SECTION A: 2001 Northern Human Services Center Task Force Report
23
COPY ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 25, 2001
Action Agenda Q
Item No.
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center Future Use Plan
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Report
Sharron Hinton, ext. 2300
(Under Separate Cover)
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732 -8181
Chapel Hill 968 -4501
Durham 688 -7331
Mebane 336 -227 -2031
PURPOSE: To provide the Board with information regarding the assessment and proposed
future plans for the Northern Human Services Center.
BACKGROUND: In November 1999, the Board of Commissioners created the Northern
Human Services Center Task Force. The charge of the task force is to identify the needs and
develop a long -range plan for the Northern Human Services Center and the adjacent property
owned by the County.
The task force, chaired by Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Halkiotis, has met to
assess the facility, adjacent property and available programming. The attached report outlines
the current program operations, proposed program service expansions, facility issues and
proposed enhancements, and proposed recreation areas and park amenities. This integrated
plan addresses the physical facility as well as the external environment.
Highlights of the proposed service expansions include adding the presence of Durham
Technical Community College, El Centro Latino, Orange County Library and a human services
component.
This Phase I Report is an interim report on the status of the Northern Human Services Center.
A follow -up report, or Phase I I Report, with more specific operational details will be presented in
the fall.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No decision is required and there is no financial impact at this time.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive this report as
information only.
24
- - - -
Future Use Plan
Report to the Board of County Commissioners
June 2001
In November 1999, the Orange County Board of Commissioners created the
Northern Human Services Center Task Force. The charge of the task force is to
identify the needs and develop a long -range plan for the Northern Human
Services Center and the adjacent property owned by the County.
• ME=
The long -range plan for the Northern Human Services Center shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
1. Review past Capital Investments Plans and reports requesting improvements
for the Northern Human Services Center.
2. Identify the specific needs of agencies occupying the building.
3. Prioritize the CIP needs for the building and adjacent property.
4. Assess the current and potential uses of the building to determine the
possible impacts of those uses on the existing waste treatment system.
5. Evaluate the location of the park and ride lot and possible impacts on client
parking for the building and future park.
6. Review the status of all easements on the property.
7. Review recreational programs at the Center to ensure the future park design
will include existing programs and possibly expand active and low- impact
recreational activities for the area.
:, • • r
Since 1999, the task force chaired by Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis and
Margaret Brown, and staff has met to assess the facility, adjacent property and
available programming. Because many of the discussions to date have focused
on possible land acquisitions, citizens from the community have not been
involved in this phase of the planning process.
25
The Northern Human Services Center is the only county building located in the
Cedar Grove Township and is an integral resource for the community. It is a vital
link to the citizens residing in this area. Citizens receive a variety of services
throughout the week and use the facility to host community and /or family
gatherings during the evenings and on weekends.
At present, there are five agency occupants at the Northern Human Services
Center (NHSC). These agencies include: Orange County Recreation and Parks
Department, Joint Orange- Chatham Community Action (JOCCA), Cedar Grove
Day Care Center, Head Start, and the Northern Family Resource Center
(operated by Chapel Hill Training- Outreach Project). The Department on Aging/
Orange Public Transportation also provides services to center participants.
An overview of current program operations, proposed program service
expansions, facility issues and proposed enhancements, and a list of options to
pursue are provided in this report for BOCC consideration.
Orange County leases space to the non - profit agencies providing services at the
Northern Human Services Center. Space is leased at minimal or no charge to
the occupants. A map outlining the existing space allocations is included as
Attachment I.
Orange County Recreation and Parks Department — provides a variety of
recreational programs throughout the year. These programs include Youth Girls
Softball, Youth Soccer, Youth Basketball, Youth Wrestling, Youth Connections,
and Summer Camp Activities. A detailed description of program activities is
provided as Attachment II.
Joint Orange- Chatham Community Action (JC) — provides year -round
services for senior citizens. The agency operates daily, with a daily attendance
averaging 35 clients. The seniors are primarily involved in various types of
craftwork and receive catered lunches daily.
The Cedar Grove Day Care Center has been operational since September
1981. The purpose of the Center is to provide a high quality educational program
in a day care setting to families in the Northern Orange Community. With an AA
license, the Center meets and exceeds the programmatic standards set by the
state. The Center collaborates with three agencies to assist families with
affordable day care.. These agencies, Child Care Services Association, Orange
County Department of Social Services, and Chapel Hill Outreach Early Head
Start Program provide subsidy dollars to help families who cannot afford the full
price of day care. The Center also implements a sliding fee scale to make tuition
26
more affordable. The Center operates daily; serving infants and toddlers ages
0 -5 years. The average daily attendance is 30 children, with 13 staff.
Head Start provides services to children from August through May of each year.
Administrative staff is on -site throughout the year. With an average enrollment of
80 children and 15 staff, the program provides services to children ages 3, 4 and
5 years. In addition, volunteers contribute an average of 20 hours per week.
Transportation is provided though Orange Public Transportation (OPT).
The Head Start program was formerly operated by Wake Opportunities, Inc. of
Raleigh, N.C. However, the US Department of Health and Human Services is
scheduled to announce a new administrator of the program by the end of June
2001. It is our understanding that two local agencies have applied to operate the
Head Start Program, JOCCA and Chapel Hill Training- Outreach Project
(CHTOP). If the program is awarded to CHTOP, a large portion of the Head
Start Program may move out of the facility. It is the intent of the CHTOP, with the
permission of the Orange County Schools, to move all of the four year old
children to four elementary schools and to place the three year olds and younger
into various daycare programs in northern Orange County, including Cedar
Grove Day Care. If JOCCA is designated as administrator, it is their intent to
continue full service delivery at the NHSC.
The Northern Orange Family Resource Center, which opened in 1995, serves
the Cedar Grove, Efland- Cheeks and Perry Hill communities. The Family
Resource Center provides family support programs and services that are
designed to address the needs of children and families in these communities. It
is operated by the Chapel Hill Training- Outreach Project, and receives its funding
from the Orange County Partnership for Young Children and the Department of
Human Resources, Division of Family Support. The Family Resource Center
provides daily services to youth and adults, with some evening and /or Saturday
programs. Programs include life skills workshops, computer lab, afterschool
tutoring, preschool activities, literacy, and special events and outings.
In January 2001, staff from the Family Resource Center conducted a survey to
assess community needs. (See Attachment III). The survey results suggest that
there is an interest in increased programming activities. Ninety -eight
respondents (14 Hispanic) indicated a desire for computer classes, employment /
job readiness training, GED, Spanish classes, English classes, literacy classes,
tutoring, health care, social services / family support, housing assistance and
respite support. There were also requests for transportation services and space
to host family or community gatherings.
27
The results of the community survey were shared with representatives from
Durham Technical Community College. This information, combined with data
obtained from a September 2000 survey given to employees at Flynt Fabrics in
Hillsborough, by the NC Department of Commerce, Division of Employment and
Training, supports the need for increased service delivery for this area. (See
Attachment IV). Ninety respondents from this survey (20 Hispanic) indicated
strong interests in completing high school or obtaining a GED; training or learning
a new skill; job seeking skills /employment; and community college, education or
training opportunities. In addition, many of them expressed a desire to know
more about health care, childcare, housing assistance and financial planning.
Discussions with representatives from Durham Technical Community College
(DTCC) have been very positive. A partnership, similar to that of the Skills
Development Center, could also be established for this area of the county. With
the strong community interest in computer training, DTCC is prepared to offer at
least one computer class, with the possibility of a second class, as early as the
fall 2001 semester. Additionally, they will determine the feasibility of offering
either a Spanish or an Employment/Job Seeking Skills class as well.
DTCC representatives have met with County staff to assess the proposed
classrooms and identify design needs. The County IS Department has reserved
18 computers (scheduled for replacement) for the computer lab. The surplus
PCs are being configured now by Orange High School students who are working
as temporary county employees this summer. These students will also assist in
configuration of the network in the room and setup of the computer systems and
printers.
In addition, RedHat Software, located in RTP, will donate technical support time
onsite at NHSC to help set up the Linux server. A free server will be provided by
Gateway Computers as part of the County's purchase of replacement PCs under
the IT Plan this year. A network switch will be donated by 4Front Systems in
RTP, the IS Department network technical support contractor that Orange
County has been working with for the past two years.
The IS Department is also investigating two other possible donations. The
Hillsborough /Orange County Chamber of Commerce has been contacted to
determine if any member companies would be able to donate a computer
projector. And, Time Warner Cable has been asked to donate Internet
connection installation and services.
The Public Works Department is currently developing an implementation plan for
facility modifications necessary to meet the needs identified by DTCC for the
computer lab and classroom.
The task force has also received a request from El Centro Latina for space to
provide services to the Latino - Hispanic families in rural Orange County. Many of
M
these families are migrant or working in agriculture. Programming possibilities
include assistance with translation, information and referrals, and transportation;
support groups and counseling; children's programming; cultural programming; a
legal clinic; and a leadership development project to promote leadership from
within the Hispanic- Latino community.
Since the Family Resource Center currently employs both a full -time and part -
time Hispanic outreach worker, the presence of El Centro Latino would help to
enhance the service delivery. By being co- located at the NHSC, these agencies
could more effectively collaborate and coordinate programming efforts to this
target population.
In addition to developing a computer lab for DTCC, the task force has reviewed
the overall space allocations for current facility occupants and anticipated
program service expansions. Based upon the information obtained from the
community surveys, a stronger human services presence is also requested at the
NHSC. This would include, but is not limited to, health and dental screenings,
nutrition and fitness classes, and other health education classes (e.g. prenatal,
child safety, STD, breast cancer awareness, etc.). Also in an effort to ensure a
balance of library services throughout the County, a cybrary, similar to that
identified for Carrboro, is proposed for the NHSC.
In order to accommodate the requested services and new agencies, a
realignment of some of the space is suggested to provide a more efficient
utilization of the building. A map illustrating the proposed space assignments for
service providers is included as Attachment V.
With an expansion of services offered at the NHSC, it is anticipated that the
facility usage will increase substantially. A chart describing the percentage of
facility usage (current and proposed) is included as Attachment VI.
. Nil' -
Wastewater Treatment System
Built in 1951 to serve as a school and acquired by the County in 1977, the NHSC
is in need of structural renovations and enhancements. The most pressing need
is to replace the wastewater treatment system.
According to the Health Department, the design flow for the current use of the
building, based upon the estimated number of participants, is just over 3500
gallons per day. This septic system is sized for 2,400 gallons per day. It is
therefore, overloaded by approximately 45% with the existing use. Although it is
working properly by all accounts, overuse to this degree will have long -term
29
impacts on the functionality and life of the system. A breakdown of the existing
use is included as Attachment VII.
With the presumed potential design flow of 6,000 gallons per day in a new
system and with the current use taken into account, the remaining available flow
would be approximately 2,500 gallons per day. Based upon the information
obtained from the community surveys, Environmental Health staff has prepared a
sample scenario of potential use for the remainder of the flow. A chart illustrating
the Expansion Wastewater Design Flow is included as Attachment VIII.
In March 2000, the Kennedy tract portion of the NHSC property complex was
evaluated by Orange County Environmental Health staff to determine the
specifics of its utility for on -site wastewater treatment nitrification (ground
absorption) fields. The staff's preliminary finding was that the Kennedy tract
contained an area (approximately 6 acres in a more or less contiguous area
generally described as being from its southern and southeastern boundaries
toward the center of the tract) of soils suitable for conventional ground absorption
technology wastewater disposal at a rate of approximately 5000 to 6000 gallons
per day (gpd) with 100 percent repair area. Environmental Health staff have
indicated that more extensive site evaluation and system layout/design work
(involving site topography survey and soil test pit excavation) must be completed
before an exact system treatment capacity can be determined.
Unfortunately, the portion of the Kennedy tract containing soils suitable for use as
nitrification field is also that which contains the large hardwood trees. Many, if
not most, of the hardwood trees located in the active nitrification fields would
have to be removed during the construction of the nitrification fields.
Furthermore, recreational activities in the hardwood tree area that would be set
aside for nitrification field repair area would be severely restricted. Activity in this
area would be limited to low impact trails and the like.
In November 2000, the County made a preliminary offer to purchase additional
land (26 acres) adjacent to the Kennedy tract. The landowners expressed
interest in selling the land but as of this date the terms for a purchase agreement
have not been worked out. An appraisal of the property will be completed by the
end of June 2001. The appraisal will be used in further negotiations for land
acquisition. An evaluation of the property by the Division of Environmental
Health revealed that only one very small portion of the property has soils that
appear suitable for waste treatment purposes (500 gals. /day).
Options to address the wastewater treatment system, as identified by the County
Engineer are included as Attachments IX and X.
30
Facility Improvements
The task force considers the improvements to the Northern Human Services
Center as an opportunity for it to serve as a model demonstration project for solar
and energy efficiency. There are several possibilities to pursue with respect to
the HVAC system and water heating system. Staff is planning to contact the
Solar Center, at North Carolina State University, to discuss possible options.
In addition to replacement of the wastewater treatment system, the Public Works
Department has assessed the facility and identified a list of possible
improvements. The majority of these activities have been identified as needs in
past Capital Investment Plans. Attachment XI is a list of these proposed
improvements. However, the five most critical improvements are to:
I. Relocate or expand the existing wastewater treatment system
11. Replace the HVAC system (research alternative%nergy efficient systems)
III. Replace the windows and exterior doors and locks (investigate solar
possibilities)
IV. Replace the roof (after the 10 -year warranty expires in 2004; included in
the CIP Roofing Reserve Account)
V. Secure a new well, water distribution system, holding tanks, etc. (research
feasibility of solar water heating system design)
Staff will research HVAC alternative / energy efficient systems which may be
suitable for the NHSC. A recommendation will be brought to the Board as soon
as available. The roof replacement is included in the CIP. The above - referenced
items are considered essential in order to make the building habitable, suitable
for expanded use and functional. The remaining needs described in Attachment
XI may be phased in over time.
Another key component to this property assessment is the potential for increased
recreational activities. Several amenities have been proposed — contingent upon
surveys, soil analysis, site plans and public /community input through park design
meetings. The following list highlights the possible recreational activities. For a
more detailed description, see Attachment XI I, Proposed Recreational Facilities,
which outlines three park scenarios, based on different designs and different size
parks.
Low Impact /Passive Recreation
• Nature trail (natural surface) through woodlands to lake (with interpretive
signage)
• Picnic area with tables
• Benches overlooking the lake
• Rustic toilet facility (near picnic area)
31
Active Recreation
• Two additional softball fields (lighted, irrigated, fenced with bleachers and
dugouts)
• Two wells (irrigation and drinking water)
• Two water fountains
• Restroom facility (near activity areas)
• Expanded playground (with new equipment for 6 -12 year olds)
• Large picnic shelter (with tables and grills)
• Horseshoe pits and volleyball court (near picnic shelter)
• Concession stand
• Maintenance shed
Contingent Upon Future Land Acquisition
• Two multi- purpose soccer /football fields (lighted, irrigated and fenced)
• Walking / Fitness track (hard surface)
• Second driveway entrance and parking area
The Kitchen functions primarily as a warming kitchen for JOCCA and Head
Start. However, the Cedar Grove Day Care Center uses it to prepare meals.
The current playground is designed for toddlers. If older children visit the
facility on the weekends, there are no facilities for them to use.
If approved by the BOCC this fiscal year, the proposed Clinical Nutritionist will
be able to provide a health department presence at the NHSC for
approximately 20 hours per week.
With the purchase of the Kennedy tract, the issue regarding easements has
been resolved.
The NC Department of Transportation grant to pave the southern lot was not
approved. Once we determine the outside design (i.e. circular drive, specific
parking configurations, etc.) the County can resubmit in January 2002 for
funding to pave the Park and Ride area. (Please note that the relocation of
the waste treatment system will affect the ability to develop the circular drive.
If administration of the Head Start Program is awarded to Chapel Hill
Training- Outreach Project and the program subsequently relocates to the
elementary schools and daycare centers in northern Orange County, the
Orange County Schools Superintendent has requested to use this space as
an alternative school. However, the task force has not had an opportunity to
assess this most recent request.
32
Facility:
1. Pursue the top three facility improvements, as prioritized below:
Activity
Estimated Cost
a) Relocate or expand the existing
wastewater treatment system (main
$300,000
building)
b) Replace Windows /Exterior
Doo rs/Locks(investig ate solar
$250,000
possibilities)
c) Secure a New Well, Water
Distribution System, Holding Tanks,
$50,000
etc. (research feasibility of solar
water heating system design)
Sub -Total
$600,000
MOTE: (a) Staff will provide a
recommendation regarding the
HVAC options at a later date. (b)
The roof replacement is included in
the CIP.
2. Reallocate the existing program space as identified in the proposed
expansions, pursuant to Attachment V.
3. Finalize arrangements with Durham Technical Community College to develop
computer lab, classroom space and appropriate course offerings beginning in
Fall 2001.
4. Develop a NHSC Management Team. The management team, similar to that
at the Skills Development Center, will be composed of agency heads
occupying the building (Recreation & Parks, Head Start, Family Resource
Center; JOCCA, Cedar Grove Day Care, DTCC, El Centro Latino, and
Orange County Public Library). The management team will oversee the day -
to -day operations and will meet as often as necessary, but not less than
weekly to discuss coordination and Center activities.
The team leader will be designated by the County Manager from his office.
The team leader is responsible for convening regular meetings of the
management team, oversight of the physical facility and coordination with
other county departments for services.
33
5. Relocate the sports and crafts equipment, currently stored in the facility to a
climate - controlled environment.
6. Contact both Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill /Carrboro City Schools
for the possible use of surplus kitchen equipment and furniture for the
computer lab.
7. Invite community representatives to participate in Phase II of the task force
planning process, to include design of the park and programming initiatives
for the facility.
8. Investigate the feasibility of establishing.a Farmer's Market.
9. Develop marketing materials, to include but not limited to, signage to advise
the community of new services and events.
10. Assume responsibility for providing custodial and cleaning services for the
entire building. Note: The County currently provides cleaning services for
common areas only.
11. Assess the feasibility of housing the Orange County Alternative School. A
recent request was made from the Superintendent to use space that may be
made available from the possible relocation of Head Start. Note: This request
was received following the last task force meeting and the members have not
had an opportunity for review and discussion.
12. Extend current lease agreements to December 2001 contingent upon the
status of the Head Start program.
13. Develop a plan for establishing library and /or cybrary services at NHSC
similar to those recommended for the Carrboro Century Center. (See
Attachment XIII — Excerpt from Library Task Force 2001 Report — Library
Services at the Century Center).
Develop recreational facilities for the Kennedy tract, as identified in the
Master Recreation & Parks Plan, and contingent upon the location of the
sewer system.
2. Acquire additional property for recreational activities.
3. Pursue the septic system and external restroom facilities to serve the playing
fields and park.
34
Attachment 1: Map Outlining Existing Space Allocations
Attachment III: Family Resource Center Survey Results
Attachment IV: Flynt Fabrics Survey Results
Attachment VI: Chart: Percentage of Facility Usage (current and proposed)
Attachment VII: Chart: Existing Wastewater Design Flow
Attachment VIII: Chart: Expansion Wastewater Design Flow
Attachment IX: County Engineer Memo dated July 27, 2000
Attachment X: County Engineer Memo dated June 5, 2001
Attachment XI: Potential Facility Improvements and Associated Costs
0 0=0 jili;I11111111111 1111111111
1 1111 1
Attachment XIIII: Excerpt from Library Task Force 2001 Report: Library
Services at the Century Center
35
ATTACHMENT I
c0
M
m JOCCA ( 2,796 SQFT)
u CEDAR GROVE DAY CARE ( 2,610 SQFT)
HEAD START ( 4,920 SQFT)
® FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ( 1,440 SQFT)
- RECREATION & PARKS ( 2,520 SQFT)
SHARED AREAS ( 1,200 SQFT)
j COMMON AREAS ( 12,435 SQFT)
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
HIGHWAY 86 NORTH
CEDAR GROVE, N.C.
( EXISTING )
CAFETERIA
fM
I
R I ST ST
L n
II �]
�1
KITCHEN II
GYMATORIUM
STAGE
COAL BIN
M
BOILER
ROOM
Attachment I
RAC = RECREATION ARTS & CRAFTS
MR = MEN'S RESTROOM
WR = WOMEN'S RESTROOM
JA = JANITOR
ST = STORAGE
SCR = SENIOR CITIZEN ROOM
VAR = VISITING AGENCY ROOM
RO = RECREATION OFFICE
RMS = RECREATION MAINTENANCE
& STORAGE
R = RESTROOM
K = KITCHEN
EE = EAST EXIT
WE = WEST EXIT
SE = SOUTH EXIT
NE = NORTH EXIT
MECH. II w.�sR FF P
ROOM DAYjICARE HEAD START
DAY CARE
I�
IIIIIQ n r.
NEE
n �; 1.
R,f.L'
R W EE HEAD START HEAD START' HEAD START A
R R
'. �...6
—1
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
CURRENT: 08/21 /2000
37
ATTACHMENT II
W
Orange County Recreation and Parks
Existing Programs and Services
Northern Human Services Center
'Activity
Total # Registered
Participants
Total 9 of
Total # of
Practice
Total # of
Game
Sport
Season
Youth
Practices
Participation
Games
Participation
Dates
Enrolled
per
(Players,
per
(Players,
Season
Coaches,
Season
Coaches, and
and visitors).
visitors)
Youth Girls Softball
(ages 7-16)
Apr.-July
253
115
874/week
72
816/week
Youth Soccer
(ages 6-12)
Aug.-Oct.
143
48
792/week
96
1092/week
Youth Basketball
(ages 7-16)
Nov.- Mar.
479
140
476/week
0
0
Youth Wrestling
(ages 7-14)
Nov.- Mar.
45
24
188/week
0
0
Youth Connections
Basketball (ages 9-14)
Jan.- Mar.
53
12
154/week
0
0
'Activity
Total # Registered
Participants
# Visits
Summer Camp
100/week
4
Halloween Hoopla
500
1
Facility Reservations
Total # of Facility
Reservations (1999)
Total # of
Participants, (1999)
46
1150
Group s/Organizations: Census Bureau, Cedar Grove Recreation Club, 4-H,
Upward Bound Parents, Family Reunions, Homemakers Club, Community Meetings
39
ATTACHMENT III
40
Attachment III
Employment ESL
Family/Comm.
Health Care
Job Readiness
Gatherings
. 4
21 fw-nihes 13 families
32 families
37 families
Literacy/ Parent Workshops
Preschool Groups
Respite
Care
Reading
14 families 11 families
11 families
12 families
S. Work Services/ Transportation Tutoring Housing
Family Support
12 families 34 families 23 hunihes 6 families
Spanish Class,
A erobics,
GE D,
Foster Patents, Ladies Auto care class
10
. 4
5
1 1
41
M
MM
MMM
MM
EMEMEM
&2M
E,121adultsand
Ichildr-n),
I
Northern Orange
[IMMMM,
1116101 Family Profile.xis
Survey Results
Programs, Services, Activities
toring
Other Areas
ofinterest
21
Arts & Crafts
Auto Clinic
Enrichment Activities
Spanish
Foster Care
Senior Programs
Car Seats
43
ATTACHMENT IV
Data From Survey Given at Flynt Fabric
The following figures are extracted from a survey given to employees at Flynt Fabric in Hillsborough, NC, in September 2000, by the
North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Employment and Training. A total of ninety (90) individuals completed the
survey, twenty (20) of which are Hispanic.
Survey respondents indicated their personal residence to be in the following areas:
Burlington, NC, Cedar Grove, NC, Chapel Hill, NC, Danville, VA, Durham, NC, Graham, NC, Haw River, NC, Hillsborough, NC,
Hurdle Mills, NC, Mebane, NC, Pelham, NC, Prospect Hill, NC, Timberlake, NC, Ringgold, VA, Roxboro, NC, Rougmont, NC
* Of the total number, the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of responses from the Spanish language survey.
Would like to know more about:
s S
�� £ ::� Y ^
S z
�`§ +
x `
i T
* Of the total number, the numbers in parentheses indicate the number: of responses from the Spanish language survey.
Prepared by Sarah Cooley 11 /00
P
n
ro
H
45
�_ ■ ffiI I► IMIN
DTCC ( 1440 SQFT )
JOCCA ( 1260 SOFT)
CEDAR GROVE DAY CARE ( 2,320 SQFT)
HEAD START ( 5,190 SQFT)
FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ( 1,080 SQFT)
RECREATION & PARKS ( 400 SQFT)
SHARED AREAS ( 180 SQFT)
COMMON AREAS ( 12,435 SQFT)
HEALTH ROOM ( 180 SQFT)
® CYBRARY ( 720 SQFT)
SE
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
HIGHWAY 86 NORTH
CEDAR GROVE, N.C.
( PROPOSED )
R, ST ST
V 1
II �]
V
CAFETERIA
KITCHEN
B
21
FOR
r
SCHEDULED <
Ax-s - - S USES
eu -s u �
� COAL BIN �I
DTCC - GYMATORIUM f� 'I - -.
FAMILY COMPUTER = DTCC AJ43� ^�. MR WR WE BOILER I'
RESOURCES LABJ�I S � I ROOM I'
n
II
Attachment V
DTCC = DURHAM TECH
MR = MEN'S RESTROOM
WR = WOMEN'S RESTROOM
JA = JANITOR
ST = STORAGE
RO = RECREATION OFFICE
R = RESTROOM
EE = EAST EXIT
WE = WEST EXIT
SE = SOUTH EXIT
NE = NORTH EXIT
SCHEDULED USES ( 1,440 SQFT)
® SHERIFF ( 360 SQFT)
AGENCY OFFICES ( 720 SOFT)
a HUMAN SERVICES DELIVERY ( 540 SQFT)
MECH. iR SCHEDULED AGENCY STAGE - -ROOM DAYCARE DAY CARE READ START -s; Rii
OFFICES - it
USES 11119 n 11
11-4 n -e NE �
EE om.
9�iT fj HEAD START WAD STAR.Tik NEAO START
au-s R R
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
CURRENT: 06/04/2001
Ri
47
ATTACHMENT VI
Room 1 South
Room 2 South
Room 3 South
Room 4 South
Room 5 South
Room 6 South
Room 7 South
Room 8 South
Room 9 South
Room 10 South
Gymnasium
Kitchen
Dining
Recreaton Office
HS Screening Rms
Room 1 North
Room 2 North
Room 3 North
Room 4 North
Room 5 North
Room 6 North
JUGCA
Day Care
Head Start
Family Res Ctr
Common Areas
Northern Human Services Center
Current Usage
NOTES:
Dining area is shared for lunch M -F from - 11 am - 1 pm.
Kitchen is used M -F from - 8 am - 1:30 pm by Head Start for meal preparation. Meals for JOCCA are catered.
Hatched cells indicate room is not available /suitable for other uses during unoccupied times due to layout, furnishings, equipment, etc.
Usage Times - current.xls
Prepared: 06/01/01
Printed: 06/21/2001
RE
Room 1 South
Room 2 South
Room 3 South
Room 4 South
Room 5 South
Room 6 South
Room 7 South
Room 8 South
Room 9 South
Room 10 South
Gymnasium
Kitchen
Dining
Recreaton Office
HS Screening Rms
Room 1 North
Room 2 North
Room 3 North
Room 4 North
Room 5 North
Room 6 North
Northern Human Services Center
Current Usage
JOG4�
Day Care
HeadSM
Family Res Gtr
Rec a 10aft
Common Areas
NOTES:
Dining area is shared for lunch M -F from -- 11 am - 1 pm.
Kitchen is used M -F from - 8 am - 1:30 pm by Head Start for meal preparation. Meals for JOCCA are catered.
Family Resource Center holds an activity one Wednesday /month in the Gym from 10 am - 12 noon
Hatched cells indicate room is not available /suitable for other uses during unoccupied times due to layout, furnishings, equipment, etc.
•
Room 1 South
Room 2 South
Room 3 South
Room 4 South
Room 5 South
Room 6 South
Room 7 South
Room 8 South
Room 9 South
Room 10 South
Gymnasium
Kitchen
Dining
Recreaton Office
HS Screening Rms
Room 1 North
Room 2 North
Room 3 North
Room 4 North
Room 5 North
Room 6 North
Northern Human Services Center
Current Usage
JOCCA NOTES:
Day Care Dining area is shared for lunch M -F from - 11 am - 1 pm.
Head Start Kitchen is used M -F from - 8 am 1:30 pm by Head Start for meal preparation. Meals for JOCCA are catered.
Family Res Gtr
Rec & Parks Alli
Common areas
Hatched cells indicate room is not available /suitable for other uses during unoccupied times due to layout, furnishings, equipment, etc.
O1
0
Room 1 South
Room 2 South
Room 3 South
Room 4 South
Room 5 South
Room 6 South
Room 7 South
Room 8 South
Room 8 South
Room 10 South
Gymnasium
Kitchen
Dining
Recreaton Office
HS Screening Rms
Room 1 North
Room 2 North
Room 3 North
Room 4 North
Room 5 North
Room 6 North
Northern Human Services Center
Current Usage
JOCCA NOTES:
Day Care
Head Start
Family Res Ctr
0- `E
Common Areas
Hatched cells indicate room is not available /suitable for other uses during unoccupied times due to layout, furnishings, equipment, etc.
U1
52
ATTACHMENT VII
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
of DESIGN TOTAL
OPERATION PERSONS FLOW PER FLOW
FUNCTION SPAN SERVED PERSON PER DAY
AGENCIES
August- October'
96
3 GPD
288 GPD
Basketball
November -March
80
Day Care
Year Round
56
15 GPD
840 GPD
3 GPD
420 GPD
Head Start
September -May
115
15 GPD
1725 GPD
JOCCA
Year Round
22
10 GPD
220 GPD
Family Resources Center - Clients
Year Round .
10
5 GPD
50 GPD
Family Resources Center - Staff
Year Round
2
25 GPD
50 GPD
. .
ATHLETICS
Soccer
August- October'
96
3 GPD
288 GPD
Basketball
November -March
80
5 GPD
400 GPD
Softball
May -July
140
3 GPD
420 GPD
. _ • •
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES /RESERVATIONS I I I -
NUMBERS from FY 96 -97 1 Year Round 1 401 5 GPD 1 200 GPD
Em
••
Note: The highest of these 3
figures was used for the total since
the seasons do not overlap.
c�
C
54
ATTACHMENT VIII
INIORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
1=YPAK1C,T(')1\1 XA/Ac,-TP\A/ATI=D hr=CTr-Kl 9=1 nkA/
FUNCTION
OPERATION
SPAN
# of
PERSONS
SERVED
DESIGN FLOW PER
PERSON or FLOOR
AREA
TOTAL
FLOW
PER DAY
CLINICS
Health Department - Medical - 2000 Ft2
Year Pound
N/A
300 GPD/1000 Ft2
600 GPD
Health Department - Dental - 1000 Ft2
Year Round
NIA
480 6P[)11000 Ft2
480 GPD
Total
1080 GPD
PRE-SCHOOL/AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Children
August-June
30
5 GPI)
150 GPD
Faculty/Staff
August-June
4
25 GPD
100 GPI)
Total
250 GPO
CONTINUING EDUCATION CLA55E5
Students ( 9 classes per day @ 2 hour duration)
Year Round
90
5 GPD
450 .GPD
Instructors
Year Round
3
25 GPI)
75 GPI)
Total
525 GPD
E5LCLA55E5
Students 9 classes per day @ 2 hour duration)
Year Round
12
5 GPD
60 GPD
Instructors
Year Round
1
25 GPD
25 GPD
Total
85 GPD
—MISCELLANEOUS GOVERNMENT
Satellite 5herrif's Office
Year Round
2
25 GPD
50 GPD
Satellite bSS Office I
Year Round
21
25 GPD
50 GPD
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
MOM, mavmg��
• �' •
i •!
57
ATTACHMENT IX
58
Attachment IX
TO: Northern Human Services Center Task Force
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
DATE: July 27, 2000
SUBJECT: Wastewater treatment system options for the Northern HSC
In March 2000, the, Kennedy tract portion of the Northern HSC property complex was evaluated
by Orange County Environmental Health staff to determine the specifics of its utility for on -site
wastewater treatment nitrification (ground absorption) fields. Environmental Health staff's
preliminary finding was that the Kennedy tract contained an area (approximately 6 acres in a
more or less contiguous area generally described as being from its southern and southeastern
boundaries toward the center of tract) of soils suitable for conventional ground absorption
technology wastewater disposal at a rate of approximately 5000 to 6000 gallons per day (gpd)
with 100 percent repair area. Environmental Health staff have indicated that more extensive site
evaluation and system layout/design work (involving site topography survey and soil test pit
excavation) must be completed before an exact system treatment capacity can be determined.
Unfortunately, the portion of the Kennedy tract containing soils suitable for use as nitrification
field is also that which contains the large hardwood trees. Many, if not most, of the hardwood
trees located in active nitrification fields would have to be removed during the construction of
the nitrification fields. Furthermore, recreational activities in the hardwood tree area that would
be set aside for nitrification field repair area would be severely restricted. Activity in this area
would be limited to low impact trails and the like.
The task force has expressed . an interest in evaluating the possibilities of obtaining additional
properties in this area to either enhance recreational opportunities or to provide alternative sites
for wastewater treatment nitrification fields. Environmental health staff have done some
preliminary desktop evaluation (staff cannot do on -site soils evaluation without property owner
permission) of a large parcel (the 25 acre Vanhook property) north of the Kennedy tract and one
small parcel (the 2.33 acre Jones property) south of the Kennedy tract. The soils mapping and
on -site soils evaluation near these tracts indicate that the Jones property may have soil types
suitable for use as nitrification field while the Vanhook property appears unlikely to have suitable
soil types. Furthermore, even if the small parcel does contain suitable soil types, there may be
limitations (topographical constraints such as poor slopes, ditches, creeks, etc. or insufficient soil
depths) to its use for nitrification field.
The treatment capacity of the existing wastewater treatment system serving the Northern HSC is
rated at 2400 gpd. System operational records show that wastewater flow to the system often
exceeds a 3000 gpd average for as much as weeks at time. This hydraulic overloading will
unquestionably shorten the life of the existing system. It is, however, impossible to predict how
much the life of the system will be shortened or how much longer the existing system will
continue to provide an acceptable level of wastewater treatment.
59
It is apparent that something must be done to: 1) increase the wastewater treatment capacity at
Northern HSC; 2) replace existing plumbing fixtures with those which use less water; 3) modify
existing programs which may generate wastewater through the use of the kitchen facilities; or 4)
decrease the number of individuals or programs using the facility such that wastewater generation
experiences a corresponding decrease. At this time, it appears to be unlikely that the use of the
facility will decrease. In fact, it appears that there is some demand for an increase in the use of
the facility. Furthermore, a desire has been expressed to convert the area currently utilized as the
nitrification field for the existing wastewater treatment system to a circular access drive and
parking area for the center. Assuming that the use of the center is to be increased and the
existing nitrification field is to be converted to other uses, the only option available at this time is
to relocate nitrification fields to the suitable areas in the Kennedy tract. Opportunities to shift all
or some portion of the nitrification fields to other properties outside of the Kennedy property or
the existing Northern HSC tract may present themselves at some point in the future.
Insofar as the Northern HSC wastewater treatment capacity is concerned, there are a range of
opportunities that present themselves. The only option that is not available is to do nothing.
That option is eliminated because the treatment capacity of existing wastewater treatment facility
is already being exceeded on a frequent basis. Other basic options, listed in order of cost from
cheapest ($0) to most expensive (approximately $300,000) in terms of the County's
expenditures, are outlined below.
1. Eliminate programs /reduce use of the facility as necessary to bring wastewater treatment
demand in line with treatment capacity of existing system.
2. Eliminate use of the kitchen facilities to prepare food or wash dishes, pots, etc.
3. Replace all existing water using fixtures with those which useless water and generate less
waste.
4. Marginally expand existing system (up to 3000 gpd) to utilize additional nitrification field
capacity in Kennedy tract while leaving existing nitrification fields in place.
5. Marginally expand existing system (up to 3000 gpd) to utilize additional nitrification field
capacity in Kennedy tract while leaving existing nitrification fields in place, eliminate use of
the kitchen facilities to prepare food or wash dishes, pots, etc., and replace all existing water
using fixtures with those which use less water and generate less waste.
6. Acquire Jones tract, if suitable for nitrification fields, marginally expand existing system (up
to 3000 gpd) to utilize additional nitrification field capacity in Jones tract while leaving
existing nitrification fields in place.
7. Acquire Jones tract, if suitable for nitrification fields, marginally expand existing system (up
to 3000 gpd) to utilize additional nitrification field capacity in Jones tract while leaving
existing nitrification fields in place, eliminate use of the, kitchen facilities to prepare food or
wash dishes, pots, etc., and replace all existing water using fixtures with those which use less
water and generate less waste.
ME
S. Abandon existing nitrification fields, develop marginally expanded existing system (up to
3000 gpd) in Kennedy tract.
9. Abandon existing nitrification fields, develop marginally expanded existing system (up to
3000 gpd) in Kennedy tract, eliminate use of the kitchen facilities to prepare food or wash
dishes, pots, etc., and replace all existing water using fixtures with those which use less water
and generate less waste.
10. Abandon existing nitrification fields, acquire Jones tract if suitable for nitrification fields,
develop marginally expanded existing system (up to 3000 gpd) in Kennedy tract and Jones
tract.
11. Abandon existing nitrification fields, acquire Jones tract if suitable for nitrification fields,
develop marginally expanded existing system (up to 3000 gpd) in Kennedy tract and Jones
tract, eliminate use of the kitchen facilities to prepare food or wash dishes, pots, etc., and
replace all existing water using fixtures with those which use less water and generate less
waste.
12. Abandon existing nitrification fields, develop up to maximally expanded existing system (up
to 6000 gpd) in Kennedy tract.
13. Abandon existing nitrification fields, develop up to maximally expanded existing system (up
to 6000 gpd) in Kennedy tract, eliminate use of the kitchen facilities to prepare food or wash
dishes, pots, etc., and replace all existing water using fixtures with those which use less water
and generate less waste.
14. Abandon existing nitrification fields, acquire Jones tract if suitable for nitrification fields,
develop up to maximally expanded existing system (up to 6000 gpd) in Kennedy tract and
Jones tract:
15. Abandon existing nitrification fields, acquire Jones tract if suitable for nitrification fields,
develop up to maximally expanded existing system (up to 6000 gpd) in Kennedy tract and
Jones tract, eliminate use of the kitchen facilities to prepare food or wash dishes, pots, etc.,
and replace all existing water using fixtures with those which use less water and generate less
waste.
There are a number of iterations that could be developed for the options listed above. Most of
these options involve adjusting the capacity (and price) of various system capacities. It is
important to note a few facts or assumptions used in generating these options and the cost range.
One very important fact is that the Jones tract alone (assuming that it can be acquired), is not
sufficient to provide for the full demand of existing use of the Northern HSC, even if every
square foot is suitable for nitrification field and all available water conservation measures are
incorporated in the facility. Another fact is that the $300,000 upper limit for system expansion
costs does not include the purchase price of the Jones tract or any other property not currently
owned by Orange County. The upper limit for system expansion costs does include the cost of
purchasing and installing water conserving fixtures and equipment but does not include the cost
61
of general renovations to the cafeteria, public restrooms or individual class or office restrooms.
The cost figures do not reflect any costs associated with soils evaluation, system design or layout
or costs that may be incurred to demolish, remove, abandon or dispose of any of the existing
wastewater treatment system equipment or infrastructure. And finally, the cost figures do not
include any funds for unusual work elements during the construction of any new nitrification
fields such as field layouts which minimize removal of existing trees or grinding of trees are
removed into mulch products.
If I may provide clarification of this material or any additional information, please advise.
62
ATTACHMENT X
63
Attachment X
TO: Northern Human Services Center Task Force
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Engineer
BATE: June 5, 2001
SUBJECT: Updates on issue of wastewater treatment system options for the Northern HSC
Since the NHSC Task Force received the July 27, 2000 report on wastewater treatment system
options for the NHSC, there have been several developments, none of which have been
particularly positive. For example, it has been determined that average flow to the existing
NHSC treatment system is approximately 3500 gallons per day (gpd), an amount which exceeds
its capacity (2400 gpd) by approximately 40 %. This overloading is definitely harming the
existing system and shortening its life expectancy. Unfortunately, no one can predict the
system's remaining life expectancy, either under existing flow conditions or under a condition
where flow is reduced to .a point at or near design levels after years of overloading.
To date, County Environmental Health staff have identified a number of properties just north of
the NHSC on both sides of NC 86 that general soils mapping identifies as being suitable for
wastewater disposal. However, staff does not yet have permission to enter any of those
properties to make a preliminary on -site evaluation (one property owner, Fuqua, has actually
refused entry permission). There are certainly no guarantees that: 1) the County will get
permission to evaluate other nearby properties not now owned by the County; 2) any properties
that. are evaluated will be suitable; or 3) that any properties that are evaluated and found suitable
can be acquired by the County.
If it is assumed that preserving the area of the Kennedy tract with the hardwoods to the maximum
extent possible is — or perhaps the - a core value, I make the following recommendations:
1) Preserve the existing nitrification field to the extent possible by:
a) immediately revamp any existing program requiring meal preparation to one which does
not require washing any dishes, including cookwear and utensils
b) immediately replace existing plumbing fixtures with those which minimize water
consumption
c) abandon plans to convert the existing nitrification field area to some combination of
circular drive and parking area
2) .limit the proposed expansion of programs that would increase water use inside the existing
building. by:
a) provide portable toilets for baseball/outside recreational activities
b) eliminate the use of the facility for non - County related after -hours uses
c) , consider providing pit - privies for passive recreational activities on the Kennedy tract
M
3) Design and size a system expansion that will use conventional wastewater disposal
technology (pump- conventional), recirculating filtration (to extend system life), dual
nitrification fields (new fields and existing fields), minimize immediate impact to Kennedy
tract and preserve nitrification field potential on Kennedy tract
4) Continue looking for remote but nearby nitrification field property
The strategy as contained within these recommendations is designed to maximize the flexibility
in wastewater treatment system technology while preserving the potential to maximize the size
and capacity of an expanded treatment system so that the NHSC site remains viable when the
existing system eventually fails or wears out. This strategy does have some drawbacks in that it
eliminates the use of the front area for driveways and parking (at least in the near term), limits
expansion of the use of the facility and increases the system maintenance (low flow fixtures as
well as enhanced wastewater treatment system) and operations costs. If it is determined that
expanding the use of and access to the facility in the near term are the core values, then these
values can be achieved at the cost of losing many, if not most, of the.hardwood trees in the
nitrification field areas of the Kennedy tract.
If I may provide additional information at this time, please advise.
65
ATTACHMENT XI
„• r
M
a�
M
Activity
Estimated Cost
1)
Relocate or Expand Wastewater
Treatment System main building)
$300,000
2)
Replace Windows /Exterior
Doors /Locks (investigate solar
$250,000
possibilities)
3)
New Well, Water Distribution
System, Holding Tanks, etc.
$50,000
(research feasibility of solar water
heating system design)
Sub -Total
$600,000
•
Replace HVAC (research
alternative/energy-efficient system)
$600,000
•
Replace Roof (after 2004) (included
$500,000
in the revolving fund for roof
replacement)
•
Parking /Access:
❑
Pave Existing Lots
$150,000
❑
Create Circle Drive /Pave It
$ 50,000
Restrooms /Additions & Renovations
❑
Retrofit existing restrooms
$127,000
•
Upgrade Electrical Wiring System
$30,000
•
Paint Interior /Exterior
$25,000
•
Enclose the Breezeway
$15,000
•
Replace Flooring
$143,000
•
Alarm Systems:
•
Fire
$30,000
•
Bur lar
$15,000
®
Complete Renovation of Kitchen/
Includes Replacement Equipment
$100,000
Sub-Total
$1,785,000
TOTAL.
$2,385,000
M
67
ATTACHMENT XII
Prupmed arned&s:
AtdvdMayWg FWMs
0 12 Smcw fhAd.,
t fladd
BaAeGaU com
Expanded playgrcamd
Othei- Faeffifie,sAceessm Items
* Nem, entrance and puking afea
* Restrwm facility (close to halt fit kh/picaw shelwo
CommAn mmd
Mahmance shed
Mainwnancc, road (Corsorvicing t-iath w,onms,
picnic areas and trad mw rite MMCC"I
Two rwx wefls (one for NHS(-.')
14A
ttir �'�7 TWA 14,
r
,Attachment XII
Luw4nipact AnwnRks
Picnic- shclt(;� and trail he"d
and in
Naw,ae a. A docp trail dwoaii,i ro
areas and back to stanj
I bAeviov. picnic table and ben(Jies
RUi�lc tAet facihty rrnfl: near lakk_n
WflkiH 'Jifil (ILU'd ADA stamhrcfs�
AM
1-4
ova
Z_
'Ilk f
T
Cedar Grove Park - Scem,,trio 1, (74-acre park): iootfld ol'
aMbonal land to the nonh, PIUS land acrossNC 86 Mr wasmaer Md.
Est�J,ma �ed Cc)st, $1 , 250 , ODU
H�MMHW
F W-F
Proposed amenifies:
Active/Ptalying Fields
d ?Ouhi-jxlr ,or L! 1"idd
Basketball cxuu
0 Expanded playgrond
Other FaxffiflesMccessory Items
lb Re,tiuom facifiE,i w IwA fiu(dsipicnic shckev)
Water fOLIMAr4S)
Conct.,ssion Mand
Mainterance shed
Mainteriance rcad (for wrti rcmq. haLlt rooms,
pwnic are,ts and rrml maintenartee)
Two nnv vy�lls (.one for NIISC)
f ,
'N
Low-ImIjuet Amenities
Picr• ShejjeT. nj,jtt!, near nauwe trai,< head
and in Al-aW wcoafnAv w, balk
Nature trial Aclop U-M tflrou(„aJj vvoodlands to
lakefrom. area.s and back to stan)
Lakeview picnic arIll I.,cuclics
Puistic toilet t,acifity O.,Ac,, uaill, agent lakcr)
m
Cedar Grove Park - Scenario 2 (48-acre park)' no rcv, uxc,:qx for
land across NC 86 for vva.stovater drain field-
L art imatc d Cost $85(),,()(-)0
lufle '2001
appr
f1roposed tart enifies:
Actiw/Playing Fields
0 1 Multi -purpose fieAd
0 Basketbffl courts
'D Expanded playground
Other FacifificsiAccessox V Items
,& Ikestroom facility (rk)sc to baH fiwcklslpicmc Shelter)
* water. fountain(o
* Concession stand
shed
aw Maimenance road (for servicing bath moras,
picnic ncap ind trail rnakiwmanco)
Two now weils (ono, foT. NHS'("t
<
cl, L7
F'p as
All
IV
C'
Low-Impact A menifies
PicnL� Shelto, and grilk mnr mwxe t•ad hz,n(l
and in cl,:psc pooximit.y to ball
Niworc h-ail d•op u-nd frcm po:nic '-'Ve1tcr w
larkerront areas and hack to stno �
Lak.evie,& pwna zables 'Ind been ckcs
Rusk loflci a; aside track, fw:u kake)
IN
vJ VJ
6 LT)
'�Sv
Q
rb
Ced,ar Grove Park - Scenario 3 (48-acre park): no rte % liinds ac,,quired •Or plrk cor
wasLewater disposal; WLAsWwaIer SVSUNTI located on-site,
EstJ,mated Cos"t $835,000
J u ne 2CR) l
N
70
71
ATTACHMENT XIII
72
Attachment XIII
Library Services at the Century Center
Library service at the Century Center in downtown Carrboro would meet a number of needs
not currently being addressed in southern Orange County.
The citizens of Carrboro currently enjoy only limited library service, at McDougle School,
where the hours of operation are restricted to afternoons and evenings due to the school
schedule. While this library does an admirable job of meeting the needs of sonic patrons,
accessibility is an issue for significant segments of our population: seniors who don't drive,
youths, and those of modest means. By its very nature, McDougle library is limited in what
it can do.
Providing some limited library service at the Century Center in downtown Carrboro meets
some of the needs unmet by other library service on southern Orange County.
By utilizing space that already exists and piggybacking on town services provided in the
Century Center, the county can maximize resources. This proposal would continue the trend
in library service of creating public library space in an existing public facility. Like the
successful McDougle library example, expenses and resources would be shared with another
entity. This creative use of space benefits all.
A library as proposed at the Century Center would provide public access to the Internet. In
this respect it fulfills one of the findings cited earlier in this report.
The Century Center is accessible to any citizen in southern Orange County and would be the
only truly accessible library in southern Orange. Located in the heart of North Carolina's
most densely populated community, the Century Center is within walking distance of 10 to
15,000 residents of southern Orange County and is at a transit hub with three bus lines
running past. Seniors, school children without available parents to drive them to other
libraries, and citizens of more modest means would have access to this facility.
This proposal enjoys strong support from the town of Carrboro, which is committed to
providing financial support as outlined below. This support relieves the county of the
complete burden of providing library service to the citizens.
There are many different options for providing service. in this space. There is plenty of room
to negotiate a model that meets the needs of the community and is affordable to the county.
In addition, the proposal can be phased in over a number of years, if necessary.
There are no restrictions on the number of hours this facility could be open. Library service
at this facility could provide morning and early afternoon hours not available at McDougle
library. Seniors and parents with toddlers, for example, are frequent morning library users
and are currently not able to use McDougle during those hours. The Century Center library
could meet some of their needs.
73
Because there have been no negotiations with the county with regard to how this library
would be set up, what services would be provided, etc., there is some vagueness about how
this proposal would be implemented. It should be noted that there are many options available
for exploration. Determining the costs to the county requires some discussion.
•MI,IX !,
Number of Volumes
To be determined
Number of Staff
Between .5 and 1.5 depending on h.dw the
operation is structured
Hours of Operation
To be determined
Square Footage
1,060
County Contributions
$32,175 - $96,520 annual estimate; one-
time $10,600
Private Contributions
NA
Municipal Contributions
$30,800 estimate, one -time $13,200
Internet Access /OPAC
Not applicable
Public Transportation
Chapel Hill Transit. Authority until
midni ht
The County's one -time (capital) costs would be as follows:
A. Furniture
1. Hexagon Desk (two %2 hex tables)
2. Computer Stools (6 @ $129.95)
3. Couch, Love Seat
4. Library Table (use chairs already on premises)
B. Shelving
1. Periodicals (15- compartment display and storage)
2. Newspaper Display (6 newspapers and storage)
3. Books
The County's ongoing (operational) costs would be as follows:
A. Staff (at least 1.5 plus benefits)
B. Periodicals
C. Laptop and wand for checkout (download daily)
D. Van Delivery (twice weekly)
E. Locking File Cabinet (2- drawer letter)
F. Locking Storage Cabinet
G. Librarian Desk and Chair
H. Office Supplies
I. Best Sellers
C, /1
/1
2,000
850
1,100
700
3,000
10,650
:1.111
.111
111
160
160
700
500
6,000
96,520
74
75
SECTION B: General Facility Assessment Summary (attached to the January 24,
2012 regular meeting abstract
0
ORANGE COUNTY
Meeting Date: January 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Next Steps: Northern Human Services Center
ATTACHMENT(S):
N HSC Facility Assessment
Proposed Timeline (with Public Inp
Plan) I
Action Agenda
Item No. 8 — r—
#UBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
76
PURPOSE: To receive information about community efforts regarding the disposition of the
Northern Human Services Center; and to provide directiIon to staff on next steps.
As previously discussed, the cost • operation is very expensive — over $100,000 in FY 2010-
201: 1. At this time, the building use is limited to a day rare and Head Start program, along with
limited County recreation programs. The day care and Head Start program have been noticed
that the facility would not be available beginning January 1, 2013.
luring its work session in M�arch, 2011, the Board • Commissioners expressed interest in
Aursuing some type of project at the site, but desired that the community be engaged in a
meaningful dialogue that would help inform decons about the removal and eventual
replacement of this facility.
77
Some key activity ideas expressed by local residents included:
• County services continuing to be offered in some form at the site;
• Meeting room /community center;
• Potentially, an Emergency Services base station.
Further, small group members agreed the County should solicit public input from other residents
in the area. Various means to do so were discussed including, but not limited to, distribution via:
mail; some method of surveying preferences (such as Survey Monkey) via the internet; and
flyers in local stores, churches and other community organizations.
An open house at the Northern Human Services site is also recommended in order to share
ideas and provide a direct avenue for feedback from residents. Based on this discussion, a
timeline of possible activities, including a two -part public input plan, is attached for the Board's
comment.
The small group discussed a number of ownership options, including leasing or selling the
building to a private or other non -profit group. However, staff has learned that deed covenants
from the 1976 property conveyance from the Orange County Board of Education to Orange
County will require the land and uses of the land to remain `for a public purpose'.
In the facility evaluation and subsequent discussion, staff has refined the most likely project
possibilities and recommends that two options be identified and discussed with the community
residents:
Deconstruction /demolition of the existing facility (following a thorough documentation for
historic preservation purposes), with future construction of a new public facility (in a future
year to be determined as part of the CIP) that would include a "community center" similar to
that existing at Efland- Cheeks Park, and perhaps other components to be determined; or
Deconstruction /demolition of the existing building wings, and retention and renovation of a
core center area, possibly including the gymnatorium and cafeteria (in a future year to be
determined as part of the GIP).
Staff is prepared to commence a formal public input effort, following a discussion regarding
general parameters that should be followed when formulating the project possibilities with the
community.
The attached facility assessment provides an overview of the facility's status.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The FY 2011 -16 CIP includes $250,000 to fund removal of the building
and grading /seeding of the site in preparation for future use. There is no current funding in the
CIP for new construction or renovation of the facility as listed in the two options above, these
would need to be added to the future CIP if desired.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the proposed
timeline and plan of action, make any changes as needed, and instruct staff to begin the public
input and project activity process.
W
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER COMMUNITY FACILITY
BACKGROUND
The Northern Human Services Center, originally a school facility, was
constructed in 1950, with a later addition in 1957 that included the kitchen and
dining area. The facility has seen few significant changes since original
construction and includes many of its original elements. Although the original
coal -fired boiler was later replaced with an oil -fired boiler, most of the original
radiator and steam line heating system is still in place, as are the original single -
glazed, metal frame windows, and exterior doors, all of which are very inefficient
from an energy standpoint. Interior plumbing lines were previously replaced, as
were waste water lines outside of the footprint of the building. Very few structural
changes have been made since original construction.
OPTIONS
Several options for maintaining a community facility at the Northern Center
location exist, including:
1. Total removal of existing facility and replacement with a pre- engineered
structure of approximately 10,000 square feet, with mason and /or block
accented exterior walls at an approximate cost of $1,932,000
($193 /square foot).,
2. Total removal of existing facility and replacement with a similarly designed
structure (masonry block with brick veneer) of approximately 10,000
square feet, at an approximate cost of $2,618,000 ($262 /square foot).
3. Removal of the classroom wings on the north and south ends of the
facility, including the large central restrooms in the south wing, with
adaptive reuse of the gymnasium, kitchen /dining areas, and the central
lobby and offices, at an approximate cost of $1,963,000 ($196 /square
foot). Metal building components (window and doorframes, roof trusses,
etc.) would be recovered for recycling, and masonry products would be
evaluated for processing and recycling on -site as aggregate substitute for
fill and parking lot construction.' Figures 1 and 2 provide an overview of
the approximate areas to be removed, and areas that would remain.2
The attached schematic budget comparisons include substantial contingencies
for each option, and are not based on any developmental design plans or
drawings.
For comparative purposes, previous CIP estimates for refurbishment of the entire
facility were approximately $3,278,000, not including parking improvements.
Any of the options identified here could accommodate a park and ride lot.
' Crushing at the actual construction site using portable crushers reduces construction costs and the pollution generated
when compared with transporting material to and from a quarry. http--I/en.vvikir)edia.org/wiki/Concrele recycling
s An initial assessment by a structural engineer confirmed that the 'beings" can be removed without structurally
compromising the portion of the building to remain.
79
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
M
Certain materials in the facility test positive for the presence of asbestos, which
will require abatement (removal and disposal at a licensed facility). If any portion
of the existing structure is to be retained, it is strongly recommended that all
asbestos containing materials be removed and abated from the entire facility, not
just asbestos - containing materials found in the areas to be removed.
While the existing masonry walls that would be left in place if the gymnasium,
dining area, etc., were retained, have some value in their embodied energy3,
most other infrastructure and components would need to be replaced, due to
their age and condition, as well as the County's on going efforts to create energy
efficient, sustainable facilities. It is not recommended to leave any portion of the
existing facility in place without making the improvements identified below.
Heating /Ventilation /Air Conditioning
The entire complex is served by a heating system that includes an oil -fired boiler,
steam lines and radiators throughout the building. The original boiler was coal
fired, and the original coal bin remains in place, adjoining the partially below
grade boiler room. There is no centralized cooling system for the facility, only a
number of window air conditioning units, and a small package system that serves
the kitchen.
A modern, energy efficient HVAC system would be needed to serve the portions
of the facility that would be left in service if only partial removal of the facility is
pursued, or if the entire structure is left in place. Replacement of the boiler would
also allow removal of the above ground fuel oil storage tank at the site. And a
new HVAC system would also provide centralized cooling for the portions of the
facility to remain, which they currently lack.
Boiler
3 Embodied energy is defined as the sum of energy inputs (fuels /power, materials, human resources etc) that was used
in the work to make any product, from the point of extraction and refining materials, bringing it to market, and disposal / re-
purposing of it. Embodied energy is an accounting methodology which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary
for an entire product rrfecycle. This lifecycle includes raw material extraction, transport,w manufacture, assembly,
installation, disassembly, deconstruction and /or decomposition. htti): / /en.wikipedia.orci/wiki /Embodied energy
a
Electrical
The electrical service is adequately sized for the facility, though quantity and
placement of devices does not meet modern expectations in many spaces.
Improvements may be required for space that remains.
Metal halide lighting in the gymnasium would be replaced with compact
fluorescent bulbs and ballasts for energy efficiency. Most other lighting in the
facility has previously been upgraded to T -8 fluorescent bulbs and ballasts.
Plumbing
Most existing plumbing fixtures, water supply lines, and wastewater lines would
be removed as part of the process of removing the north and south wings, as this
would include removal of the main restrooms. The existing well and septic
systems would be left in place. New restrooms would be constructed to replace
the existing central restrooms that would be removed. Existing water supply
lines, and wastewater lines, which run under the remaining slab, would be left in
place.
Roof
The existing roof was installed in 1995 with a ten -year warranty, and so is well
past its expected useful life. Some roof sectors on the portions of the building
that would remain have decking that has tested positive for the presence of
asbestos, although the-decking on the gymnasium and dining hall did not.
Abatement would be required for approximately 21,000 square feet of roof
decking. Although encapsulation is possible, leaving any asbestos- containing
materials or products in place is not recommended.
4
M
Windows
The windows are original to the facility, and are single - glazed, metal framed,
which provide very low R- values. All windows and exterior doors in the portions
of the building proposed to be retained should be replaced to reduce energy
consumed, and to reduce on -going maintenance costs. Some caulking and
glazing for windows and exterior doors tested positive for asbestos and will
require abatement.
Flooring
Flooring in the sectors of the building that may not be removed include the
gymnasium, main entrance /office area, dining hall and kitchen.
The gymnasium floor is a carpet product complete with basketball court
markings. The dining hall includes what are assumed to be the original floor
tiles, which test positive for asbestos. Flooring in the corridors which contained
asbestos was previously abated, and now includes a vinyl composition tile (VCT)
that is recommended for replacement based on age and condition. Although
asbestos containing tiles were previously removed form the south wing, mastic
(flooring adhesive) in the south. wing tested positive and would also require
abatement. The kitchen includes a red quarry tile that would need some minor
repairs, if this portion of the facility is retained for use.
Although not required, it is highly recommended to remove and abate the dining
room floor tile, as well as asbestos containing mastic in other parts of the
building. The existing VCT is more than 15 years old in all areas of the building
that may not be removed, and so should be replaced.
5
W
Fire Alarm System
The fire alarm panel was replaced in 2011. Some contracted work would be
required to remove attached devices from the areas of the building to be
removed.
Intruder Alarm System
The existing intruder alarm system provided coverage only in the rooms on the
south end of the facility, and is no longer in use. Attached devices would need to
be removed, but could be re- installed in the portions of the building that would
remain, if an intruder alarm system is to be retained.
Masonry
Virtually all walls in the facility are of masonry construction (brick, block) and are
generally in good condition. Most settlement cracks have been repaired
previously, though some additional work should be completed for the portions of
the building to be left in place. All areas of the facility are slab on grade.
n
0
CONSIDERATIONS
Adaptive reuse of a portion of the existing facility would:
• Capture the embodied energy of the associated masonry materials
to remain;
• Eliminate the opportunity for optimal alignment of a structure on the
site;
• Eliminate the opportunity for optimal placement of a structure on
the site;
• Limit flexibility for design of interior space;
• Minimize opportunity for overall design of a facility;
• Be accompanied with some unforeseen conditions.
® Construction of a new facility would:
• Allow optimal alignment of a structure for solar, daylighting, etc.;
• Allow optimal placement of a structure on the site for parking, and
other land use;
• Provide for greater flexibility of the overall design of a facility;
• Provide greater flexibility for design of interior space
• Be accompanied with few unforeseen conditions.
7
Northern Human Services Center Schematic Budget Comparison
Notes:
1. Per FY2012 -13 CIP Budget
2. Contingency is 20% at schematic budget phase.
3. Option based on FY10 -11 CIP Northern Center refurbishment submitted in February 2010.
Contemplates removing classroom wings and maintaining remaining structure, foundation, exterior walls.
Also includes new windows, new roof, new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.
Contemplates similar upfit allowance to options 1 and 2 as well as furniture /equipment to suit desired space plan.
All options contemplate a component of the project memorializing the historical significance of the original site and its use.
•.
RE
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3'
New Construction,
New Construction,
Removal of classroom wings,
10,000 SF pre-
10,000 SF of similar
adaptive re -use of 10,000 SF
engineered building,
design to existing
center portion
standing seam roof,
masonry construction
masonry and /or block
accented exterior walls
Abatement, Removal'
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Design, Construction, Equipment
$1,401,760
$1,974,000
$1,427,218
Contingency2
$280,352
$394,800
$285,444
Schematic Budget
$1,932,113
$2,618,800
$1,962,662
Budget per square foot
$193
$262
$196
- sustainable bldg
- sustainable bldg
orientation, future
orientation, future
sustainable
sustainable
- adaptive re -use's captured
Considerations:
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
energy
-more design control
-more design control
- higher costs
-fewer unforeseen
-fewer unforeseen
- greater unforeseen
conditions
conditions
conditions
- requires re -work of existing
wastewater treatment
system
Notes:
1. Per FY2012 -13 CIP Budget
2. Contingency is 20% at schematic budget phase.
3. Option based on FY10 -11 CIP Northern Center refurbishment submitted in February 2010.
Contemplates removing classroom wings and maintaining remaining structure, foundation, exterior walls.
Also includes new windows, new roof, new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.
Contemplates similar upfit allowance to options 1 and 2 as well as furniture /equipment to suit desired space plan.
All options contemplate a component of the project memorializing the historical significance of the original site and its use.
•.
RE
M
Northern Human Services Center Project
REVISED DRAFT 12/19/11
• Communicate public meetings by mailing to owners within one mile of property, persons who
were on Cedar Grove Park master plan interest list to solicit attendance at input session and
open house by mail.
® Send flyer /mailing out 7 -10 days in advance
• Post meeting flyers to web site and distribute flyers in community stores and place on marquee
sign, encourage those who receive mailing to invite other interested parties.
• Open House (March) to use large group presentation, and small group discussions and questions
to consider the two options (two 60- minute `drop -in /drop -out' sessions, one at 6:00 and repeat
at 7:00, to allow flexibility for public schedules). Survey disseminated.
• Public input session (June) to present options and recommended option, receive feedback
(facilitated, small groups, reporting to large group).
• Hold information session December 2012 to keep public informed on upcoming activities
(courtesy update).
August- October 2011
Staff reviews information to date, CIP, outlines data needed for project and
develops public outreach outline. Four preliminary options identified.
November 2, 2011
Staff small group meets with 4 -5 community leaders for brief overview and
status, thoughts on community involvement process.
December, 2011—
Staff working team meets to receive report from focus group meeting,
January, 2012
discuss outreach plan, framework of proposed process and options, and
survey questions.
January 24, 2012
Report to BOCC on Proposed Public Outreach Plan (including draft survey)
and recommended options to BOCC.
February, 2012
Staff refines the two options for project, creates conceptual (bubble)
drawings, and implements public outreach.
Early March 2012
Public Open House held to review site overview (limitations) and brief
history, proposed options, receive feedback, and distribute survey.
March —April 2012
Further distribute survey to those not present; collect survey results
April 2012
Staff uses open house public input, analysis and survey results to further
develop plans for the options.
May 15, 2012
Project option plans and draft recommended option presented to BOCC for
initial review prior to Public Input Session.
June 2012
Public Input Session held to review recommended plan, as modified by
BOCC, receive community feedback. (CIP confirmation of whether initial
deconstruction /demolition is a project for FY 12 -13).
M
August 21, 2012
BOCC decision on recommended project
September- November
Preliminary planning and design work associated with project.
November 2012
Permits acquired for deconstruction /demolition as per project decision and
funding.
December 2012
Deconstruction /demolition as per project decisions and funding. Informal
information Session held for public prior to activity.
December 2012 —?
Final grading, seeding and site stabilization accomplished, to await next steps
of project
M
SECTION C: Current Septic System Capacity Constraints
M
ORANGE COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Improving health. Inspiring change.
1 1
To: Michael Talbert
CC: Jeff Thompson
From: Tom Konsler
Date: April 15, 2012
Re: Water and Sewer Capacity at Northern Human Services Center
5800 NC 86 N Hillsborough
I am providing an update on the water and sewer capacity for Northern Human Services Center
in anticipation of the work session on April 16th.
Water System — The current well on the property is classified as a non - transient, non -
community public water supply by the state. It has retained this classification because until
recently, there was a daycare center in the facility. Now that the daycare is no longer in
operation, the county will seek a reclassification as a transient non - community water supply.
This will considerably reduce operating costs as there are fewer testing and monitoring
requirements.
The capacity of the well should not be a problem for considering anticipated uses for the
facility. The wastewater system will be the key limiting factor in overall capacity and the well
could produce the quantity needed up to the septic system capacity.
Existing Wastewater System - The existing wastewater system is designed for up to 2400
gallons per day (GPD) of use. With the decrease in use of the facility building itself, some of this
flow (up to 1000 GPD) was allotted to the bathrooms at the ballfield picnic shelter which is now
also connected to the septic system. This leaves approximately 1400 GPD wasteflow capacity
available for the building.
Without knowing the potential usage for the building (childcare, offices, meeting space, food -
service, etc.) it is difficult to put limits on the variety of options. Once potential usage types are
identified, it would be relatively simple to find the capacities in terms of number of people,
919 245 2360 131 west Margaret lane, Suite 100 tr Chapel Hill, NC 27514 orangecountync.gov
a
ORANGE COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Improving health. Inspiring change.
number of events, etc. In general, there are two fairly significant limitations that must be kept
in mind:
1. Any extensive food service operation or food processing will likely be restricted. The
system may be able to accommodate a limited kitchen where catered food is brought in, but to
operate a fully functional food service operation would be beyond the system design capacity.
2. Before any additional use of the building, the plumbing system underneath the
building and between the septic system and the building would need to be fully evaluated and
likely replaced. The inflow of rainwater during rain events regularly exceeds the design
capacity of the system, even with the current minimal use of the building.
Wastewater System Expansion - Several years ago, the county applied for and received an
Improvement Permit for the property on the opposite (east) side of NC 86 North. This permit
identified enough suitable area to accommodate a septic system of just over 6000 GPD capacity.
If this area is still available it could approximately double the wastewater capacity of the
facility, but at quite a considerable cost.
Much of the information that Jeff Thompson sent earlier is still applicable with regard to the
wastewater system, including the examples that were developed for potential uses. I'll be
happy to work with your office or others to respond to proposals with regard to the septic
system capacity.
919 245 2360 131 west Margaret Lane, Suite 100 > Chapel Hill, NC 27514 P orangecountync.gov
91
tounre .r o,
qupty Hp ea.? fi o ^Department
Rosemary L. Summers MPH DrPH
Jonathan Klein, MD, Chair + 9 Janet Southerland, DDS, Vice -Chair am
°try en„ Orange County Board of Health Health Director Orange County Board of Health n.nne�ta.easxN..xn
Environmental Health Division
Ron Holdway, Division Director
306-0 Revere Road, P.O. Box 8181 Phone: (919) 732.8181, x2360 PAX. (919) 644.3006
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Betty Borland Barbara Patterson Chapel Hill Durham Mebane
hnYn'- co."Mil e.nc u.: /oi me /envhlth/ Administrative Assistant Office Assistant (919) 968.4501 (919) 688.7331 (919) 217.2031
February 15, 2001
1► i�►�1�7 ►���I�i1► �
TO: Pam Jones
FROM: Ron Holdway
RE: Northern Human Services Center
ATTACHMENTS: Spreadsheet for Existing Use of NHSC
Spreadsheet for Potential Use of NHSC
Copy of Memo from Tom Konsler to Rich Shaw
CC: Rosie Summers
Tom Konsler
Paul Thames
Just a note to update you about our most recent work on the NHSC septic system situation. I don't
know where things stand on the project right now, so lot me or Torn know if you need anything else.
We in Environmental Health do not have further work planned for the site until the County is ready to
finalize the soil work on the Kennedy tract or begin evaluation of the Fuqua tract. It was our
understanding that the Fuqua tract may also be considered as part of the project.
First, we ran some numbers both for the existing wastewater flow and for the potential of expanding the
septic system to 6,000 gallons per day. This is the most current figure we have to work with, but keep in
mind this is an approximation of the useable area of good soils on the Kennedy tract after preliminary
soil work only. Further investigation and testing are necessary before any figure can be confirmed and
permits issued.
The design flow for the current use of the building, based on usage numbers from Recreation and Parks,
is just over 3500 gallons per day. The current septic system is sized for 2,400 gallons per day, so it is
overloaded by approximately 45% with the existing use. Although it is working properly by all
N
Jim Brown, RS Nrry Burn., RS Alan Clapp, RS, LSS Greg Grimes, RS Tom Konsler, RS David Hecht, RS Ron Hedrick, RS Jan Jackson, RS Wendy Thigpen, RS
EH Specialist EH Specialist Soil Scientist EH Program Specialist EH Supervisor EH Specialist EH Specialist EH Specialist EH Specialist
92
,Pam Jones memo, 2 -15 -01
Page 2
accounts, overuse to this degree will have long -term impacts on the functionality and life of the system.
A breakdown of the existing use is attached as an Excel file.
With the presumed potential design flow of 6,000 gallons per day in a new system and with the current
use taken into account, the remaining available flow would be approximately 2,500 gallons per day.
Based on the community survey Sharron presented at the last. meeting at the NHSC, we prepared a
sample scenario of potential use for the remainder of the flow. This is not, by any means, the only
possible use of the additional flow, but maybe it will give you some idea of what the future of the
building could be. The breakdown is also attached in the above - mentioned file.
We were asked during the last meeting to evaluate the Vanhook property, the ball field area and the junk
car lot portion of the Kennedy tract. Only one small potential area of less than 500 gallons per day
capacity was noted for any of these sites during testing by our Soil Scientist earlier this month. The
remainder of the Vanhook tract contained unsuitable soils compounded by poor topography and
landscape position. A good part of the property was ruled out for soils investigation because of the
proximity to the reservoir. The ball field area and the junk, car area were deemed unsuitable for use
because of a combination of poor soil characteristics, site disturbance and soil compaction. A copy of
Tom's memo to Rich Shaw concerning the most recent evaluations is attached.
I hope this information helps as we move towards some resolution in this matter.
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
CVTCTTK!r MACTCIA /ATGD NCCTf_K1 1=1 r1V11
FUNCTION
OPERATION
SPAN
# of
PERSONS
SERVED
DESIGN
FLOW PER
PERSON
TOTAL
FLOW
PER DAY
AGENCIES "
Day Care
Year Round
56
15 GPD
840 GPD
Head Start
September -May
115
15 GPD
.1725 GPD
JOCCA
Year Round
22
10 GPD
220 GPD
Family Resources Center - Clients
Year Round
10
5 GPD
50 GPD
Family Resources Center -Staff
Year Round
2
25 GPD
50 GPD
Total
2885 GPD
ATHLETICS
Note: The highest of these 3
figures was used for the total since
the seasons do not overlap.
Soccer
August- October
96
3 GPD
288 GPD
Basketball
November -March
80
5 GPD
400 GPD
Softball
May -July
140
3 GPD
420 GPD
Total
420 GPD
SPECIAL ACTIVITIEVRESERVATIONS
NUMBERS from FY 96 -97
Year Round
40
5 GPD
200 GPD
Total
200 GPD
TOTAL EXISTING WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW
3505 GPD
w
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
GY1)AnICTnK1 \AIASTI= \A /AT1 =D 111=CTr_K1 FI h \A1
FUNCTION
OPERATION
SPAN
# of
PERSONS
SERVED
DESIGN FLOW PER
PERSON or FLOOR
AREA
' TOTAL
FLOW
PER DAY
CLINICS u
Health Department - Medical - 2000 Ft2
Year Round
N/A
300 GPD /1000 Ftz
600 GPD
Health Department - Dental - 1000 Ft2
Year Round
N/A
480 GPD /1000 Ft2
480 GPD
Total
1080 GPD
CHARTER SCHOOL (No cafeteria or showers)
Students
August -June
60
10 GPD
600 GPD
Faculty /Staff
August -June
8
25 GPD
200 GPD
Total
800 GPD
CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASSES
Students ( 9 classes per day C 2 hour duration)
Year Round
90
5 GPD
450 GPD
Instructors
Year Round
3
25 GPD
75 GPD
Total
525 GPD
MISCELLANEOUS GOVERNMENT
Satellite Sherrif's Office
Year Round
2
25 GPD
50 GPD
Satellite D55 Office
Year Round
2
25 GPD
50 GPD
Total
100 GPD
TOTAL EXPANSION WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW
2505 GPD
co
a
n -
95
Mrang.e (�ounta �i�e IO r ttrtment
Jonathan E. Klein, Chair Rosemary L. Summers, MPH, DrPH Janet H. Southerland, Vice Chair
Orange County Board of Health Health Director Orange County Board of Health.
306-C Revere Road, P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
ww�,c.ai.,n;urx. nc.us /oranee /etichlth/
TO: Rich Shaw
From: Tom Konsler
x.,.n ca.o,row6u. x..ph
Environmental Health Division
Ron Holdvvay, Division Director
Phoner (919) 732.8181, x2360 FAX: (919) 644-3006
Betty Borland Barbara Patterson Chapel Hill Durham Mebane
Administrative Assistant Office Assistant (919) 9684501 (919) 688.7331 (919) 22,7.2031
Date: February 8, 2001
Re: Preliminary Evaluation of the Vanhook Tract [2.25..5]
Cc: David Stancil, Paul Thames, Bob Jones, Alan Clapp
On February 5t", Alan Clapp and I made a visit to the Vanhook tract [2.25..5] located to the North of the "Kennedy Tract"
adjacent to the Northern Human Services Facility. We conducted a preliminary investigation of the soil types present for the
,tential location of a wastewater system to serve the existing facility with potential for expansion. For these purposes an
mation of a wasteflow of 6000 gallons per day was used.
The results of the investigation yielded no area of suitable soils to support such a system. The vast majority of the tract
contained soils that are unsuitable for the placement of a subsurface wastewater system due to shallow depths to saprolite,
weathered rock, soil wetness, and expansive clay. Only one small area in the extreme Southeast corner would have potential for
further investigation to see if enough area exists for a subsurface system. It is estimated that if an area of suitable soil exists in
that location, it would not be of significant size and would be on the order of supporting a wasteflow of less than 500 gallons per
day.
The extreme western portion of the tract was not evaluated due to the required setback from the impoundment and the presence
of unsuitable soil. There is a low area across the northern portion that would also rule out the potential for a system.
Should you have any questions about our investigation, please feel free to contact me.
Jim Brown, RS Pere Burns, RS Alan Clapp, RS, ISS Greg Grimes, RS Tom Konsler, RS David Hecht, RS Ron Hedrick, RS Jan Jackson, RS Wendy Thigpen, RS
EH Specialia - EH Specialist Soil Scientist EH Program Specialist EH Supenisor EH Specialist EH Specialist EH Specialist EH Specialist
0
SECTION D: FY2012-13 Board Adopted Capital Investment Plan:
Northern Human Services Center
ti
rn
County Capital Projects
Fiscal Years 2012 -17
Project Name
Northern Human Services Center
Project Status
Approved
Functional Service Area
Governing and
Management
Starting Date
711/2012
Department
Asset Management Services
Completion Date
613012013
Available
Year 1 Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Five
Year 6
Prior Years
Balances
Fiscal
Year Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Year
to
Project Budget
Funding
1131/2012
2012 -13 2013 -14
2014 -15
2015 -16
2016 -17
Total
Year 10
Appropriation
Land /Building
-
Construction /Repairs/Renovations
714,545
344,451
250,000
2,000,000
2,250,000
Equipment/Furnishings
-
Roof replacement
-
Total Project Budget
714,545
344,461
250,000 -
2,000,000
-
-
2,250,000
-
General Fund Related Operating Costs
Personnel Services
Operations
New Debt Service
192,000
192,000
384,000
960,000
- -
-
192,000
192,000
384,000
960,000
Total Operating Costs
Revenues/Funding Source
Transfer from General Fund
396,545
344,461
192,000
192,000
384,000
960,000
Available Project Balance
250,000
250,000
Debt Financing
318,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
Total
714,545
344,461
1
250,000 -
2,000,000
192,000
192,000
2,634,000
960,000
Project Description /Justification
These funds would support the removal of the Northern Human Services Center, or components thereof as determined by the County Commissioners. A
deconstruction /demolition combination process is recommended, whereby a salvage operation would be conducted to remove items of value or with re -use
potential, with the remaining areas removed using traditional demolition techniques. Most masonry products that cannot be reclaimed for direct reuse can be
processed for use as an aggregate substitute. Costs for this operation include abatement of asbestos that is present in the building as well. In 2011 The
Board expressed interest in removing the building, or parts thereof, and replacing it with a functionally superior and environmentally sustainable facility.
Cedar Grove Day Care and Head Start staff were notified last year that the facility would be closed by January 31, 2013. Staff has met with a small group of
community representatives at the Manager's request, and discussed conceptual ideas for site development. The Board received information during their
January 24 ,2012 meeting which allowed for increased specificity in the project development description and consequently, the cost estimate for construction.
Existing project funds are available for use in FY 2012 -13 for the deconstruction /demolition of all, or part, of the building.
M
SECTION E: March 19th. 2012 Public Meeting
- Flyer
- Agenda, Survey
- Meeting Summary
- Photos
- Mailing List
- Sign -In Sheet (address and contact information
removed)
- Post Meeting Summary Sheet
• i . • ! •
1I Me; 1a &1 Wei
1st Session 5:00 pm -6:00 pm
2nd Session 6:00 pm -7:00 pm
You are Invited to an
Informal Public Input Session
to Discuss
. Information on the state of the current 1950
facility
• Options for a Possible New Structure?
• What Needs Should the Structure Meet?
. What Kind of Indoor Facilities?
• Other Ideas?
100
7072WINO, WOW
1. Purpose of Session
2. Status of Current Structure and Limitations /Costs
3. Public Input and Expected Timetable
4. Small Group Discussions (see attached handout)
a. What Are the Community Service Needs?
b. What Would You Like to See at this Site?
5. Report Back from Group Discussions
6. Dot - Voting Exercise and Adjournment (Session Repeats at 6:00 p.m.)
101
Northern Human Services Center Future Facility Public Input Session
March 19, 2012
s
0
z
aU
U
v
4-
0
Please answer the following questions:
1
Do you think the existing portions of the building currently used as
the cafeteria and gym should remain intact and serve as the
proposed community center? OR
2
Do you think a new building should be built to replace the existing
facility?
2A
If you prefer a new building, do you think the new structure should
be an enclosed structure (e.g.. Building)? OR
2B
If you prefer a new building, do you think the new structure should
be an outdoor structure (example, large picnic shelter with
fireplace, restrooms )?
3
Should any new building be designed to accommodate activities like
family reunions and community meetings?
4
Should any new building have a stage to accommodate speakers,
performers, plays etc.?
5
Should any new building include a kitchen to warm food for events?
5a
Should this kitchen have an exterior window so it could be used as
a concession stand for events that may be going on in the park
softball games, soccer games, etc.)?
7
Should any new building have space for classes of various types?
8
Should any new building have space for recreational summer
camps?
9
Should any new building be used to play basketball or similar
ames?
10
Would you be opposed to a cell tower on this site (improves cell
hone services)?
11
Do you think any new building should be located close to the front
of the site (example—at current building location)?
12
Would you personally use this building if these types of amenities
were included?
13
Do you think there should be a park and ride lot at this site?
PLEASE TURN SHEET OVER
102
Please discuss and rank the following types of services that you think are most
desirable at the Site. Write 1 for top priority, down to 7 for lowest priority.
Indoor Structure (example - community center)
Outdoor Structure (example - large picnic shelter with fireplace, restrooms)
Community Center (meeting room with restrooms)
Large Outdoor Shelter /Pavilion
Park and Ride lot
Mini - gymnasium
Cellular Tower (to improve cell phone service)
Other (please list
What Would You Like to Do Here? (check up to five)
Play sports
Have a room for community
meetings
Have classes and
camps
Have indoor restrooms
Stage for plays and
performances
Warming kitchen
Room for Family
Reunions
Concession Stand (opening to
outside)?
Basketball / Indoor
Sports
103
Northern Human Services Center
The following information was gathered from attendees at the Northern Human
Services Center Public Input Sessions, held on March 19, 2012 at 5:00 and again at
6:00 pm in the cafeteria of the Center.
The format of the meeting was as follows:
• Staff Overview of Purpose of Sessions
• Status of Current Structure, Limitations and Costs
• Overview of "survey" and "dot- voting" exercises'
• Review of survey questions, community thoughts and ideas
• Closing remarks, next steps, website progress reports
• Survey turn -in, dot- voting
• Adjourn (repeated at 6:10 pm)2
Future Facility Questions ("Survey")
At the public information session, attendees were given a list of questions and
asked to vote yes /no. Of the estimated 52 attendees, around 29 submitted
responses.
Mixed Opinions
1. The attendees seemed to have a mixed opinion between two options:
a. Deconstructing /demolishing the current 1952 building, with
appropriate "memorialization," and construction of a new facility; or
b. Retaining the middle portion of the existing facility (cafeteria and
gymnasium), and retrofitting and building new facilities (restrooms,
etc) around this.
Strong Opinions (greater than 3:1)
1. If a new building, it should be an enclosed facility and not an open "shelter ";
2. If new, it should be located near the current location (front) of property;
3. If new, the old building should be memorialized in some way (plaques,
retain a wall or some portion of the old structure, photo exhibit, etc)
4. Locating a cell tower on the property would be okay, if improved reception
1 It should be noted that some meeting attendees objected to filling out a survey or "voting"
at the meeting, and expressed a desire for 1) more information and 2) the ability to submit
surveys at a later date. Surveys were agreed to be accepted later, however only one such
survey was received.
2 Only four persons attended the 6:10 session, which followed the 5:00 format but became
more of a question and answer session.
104
5. The facility (new or retrofitted old) should be able to accommodate:
a. Family reunions
b. Community meetings
c. Stage for performances /speakers
d. Kitchen (warming /catering kitchen)
e. Rooms that can be used for classes
f. Room(s) that can be used for summer camps
g. Room(s) for games and indoor athletics (basketball of some sort)
6. Members attending unanimously said they would use a facility such as the
one described herein
Moderate Opinion (generally 2:1 to 3:1)
1. If a new building with warming kitchen, an exterior window for use as
concessions, etc (2:1 in favor)
2. Most attendees thought a park- and -ride lot at the facility was a good idea
(just under 3:1 in favor)
Dot - Voting — Intensity of Preference
As attendees left, they were given five red dots to place on the list of questions to
indicate their interest level. Cumulative voting was allowed.
However, this exercise, because of the way questions were phrased and voting
conducted, served more as a measure of the intensity of feeling about the
issues /questions.
Ranked from Most - Intensive Response to Least - Intensive
1. Keep cafeteria and gym (middle of structure) and retrofit /improve (27)
2. A new building should accommodate family reunions and community
meetings (16)
3. Build a new structure to replace the 1952 building (13)
4. Not opposed to a cell tower to improve reception (10)
5. A new building should be an enclosed structure (9)
6. Have a kitchen that has exterior window for concessions (8)
7. New building should have space for classes of various types (7)
8. New building should have space for summer camps (6)
9. New building should have a warming kitchen, and a stage (5 each)
10. New building should be located in same spot on site, and old building should
be memorialized (2 each)
3 The question about the cell tower has been thrown out since it asked a negative, and it is
not clear whether voters were expressing favor or disfavor).
105
11. Should have park- and -ride lot, and would personally use this kind of building
(1 each)
No one (0) selected 'anew building should be an outdoor structure"
An extra sheet of blank paper was provided for any additional comments attendees
had. These comments may be found on Attachment 1.
106
Josephine Paylor -Long
Cedar Grove, NC
Lawrence Vanhook
Cedar Grove, NC
Mae Catherine Watson
Cedar Grove, NC
Mary T. Villines
Hurdle Mills, NC
Melvin Beasley
Cedar Grove, NC
Phyllis Poole Poteat
Cedar Grove, NC
Roger Traynham
Hillsborough, NC
Toni P. Bradsher
Cedar Grove, NC
Vivian H. Latta
Hillsborough, NC
4-
Yvonne Villines
Mebane, NC'
Juanita Torain
Hillsborough, NC
Linda Schmitt
Hurdle Mills, NC
Mae Catherine Watson
Cedar Grove, NC
Mary V. Burt
Hillsborough, NC
Nancy Graven
Cedar Grove, NC
Rich Wiedmann
Cedar Grove, NC
Steve Yuhasz
Hillsborough, NC
Valerie Foushee
-c
Chapel Hill, NC
Wandra Richardson
Hillsborough, NC
Bernadette Pelissier
Hillsborough, N.C.
Larry D. Gunn
Cedar Grove, NC
Lisa Pope
Cedar Grove, NC
Malcolm Hester
c.
Hillsborough, NC
Melinda Bradsher
Cedar Grove, NC
Peggy Rafferty
Cedar Grove, NC
Robert E. Vanhook
Burlington, NC
Sucovis Hester
Hillsborough, NC
Wandra Richardson
Hillsborough, NC
107 -
108
Anna Kenion
Anna Kenion
Barbara A Bradsher
Hillsborough, NC :
Cedar Grove, NC
Mebane, NC
Barbara Breeze
Barbara White
Betty Poole
Cedar Grove, NC :
Hillsborough, NC:-
Cedar Grove, NC � . .
Betty Rogers
Brenda VanHook
C. R.
Cedar Grove, NC.
Cedar Grove, NC
Hillsborough, NC .
Carol Hawkins
Cindy Newport
Camilla White
Cedar Grove NC:
Cedar Grove, NC :
Cedar Grove, NC
David Ogburn
David Pettiford
Donald Vanhook
Hillsborough, NC :
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
Earl McKee
Eric Roeder
Eula Allison
Rougemont, N.C.
Chapel Hill, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
Faye Poole
Francis Beasley
Francis Villines
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove, NC - --
Hillsborough, NC:
Gloria Farrish
Hattie Vanhook
Howard C. Poole
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
James H. Vanhook
Jeff Schmitt
Jerry J. Long
Cedar Grove, NC
Hurdle Mills, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
Jim Rafferty
John Long
John Tolar, Friends of Lake Orange
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
Cedar Grove, NC
rn --
0
14
D
Volunteer Building Committee
Sign-Up
112
rtb
s�aso`�
June 28, 2012
To: Northern Human Services Center Meeting Attendees and Mailing List
Thank you again for attending the public input session that was held in the
cafeteria of the Northern Human Services Center on March 19. Since a few
months have passed, we wanted to share with you an update on the status of
this project.
For those who may be on the mailing list but did not attend the March 19
meeting, the following is a summary of the information we provided that night
about the reason for the meeting, and the status of the building:
• The 1950 school building now has very little activity in it. The Cedar Grove
Day Care will be moving out by December 31 to a new location. Most of
the children being served there at present are not from Cedar Grove.
• The only remaining uses are a classroom used by the Cedar Grove Park
manager as an office, and some rooms used for storage of materials.
• In 2010, it cost the County over $100,000 in annual operating expenses to
keep the building open, resulting in the closing down of the wings.
• The Board of County Commissioners has been apprised of this situation
as part of their review of all County facilities. As a result, $250,000 was
targeted in the five -year Capital Investment Plan (or CIP) for this site in
2012 -2013 - with an eye toward deconstruction /demolition of the facility in
advance of a new as- yet - undetermined facility. However, before any
further steps were taken, the Board asked staff to solicit resident feedback
on the plans (and this led to the March 19 meeting in Cedar Grove).
Upon sharing this information on March 19, a survey was distributed asking
meeting attendees their thoughts about a new facility, versus trying to retain the
gym /cafeteria section of the existing facility, and what uses residents were most
interested in seeing.
Orange County
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
113
Two things have happened since we last met that will likely be of interest to you:
1. The Board of Commissioners has adopted the new five -year CIP, which
includes the $250,000 in funds described above for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2012 - but also now includes a planned $2.0 million
in new construction. These funds are currently slated for the fiscal year
that begins July 1, 2014. This would allow a year for the
deconstruction /demolition of the current building (after documenting and
memorializing the facility) and stabilization of the site prior to new
construction - OR - alternatively, for renovation and new construction
using and enhancing the gymnasium /cafeteria as the new "center." A final
decision on which option would be taken will not be made until later in
2012.
It is important to note that five -year CIP's are only a plan for expenditures of
future funds, but the funds are only appropriated one year at a time. The
$250, 000 beginning July 1 of this year has been approved, but the $2.0 million
for new constructionlrenovation will have to be approved again in the budget
process. As currently planned, that would be in the spring of 2014.
2. Staff prepared a status report memo (attached to this letter) for the
Board of Commissioners outlining the building situation, the results of the
March 19 meeting, and possible next steps. This memo includes the
findings of the survey results (please see pages 2 -3 of the attachment
for details). The next steps proposed in this memo for the project are:
• That the status report be shared with the Board of Commissioners
(done - June 7),
• That a letter be sent to the public input session participants thanking
them for their assistance and attendance, and identifying these next
steps and timetable. (done - this is the letter),
• Staff will work on developing visual images of a) the current
gymnasium /cafeteria (both identifying the opportunities and unique
architectural features of the existing building, and the deficiencies of a
62 -year old building with outdated facilities and infrastructure); and b)
a vision of an alternative building and how it might be laid out and
function. (This would occur this summer),
• Staff will hold another community input session - starting with a tour
of the existing facility, followed by a visual /graphic oriented meeting
showing both the opportunities and challenges of the gym /cafeteria,
and a visual of a possible future facility. Attendees at this meeting will
be invited to participate in hands -on design and discussion of what
features of the old structure are most important, how they could be
Orange County
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
114
retained, and what kind of layout an alternative future facility might
have. (This is slated for late- September)
• The results of this second input session would be shared with the
Board of Commissioners this fall, along with a staff recommendation
on a course of action and an opportunity for residents to speak about
their thoughts on the options and proposed course of action.
(October), and
• The Board of Commissioners would then decide what course of action
to take for the facility, and how /when this would be implemented.
(tentatively, October /November).
This is where the project stands at the present time. Staff plans to be back for the
second public input session in late- September — a notice of which will be sent
by mail and posted in stores (and on the center marquee sign in front) prior to the
session.
In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
following staff:
David Stancil (245 -2510; dstancil(a_orangecountync.gov)
Jeff Thompson (245 -2650, ithompson(a7orangecountync.gov)
Marabeth Carr (245 -2510; mcarr(a7orangecountync.gov)
We hope you have a pleasant summer, and thank you again for your attendance
and attention to this subject. We look forward to seeing you in late- September.
Sincerely,
David Stancil, Director
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
Orange County
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
115
SECTION F: September 25th, 2012 Public Meeting
- Flyer
- Meeting Presentation
- October 25th. 2012 Board Abstract
- Sign-In Sheet (address and contact information
removed)
- Informal Resident Design Advisory Group Volunteer
Sheet (Address and contact information removed)
SEPTEMBER 25,2012 You are Invited • an
Building Tour-6:00 p
Meeting-6:45 pm I
LOCATION: Northern Human
Services Center
5800 Hwy 86 North
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
Informal Public Input Session
to:
• Tour the current facility and discuss im-
portant features, memories of the school.
• Review top priorities for future use from
March meeting.
• Confirm priorities.
• Discuss next steps.
Please come join
for future option
Ils as we plar
117
NPAIDININK
ovc co,
it 116
17 52
4
�rfh that"
Northern Human
Services Center
Development Options
Discussion
September 25, 2012
118
9/25/2012
Objectives
Review of Options, Background
Advantages, Disadvantages of
Each Option
Cost Estimates for Options
Background
Nature of "Schematic" Planning
Input
Space Planning and Design
Budget and Cost Estimates
Contingency Planning
Unknowns
Design and Cost Dynamics
Time
119
9/25/2012
W
Background (cont.)
Existing Building, Site Factors
Age
Systems Conditions
Cost of Maintenance, Fuel
Lack of Occupancy
Site Size
Well and Septic Condition,
Capacity
120
9/25/2012
L,
1 Coo, # a
t
17 52
Option 1
orfh Cate,
10,000 square foot community
center
New construction, after de-
constructing existing facility
Pre - engineered, metal building
with masonry accents
Standard U pfit
K '�
r
121
9/25/2012
r
1z R Option 1
�a
N QEACO
Estimated Cost:
$182 - $210 per square foot
Advantages:
More building for the money
Maximum Design Flexibility
Maximum Programming /Use
Flexibility
New Construction
Fewer Unknowns
122
9/25/2012
1*1
Option 1
Estimated Cost:
$182 - $210 per square foot
Disadvantages:
No presence of existing facility
123
9/25/2012
7
Option 2
10,000 square foot community
center
Adaptive re -use of existing central
portion of facility
De- construct classroom wings
New Roof
New Building Systems (Plumbing,
Electrical, Mechanical)
Standard Upfit
124
9/25/2012
0
(r°4�
r
17 52 Option 2
Estimated Cost:
$185 - $217 per square foot
Advantages:
More Architectural, Historical
Character
Embedded Energy in Existing
Facility re -use
Reasonable Cost
Elements of Existing Building to
Remain
125
9/25/2012
0
®te ; t � �a¢n
iz z Option 2
Otth pEaC °t�
Estimated Cost:
$185 - $217 per square foot
Disadvantages:
Significant Unknowns
Restricted Design Flexibility
Restricted Use and Programming
Flexibility
126
9/25/2012
10
127
9/25/2012
11
Possible Community Center
Renovated Cedar Grove School
128
9/25/2012
12
J I
-- ! Existing Parking
Existing North 1
-' Future i Building Wing
i Recreation Removed
Area
ca
Existing Parking ' - � (Tennis or Volleyball)
Re ca � 1
lay -
_ - New Raised Metal Roof
Over ►Multi- Purpose Room _ 1
1 Existing Basketball
Courts Existing Building'
to Remain and
be Renovated
Existing
Ball Field
Covered
Porch - -- —
Z
'n
V - , New Entrance 1
Existing South
i Building Wing
Removed 'I
New Parking Area
1
J Existing
Parking Area
Removed
Possible Community Center
Renovated Cedar Grove School
Site Plan
�n
129
9/25/2012
13
130
9/25/2012
`II Z111.
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Norm
I
Classroom Wing
,
Removed
,
I
I
I
I
I
ILL
r
I
F- — —
I
New
I
Coal
Gva
Ent-yin —
Area
,Removed
Mech.
New Stage
J
l
1
Support
New
Prop
New
,
Renovated
Kitchen
Game
Room
Offloes,
Renovated Multi- Purpose Room
F 'sting
'
r — —
(with Raised RooQ
Stage
Covered
F", Porch
School
Renovated
History
CommunHy
Walla
Roam
- - - - - --
—J
New
New
Jan
Restmom
Restm.m
J
New
5
CN-
Covered
Covem d
Entry
Poch
�i
I
I
I
rte'
I
I
I
South
I
Possible Community Center CiaRmo� d'ng
Renovated Cedar Grove School
Floor Plan
I
I
I
aoara I
I
I
I
Lr-
n_n_i 7
" I
I
I
I
- - -
I
- -s
130
9/25/2012
`II Z111.
r
17 52
a
*� �►.►
Moo
i
,i
- y
131
9/25/2012
m
Q k
t
17 52
Ott h (Eat°%.,%
MIMI1
i
132
9/25/2012
16
r
17 Sz Next Steps
°rth pEati�`
Discussion
Preferences
Project Working Group Invitation
BOCC Worksession Presentation
Recommendation for Project
Working Group
Recommendation for
Development Option
Engagement of Professional
Design Team
FY13 -14 Budget Preparation
133
9/25/2012
17
M
NORTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
Public Input Session
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
COPY ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 25, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center Project Update
DEPARTMENT: Department of Environment, PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Agriculture, Parks &
Recreation (DEAPR) & Asset
Management Services (AMS)
ATTACHMENT(S):
A) June 12, 2012 NHSC Project - Status
Report
B) NHSC Development Option
Comparison
C) September 25, 2012 NHSC
Community Meeting #2 Summary
INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Stancil, DEAPR, (919) 245 -2522
Marabeth Carr, DEAPR, (919) 245 -2516
Jeff Thompson, AMS, (919) 245 -2658
Wayne Fenton, AMS, (919) 245 -2628
Michael Talbert, Assistant County
Manager, (919) 245 -2308
135
PURPOSE: To receive an update from staff on efforts related to the Northern Human Services
Center (NHSC) as well as to provide feedback and direction on:
1) a summary and outcome of the public meeting held on September 25, 2012;
2) a potential recommendation for the "Option 2" development path for the project;
and
3) a potential recommendation to engage a professional design firm for the project
through a request for qualifications ( "RFQ ") process.
BACKGROUND: In June 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved the FY2012 -17
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that included $250,000 in FY 2012 -13 for deconstruction and
demolition of the Northern Human Services Building (NHSC) in preparation for the future use of
the site. The Board also approved $2.0 million in FY 2014 -15 for construction of a new facility
at the site.
The Board may recall that staff held a public meeting to receive input on the function,
appearance, and characteristics of this proposed new facility. Attachment A, a June 12, 2012
memorandum entitled "Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) Project - Status Report",
presents the summary provided to the Board in a work session prior to the summer break. The
community meeting concluded with public consensus on the types of uses the proposed facility
should include within its space plan. However, there were mixed opinions regarding either
building a completely new facility or retaining components of the original facility. A "adaptive re-
use"d evelopment model would incorporate components within a design that would retain more
of the character and cultural significance of the original facility.
136
Staff held an additional public input session on September 25, 2012. The focus of that meeting
was to gather input and consensus on a development path of an approximate 10,000 square
foot facility that would follow a new construction path ( "Option 1 ") or the "adaptive re -use"
construction path ( "Option 2 "). Attachment B, entitled "NHSC Development Option
Comparison ", compares and contrasts these two options.
In summary, while both options are similar in total cost, Option 1 allows for more design and
space planning flexibility. Option 2 maintains the important social, cultural, and historic
elements within the design, but would restrict some space planning and use flexibility.
The September 25, 2012 public meeting produced a strong preference for Option 2, the
"adaptive re -use" path. Attachment C is a September 25, 2012 NHSC Community Meeting #2
Summary which provides the salient outcomes of that meeting.
In addition to the preference for Option 2, the public meeting group embraced staff's suggestion
that an informal resident design and review advisory group be presented to the Board for
approval.
If the Board approves staff moving forward with the project as recommended at the November
8, 2012 regular meeting, the development timeline would be as follows:
TASK
PROPOSED
BEGINNING
DATE
END BY
DATE
BOCC Action: Receive project update
10/25/12
10/25/12
BOCC Action: Decision on Manager recommendations
11/8/12
1118/12
NHSC fully vacated
12/31/12
12/31/12
Project design RFQ process; Board approval of Designer
Contract
3/1/13
6/20/13
BOCC Action: Approval for Designer Professional Services
Agreement est.
6/20113
6120/13
Project schematic design
6/20/13
10/20/13
BOCC Action: Approval of Schematic Design est.
10/20/13
10/20/13
Project final design, bid document preparation
11/1/13
1/31/14
Project Bid - abatement, deconstruction and adaptive re -use
construction est.
2/1/14
4/28/14
BOCC Action: Bid Award, Budget Approval for Construction
est.
6/20/14
6/20/14
Construction, Commissioning, Opening est. 8 months duration
7/1/14
3/1/15
137
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving this update and
providing feedback to staff.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the Northern
Human Services Center project update and provide direction to staff on the following:
1. the summary and outcome of the public meeting held September 25, 2012;
2. a potential recommendation for the "Option 2" development path for the project; and
3. a potential recommendation to engage a professional design firm for the project through
a request for qualifications ( "RFQ ") process.
138
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Clifton, County Manager
FROM: Michael Talbert, Assistant County Manager
Pam Jones, Asset Management Director
David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation Director
DATE: June 12, 2012
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) Project - Status Report
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on the NHSC project,
results of the March community input session, and planned next steps. The Board
may find this information of use as it completes deliberation on the FY 2012 -13
Budget and the 2012 -17 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The Manager's
Recommended CIP includes $250,000 in FY 2012 -13 for preparation of the NHSC
site for future use, which may involve full or partial deconstruction /demolition of
the existing 1950 structure, and $2.0 million in FY 2014 -15 for construction of a
new facility at the site.
Background
As brief background, the former Northern Human Services Center is located at 5800
NC 86 North, approximately seven miles north of Hillsborough in Cedar Grove
Township. The land for the school was conveyed by the Vincent family in 1946, and
the school was constructed in 1950 (with a 1957 kitchen addition) as the African -
American school for this part of the county.
With school integration in the late- 1960's, the Orange County Board of Education
consolidated schools, and the building and eight -acre property was transferred to
Orange County in August 1976. This deed included a stipulation that the property
must be used "for a public purpose" or ownership would revert back to the Board of
Education. By the mid- 1980's, the facility was in use for a variety of County
purposes, which over the years have included, but are not limited to social services,
a branch library, Durham Tech classes, a variety of child care services and Head
Start programs and a variety of recreation classes and programs.
139
Over the past 15 years, a number of studies were undertaken to determine possible
uses for the building. None of the potential uses, however, fared favorably when
compared to the cost and effort that would be needed to bring the building up to a
suitable standard of operating efficiency. Estimated costs to complete the needed
work in 2001 ranged between $2.1 and $2.4 million. By today's construction costs,
the estimated investment would likely go well beyond $3 million. While portions of
the building have been closed off to help minimize the approximately $100,000
annual operating expenses, the construct of the building systems limit what can be
done in this regard.
One of the primary concerns of the existing facility is septic capacity. Although
additional land for expansion was purchased across the highway from the main
building, the designed facilities carried an anticipated cost well over $500,000, so
the project was suspended.
In 2001, county voters approved a bond referendum which included funds for a
park on 40 -acres previously- acquired behind the structure. The Cedar Grove Park
was constructed and opened in 2008. The last County functions left the facility in
2010, and the only remaining uses are the Cedar Grove Day Care (scheduled to
vacate the building by January 1, 2013), storage of equipment by County
departments, and a former classroom used as the park office by the Cedar Grove
Park manager.
In 2011, as part of capital planning deliberations, $250,000 was earmarked for FY
2012 -13 for deconstruction /demolition of the facility, and in 2012, based on Board
discussions, an additional $2.0 million was included in the Manager's Recommended
2012 -17 CIP for FY 2014 -15 as a placeholder for a new facility. As a part of these
discussions, the Board asked that staff solicit public input on the plans for the
facility prior to final decisions.
Community Input Session - March 19
As a precursor to a public input session, staff from the County Manager's office,
Asset Management Services and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation invited a small group of community representatives who had been
active in the previous park planning effort to an informal pre - meeting, to receive
feedback on how to best solicit community input. This information was used to
develop a Public Input Session that was held on March 19, 2012.
A summary of this meeting is provided as Attachment 1. Flyers were mailed to all
property owners within one mile of the NHSC, distributed to area stores and
churches, and advance notice was posted on the marquee sign outside the building.
140
Over 50 persons attended this input session, held in the cafeteria of the NHSC.
Representatives completed a survey about preferences for the future uses at the
site. There were mixed opinions about whether to try and retain the
cafeteria /gymnasium `center mass" of the facility and retrofit it with new restrooms
and upgraded facilities, or to memorialize and document the existing facility before
taking it down for a new community facility. However, there was strong consensus
on the types of activities and uses that residents favored for this location, including:
• Large meeting room for community meetings, family reunions,
• Stage area for performances,
• Warming (catering) kitchen,
• Rooms for classes, summer camps and gams or some indoor athletics, and
• A cellular phone tower that improved area phone reception
Respondees were unanimous that they would personally use a facility along these
lines.
Follow -up Discussions and Proposed Next Steps
After tallying survey results and a dot - voting exercise conducted at the meeting,
staff met on two occasions to discuss how to proceed. A report to the Board of
Commissioners on the activities to date, and another community input session were
deemed to be the most prudent next steps.
From the first input session, it was clear that residents have a strong sense of place
and community in being from Cedar Grove, and an attachment to some level of
service provision in the community. It was also clear that many present desired
additional information - both about the current status of the existing structure, and
about "what could be" in the way of a new facility. A "vision" of what could be
seemed to be one key piece that meeting attendees desired to be able to see and
discuss.
In that light, staff proposes the following course of action:
1. That this status report be shared with the BOCC as final CIP decisions are
considered to provide an opportunity to provide feedback. (June),
2. That a letter be sent to the public input sessions participants thanking them
for their assistance and attendance, and identifying these next steps and
timetable. (June),
3. The staff work on developing visual images of both the current
gymnasium /cafeteria (identifying and acknowledging both the opportunities
and unique architectural features of the existing building, and the deficiencies
of a 62 -year old building with outdated facilities and infrastructure); and a
141
vision of an alternative building and how it might be laid out and function.
(summer),
4. That staff hold another community input session - starting with a tour of the
existing facility (augmented by the good and bad images outlined above),
and then a visual /graphic oriented meeting showing both current facility
opportunities and challenges, and a visual of a possible future facility.
Attendees would be invited to participate in hands -on design and discussion
of what features of the old structure are most important, how they could be
retained, and what kind of layout an alternative future facility might have.
(September)
5. The results of this input session would be shared with the Board this fall,
along with a staff recommendation on a course of action and an opportunity
for residents to speak their feeling about the options and proposed course of
action. (October), and
6. Board decision on the course of action for the new facility, and
implementation of same as per the directed schedule. (October).
In conclusion, staff was impressed and heartened to see the strong opinions and
feedback provided in the March session. It is clear that Cedar Grove residents feel
passionately about their community, and desire a place for community events to
occur. It is hoped that this memorandum and this possible course of action will lead
to a mutual agreement on the best way to meet the community's needs going
forward.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
ATTACHMENT B
Northern Human Services Center Development Option Comparison
Abatement, Removal
Design, Construction, Equipment
Contingency
Schematic Budget Estimate
Schematic Budget per square foot
Considerations:
Development and Construction Cost
Design Flexibility
Programmed Use Flexibility
Unforeseen Conditions
Original Structure's Use?
Estimated Future Operating Costs
Option 1
New Construction, 10,000 square foot pre -
engineered metal building, standing seam
roof, masonry and /or block accented
exterior walls; standard interior upfit
$220K - $250K
$1.3M - $1.5M
$300K - $350K
$1.82M - $2.10M
$182-$210
Lower
Higher
Higher
Lower
No
Low to Mid -Range
Option 2
Removal of classroom wings, adaptive
re -use of 10,000 square foot center
portion; new roof and building systems;
standard interior upfit
$175K - $225K
$1.36M - $1.58M
$309K - $366K
$1.84M - $2.17M
$185-$217
Low to Mid -Range
Lower
Lower
Higher
Yes
Low to Mid -Range
N
143
ATTACHMENT C
Northern Human Services Center (Old Cedar Grove School)
Project
Community Meeting #2
September 25, 2012
Summary
31 persons and five staff were present for the meeting
A building tour was held at 6 :00 to look for important architectural features
and share stories or information about the school and its history.
• After the tour, the group discussed the locations and topics discussed and
seen in the building. Some of the notes and points were:
o The building was last used as a school in 1969
o There were weekly Friday plays put on by classes at the school
o Often had Dances and Talent shows in the Gym
o Lunches cost .25 a day or $1 a week
o There was a May Pole in the front yard
o There was a small playground behind the school
o The old ballfield was the location for the school's playing field
o Interest in retaining the look of the school
o Interest in reusing bricks, steel poles of the existing school - or
purchasing some items from the school if sections are deconstructed.
o Interest in purchasing salvaged items
• Staff presented pros and cons of different building options:
• The current Capital Investment Plan includes $250,000 for building
deconstruction, and $2.0 million in FY 2014 -15 for a new facility of
some type (to be determined)
• Option 1 - New Pre - engineered 10,000 sf building, with masonry wall
accents (Schematic Budget estimate - $1.93 million)
• Option 2 - Adaptive Reuse of Central Portion of Current Structure
(10,000 sf), remove classroom wings, some reworking and additions
(Schematic budget estimate - $1.96 million).
• Examples and pros /cons of each were shared.
• The group then discussed preferences, important features or desired
components, and a design and review advisory group
• The group had a strong preference for Option 2 (adaptive reuse of central
portion of building - cafeteria, gym, principals office area). Only two persons
indicated preference for Option 1.
• It was noted that some work would be needed to bring the remaining
1950/1957 structure up to building code, including new restrooms.
• The group validated the top preferences for building uses from March:
• Meeting room for community meetings, family reunions, etc
• Space for indoor athletics activities (gym or gym -like room)
• Stage for performances
• Warming kitchen
• Rooms for classes, summer camps `;
144
o Cellular tower to improve area phone service
• Additional uses the group indicated would be preferred included:
o Some type of room with computers and intereet access (as the library
branch used to have).
o Some classrooms - could a few of them be retained?
o Support for an Emergency Services base station - as long as it did not
take space away from the proposed center
• There was a question about the naming of the facility and the future of the
new playground built with the park (if the classroom wings were taken
down).
• There was interest in having residents serve on an informal design and
review advisory group. Eight members volunteered to serve on this informal
group to help advise on designing the new building as it moves forward.
Conclusions
1. Staff will make a summary of this meeting and the group's
recommendations.
2. The recommendations, along with the proposal to create the informal design
and review advisory group, will be shared with the Board of County
Commissioners at a worksession this fall.
3. Once direction has been received from the Board, a proposed course of
action would be developed for Board approval.
145
SECTION G: MBAJ Architects Request for Qualifications Response
... ... . .......
01
M w RAO F,
Architectural and Engineering Services
Northern Human Services Center Project
Request for Proposal
January 30, 2013
Directed to:
Purchasing Agent
200 S. Cameron Street
PO Box 8181
HIllsborough, NC 27278
146
NO,
Completed Responder's Certcation Form
and notarized Non-Collusion Affidavit
147
um
NC)N~CQLLUS/[)NAFF|DAV|T
State of North Carolina
County nfOrange Proposal Request No. 51S1
beiOg first duly,swn0. deposes and says that:
(H ejShe is the of the proposer that
has submitted the attached proposal;
2. He/8h8 is fully informed respecting the preparation and contents 0fthe attached prOpV88| and
of all pertinent circumstances respecting such proposal;
1 Such proposal iS genuine and iG not 8 collusive 0[ sham proposal;
4^ Neither the said proposer nor any of its officers, partners, 0wnens, agents, representatives,
employees or parties in interest, including this affiant, has in any way colluded, conspired,
connived or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any other proposer firm or Person to submit
collusive OF sham proposal |O connection with the contract for which the attached proposal has
been submitted or to refrain from proposing in oVnneo(jOn with such contract, or has in any
rnonD8r, directly or indirectly sought by agreement Or collusion Of cQn0[n4DiCadUn or
conference with any other p[op0se[, firm or person to fix the. price or prices in the attached
proposal or of any other proposers, or to fix any overhead, profit or cost element Of the
proposal price of the proposal 0f any other proposer o[t0 secure through collusion, conspiracy,
connivance or unlawful agreement any advantage against the County 0f Orange Or any person
interested in the proposed contract; and
The price or prices quoted in the attached proposal are fair and proper and are not tainted by
any collusion, conspiracy, COmliV@nce or UD|@vYfU| 8g[eeDl8Cd on the part, Ofthe proposer or
any of its agents, representatives, {nmn8rS, employees, or parties in interest, including this
affiant.
Title I
Subscribed and Sworn t0 Before Me,
Notary Public `3
My COrnnias0n Expires:
Pagel 1of11 �~�r
149
I have carefully examined the Request for Qualifications, the sample Agreement for Design
Consultant Services and any other documents accompanying or made a part of this Request for
Qualification.
1 hereby propose to furnish the professional design consultant services for Orange County in
accordance with the instructions, terms, conditions, and requirements incorporated in this Request for
Qualification. I certify that all information contained in this response is truthful to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further certify that I am duly authorized to submit this response on behalf of
the firm as its act and deed and that the firm is ready, willing and able to perform if awarded the
contract.
NAME OF FIRM: t1/)6A3 A rai -[ccf-u rc-,
BY: (printed name
SIGNATURE:
MAILING ADARES6" 1�1n () n VVC� j
J
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
Responder hereby acknowledges receipt of all Addenda through and including:
Addendum No. Date Ack
/eedg ement
/Z Jo ' W-F
V t
Page 10 of 11
dy t
Orange County
Financial Services Department
ADDENDUM #1
January 10, 2013
RFP 5191
Professional Architectural /Engineering Services - Northern Human Services Center (N SC)
Project
To all Vendors:
Modifications to bid documents for the above named Request for Proposal are made as follows and shall be
included in the proposed amount.
1. See page 2 for questions with County's responses received for the above referenced project
All other terms and conditions shall remain the same
By: David E. Cannell, Purchasing Agent; dcannell, co.oranqe,.nc,us — (919) 245-2651
A signed copy of this addendum shall be included with the bid submitted by your company
Company Name:
M
Date Received:
P.O. Box 8181 200, South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Telephones: Area Code 919 245-2.651 Fax: 919 644-3324
Page 1,
C,
150
151
Orange County
Financial Services Department
ADDENDUM #1
January 15'2U13
RFP51Q1
Professional Arch itectural/Engineering Services - Northern Human Services Center (NHSC)
Project
To all Vendors:
Modifications to bid documents for the above named Request for Proposal are mode as follows and shall be
included in the proposed amount.
1. The due date has been moved back a week the new due date is January 30, 2013 at 5:00 pm
3. The facility will beavailable for site visits onthe following two dates and times only. Please note this is
a site visit only and not a pre-proposal meeting
• January 16. 2O13 from S:O0 am to noon
• January 23, 2013 from 9:00 am to noon
All other terms and conditions shall remain the same
By. David E. Cannell, Purchasing Agent; dc�gnnelfcCLco,g-rorQ;,�..ric,�,s - (919) 245-2651
A signed copy of this addendum shall be included with the bid submitted by your company
�~�4- .
CompanyNarno:
Date Received:
P.O. Box 8181 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Telephones: Area Code 919 245-2651 Fax: 919 644-3324
Page I
152
P7
'60 1
153
r
Founded in 1981 as a sole proprietorship "
MBAJ Architecture incorporated in 1987 and
continues to grow in expertise. With offices in
Shelby, Charlotte, and Raleigh, North Carolina and Lexington, South Carolina, and a staff of 25+
professionals, MBAJ serves clients throughout North and South Carolina. The cornerstones of MBAJ's practice
are in the design and delivery of educational, governmental, religious, and commercial facilities. The professionals
within the firm excel in renovations and additions on existing sites, and new facilities on undeveloped property.
Additionally, MBAJ has a wealth of experiences with pre- funding planning, facility assessments, programming,
master - planning, phased construction administration, and post-occupancy services.
The MRAJ Principals Registered
O. Stanhope Anthony, III, AIA - NC, SC, WV
Robert B. Johnson, Jr., AIA NC, SC
John F. Thomas, Jr., AIA NC, WV, VA
G. Richard Brown, AIA NC
Angela Crawford Easterday, AIA NC
James S. Golightly, II, AIA NC, SC
Previous Firm Names:
James I. Martin, Architect 1981
Martin /Bardsley 1984
Martin Bardsley Anthony, Architects 1986
Martin Boa] Anthony & Johnson, Architects 1990
9131 Anson Way
201 South Washington Street
1230 W. Morehead Street
1070 South Lake Drive
Suite 204
Suite 200
Suite 214
Suite J
Raleigh, NC 27615
Shelby, NC 28150
Charlotte, NC 28208
Lexington, SC 29073
919-573 -6400 (p)
704406 -6000
704 -731 -7000
803- 356 -0507
919 -573 -6495 (f)
800 - 590 -MBAJ (6225)
800- 590 -MBAJ (6225)
800 -590 -MBAJ (6225)
800 - 590 -MBAJ (6225)
Contact: John Thomas
JTomas@mbaj.com
Yti"
1
154
i
a,
1230 West Morehead Street
Suite 400
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
Toll -free 800 - 590 -MBAJ
Fax 704-731-6095
R
14 R
January 28, 2013
Orange County Financial Services
Purchasing Agent
200 South Cameron Street
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Request for Proposal
SUBJECT: Northern Human Services Center Department
RFP. NO.: 5191
Dear Selection Comrnittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our Statement of Qualifications regarding
this project. Based on the scope of work, Adaptive Reuse of Culturally Significant
Building, the type of proposed reuse and its location in Orange County, we have a
high level of interest in this potential commission.
This is the case due to our previous experience with all aspects of this work for
other countries in North and South Carolina, especially with it being a culturally
significant building slated to be repurposed makes it more meaningful to achieve
exceptional results.
Regards,
2
Rob Johnson
MBAJ Architecture
John Thomas
MBAJ Architecture
I
I i�' ,
156
157
Understanding of the scope of work /services:
We have experience with all aspects of this proposal project. More specifically;
• Adaptive reuse of culturally significant buildings
• Satellite county facilities
• Health and Human Services Centers
• Recreation Facilities
• Educational and Historical Recognition of Cultural Significance
• Working for local units of local government
Therefore, we have a clear understanding of the expected challenges and the opportunity for mean-
ingful results which best support the operational needs of the county and its citizens.
f
g
F
158
159
. lti ..'so..........':'m�"".b4�.twSxP�ESYh..
E
Firms commitment to keep the originally - assigned project team:
We are committed to keeping the team we have carefully compiled together from the conception to
completion of the project. It is in our best interest to do so for the following reasons:
• Programming efforts and needs can be best translated into design options
• Best design solution may be achieved
• This approach is the most cost effective
• The reviews and approvals can be done most timely
• Public bidding will be handled with the most knowledge and efficiency
• The same is true of construction administration
160
r r
Er
M` +13?!1� i io- , }i ..l!'r.:w +i.'6��3% d"FJK%9i.'. "W,.i4 ...eY�AiYS£%d✓fGYIrS�.°.� — '.�.P£.%� ...... .... .�..:R .�M"l;:tNESi'ik!?4x'� =v1" ;;� € �;�
John F. Thomas, Jr., AIA, LEED Green Associate
Principal
Selected Experience
Civic & Government
9 Duplin County, Kenanville, North Carolina
- Airport Terminal - New
o Johnston County Economic Development, Smithfield, NC
(joint venture - Johnston County, JCC, NCSU, Bayer Novo
Nordisk, & Fresenius Kabi)
- Johnston Workforce Development Center - New
o North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
- Cumberland County DMV /SHP Complex New
a North Carolina Justice Academy, Salemburg, NC
- Dormitory A - Renovations
o Onslow County, Jacksonville, NC
- Administrative Office Complex - New (construction not funded)
o Surry County, Dobson, NC
- Administration & Social Services Building - Addition and
Renovations
EMS /911 Facility - Addition
o Town of Princeton, Princeton, NC
- Town Hall - New
Higher Education
: %'or•th Carolina Community Colle,e)e S stein
o College of the Albemarle, Elizabeth City, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Professional Arts Building - New
- Roanoke Island Campus - Renovations
o Davidson County CC, Lexington, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Conference, Training, & Technology Building - New
- Davie Campus Laboratory Building - Addition
- Davie Campus Laboratory Building - Renovation
- Gantt Building - Renovation
- Histology /CNA Lab - Renovation
Love Learning Resource Center - Renovation
- Uptown Lexington Campus - Assessment & Renovation
o Durham Technical CC, Durham, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- 807 Bacon Street Building - Addition and Renovation
- N.B. White Building - Addition and Renovation
o Edgecombe Community College, Tarboro, NC
ACT Project Preliminary Design
- Biotech & Medical Simulation Center - New
o Fayetteville Technical CC, Fayetteville, NC
- Facility Assessment /Campus Master Plan
New Western Campus Master Plan
- Long Range Plan
- Early Childhood Education Center - New
- Cumberland Hall - Renovations
- Horace Sisk Building - Renovations
o Johnston CC, Smithfield, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
Auditorium - Renovation
- Britt Building (Industrial Technology) - New
° Public Safety Building - New
- Bioprocessing Simulation Laboratory - Renovation
- Elsee Building - Renovation
Graphic Arts Building - Renovation
161
7 777
IIII
.i
Health Building - Addition and Renovations
TDT Building - Renovation
Wilson Building - Addition and Renovation
° Workforce Development Center - New
a Piedmont CC, Roxboro, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Technical Education Building - New
Learning Resource Center - Addition and Renovations
- Student Center - Addition and Renovations
o Sandhills Communtiy College, Pinehurst, NC
- Stone Hall Auditorium - Renovations
a Wake Technical Community College, Raleigh, NC
- Physical Education Center - Addition and Renovation
Coininu2Wy canal 7f>cj meal C.o11(ge .Sys tein of lk est W i -,q iniar
a Advantage Valley Advanced Technology Center - New
o North Central Advanced Technology Center - New
o Facility Programming:
- Advantage Valley Advanced Technology Center
- North Central Advanced Technology Center
- New River CTC Headquarter Building
Professional License/Registration.
North Carolina Board of Architecture
Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Architects
West Virginia State Board of Architects
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
LEED Green Associate Certification
Professional Mernbershi s
American Institute of Architects
Council of Educational Facility Planners
Professional Recognition
National School Public Relations Association
Outstanding Communicator Award, 2005
(nominated by Dare County Board of Education)
Recognized Educational Facility Planner
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC
Bachelor of Architecture, 1986
Bachelor of Arts Architecture, 1985
Wentworth Institute of Technology
Associate of Engineering, 1981
Academic Honors
Alpha Chi Rho - National Fraternity of Architects
Honor Award, 1986
Community l rnvolvernen-nt
Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church
- Elder
- Facility Committee (Chair)
- Long Range Planning Committee (Chair)
New Life Camp
- Upward Basketball Coach
Angela . w r'. Easterday, AI.,.
Principal
Selected Experience
Civic & Government
*Johnston County Economic Deveopment, Smithfield, NC
(loint venture - Johnston County, JCC, NCSU, Hospira, Novo
Nordisk, & Fresenius Kabi)
- Johnston Workforce Development Center - New
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC
- Bladen Lake Residence - Addition and Renovations
- Turnbull Creek ESF - Renovations
- Clemmons ESF - Renovations
- Holmes ESF - Renovations
o North Carolina Justice Academy, Salemburg, NC
- Main Campus Dormitory A - Renovations
o Onslow County, Jacksonville, NC
- Administrative Office Complex - New
Higher Education
fort;: C�roli "eta C:;ax,tauuir; CollcreSvs-enl
o Carteret Community College, Morehead City, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
o Coastal Carolina Community College, Jacksonville, NC
- Campus Master Plan
- Maintenance Building - New
o College of the Albemarle, Elizabeth City, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Professional Arts Building - New
- Roanoke Island Campus - Renovations
- Building A - Renovations
- Russell Twiford Library - Renovations
o Davidson County Community College, Lexington, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Davie Campus Master Plan Update
- 3 -D Campus Map
- Brick Donor Campaign
- Brinkley Building - Addition
- Brooks Building (Student Center) - Renovation
- Conference, Training, & Technology Building - New
Davie Campus Laboratory Building - Addition (Student Center)
- Davie Campus Laboratory Building - Renovation
- Davie Histology & CNA Lab - Renovation
- Early College Mobile Unit - Davie Campus
- Gee Building - Signage Upgrades
- Life Sciences Building - Assessment
- Love Building - Bookstore Renovation
- Love Building - Library Renovation
- Mendenhall Building - Assessment and Renovations
o Durham Technical Community College, Durham, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- 807 Bacon Street - Renovations
- N.B. White Building - Addition and Renovations
o Edgecombe Community College, Tarboro, NC
- Biotech & Medical Simulation Center - New
- Autobody Shop - Addition
a Fayetteville Technical Community College, Fayetteville, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
Early Childhood Education Center - New
Johnston Community College, Smithfield, NC
Facilities Assessment and Campus Master Plan
- Facility Master Plan Update (2008) (2007)(2005)
162
- New Clayton Campus Master Plan
- Campus Hydrology /Stormwater Study
- Early College Facility - Assessment
- Arts Building Gallery Renovation
- Bioprocessing Laboratory - Renovation /Conversion
- Britt Building (Industrial Technology) - New
- Cleveland Campus - ADA Upgrades
- Elsee Building - Renovations
- Graphic Arts Building - Renovations
- Health Building - Addition and Renovations
- Leaming Resource Center - New (Seeking LEED )
- Maintenance Plan Development
- Parking Lot Improvements
- Public Safety Building - New
- Public Safety Building - Furniture Package
- Student Life Center - New (AP)
- Tart Building - Assessment
- TDT Building- Renovations
- Medical Simulation Ctr (Virtual Hospital) (Tart Bldg Reno)
- Wilson Building - Addition and Renovations
- Workforce Development Center - New
o Piedmont Community College, Roxboro, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Student Complex - Addition and Renovations
- Technical Education Building - New
- Allied Building - New (AP)
o Pitt Community College, Greenville, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
o Randolph Community College, Asheboro, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
o Robeson Community College, Lumberton, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Business & Industry Training Center Advanced Planning
- Southeastern Economic Development Commission
o Rowan - Cabarrus Community College, Salisbury, NC
- Facility Study and Campus Master Plan - North Campus (2011)
o Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, NC
- Hoke Early College Center - New
- Stone Hall Auditorium - Renovation
o Southeastern Community College, Whiteville, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Building G Renovations (Student Center)
- Health and Human Services Building - New
o Vance- Granville Community College, Henderson, NC
- Facility Utilization Study and Campus Master Plan
- Kerr -Tar Hub Site Selection Study
Professional. License/Registration
North Carolina Board of Architecture
Professional Memberships
American Institute of Architects
Council of Educational Facility Planners
Edtication
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Master of Architecture, 1998
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Bachelor of Environmental Design, 1995
Project Manager
Selected Experience
Civic & Government
o N.C. Dept of Transporation, Raleigh, NC
- Cumberland County DMV /SHP Complex - New
o Surry County, Dobson, NC
- New Courthouse & Jail Addition and Renovation
o' Town of Princeton, Princeton, NC
- Town Hall - New
Higher Education
.'1'orrb C- 'anoli ? ?t7 f. >? ?3 Yt;d77i1 v C"i 8 Syslc =ln
a Coastal Carolina Community College, Jacksonville, NC
- Campus Master Plan
- New Maintenance Building
o College of the Albemarle, Manteo, NC
- Professional Arts Building - New
- Roanoke Island Campus Renovations
- Russell Twiford - Renovations
o Davidson County Community College, Lexington, NC
- Davie Campus Master Plan Update (2010)
- Brinkley Building - Addition
- Brooks Building (Student Center) - Renovations
- Conference, Training & Technology Building - New
- Davie Campus Lab Building - Addition
- Finch Building - Structural Repairs
- Gee Building - Signage Upgrades
- Life Sciences Building - Assessment
- Love Building (Bookstore and Library) - Renovations
- Mendenhall Building - Assessment and Renovations
o Edgecomb Community College, Tarboro, NC
- Autobody Shop - Addition
- Biotech & Medical Simulation Center - New
*Johnston Community College, Smithfield, NC
- Art Gallery - Renovation
- Learning Resource Center - New (Seeking LEED )
- Medical Simulation Center (Virtual Hospital)
- Public Safety Building - New
- Student Life Center (AP) - New
- Health Building - Addition and Renovation
o Piedmont Community College, Roxboro, NC
- Allied Health Building (AP) - New
- Technical Education Building- New
o Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, NC
- Hoke Early College Center - New
o Southeastern Community College, Whiteville, NC
- Building G (Student Center & Early College) - Renovations
o Wake Technical Community College, Raleigh, NC
- Physical Education Building - Addition and Renovation
i'oaaatnii (in-d '?c rlicGl Collge ; tt/ t Viry f iaicr
a Advantage Valley Advanced Technology Center - New
c North Central Advanced Technology Center - New
o New River Community and Technical College
Headquarters Building - New
- Fine Arts Center - Renovation
K -12 Education - North Carolina
* Brunswick County Schools, Bolivia, NC
/ l
dry,
Cedar Grove Middle School - New
Town Creek Elementary School - New
o Dare County Schools, Manteo, NC
- Central Office Building - New
- First Flight High School - New
- New Nags Head Elementary School
- Cape Hatteras Secondary School - Addition and Renovation
- First Flight Middle School - Addition
- Kitty Hawk Elementary School - Addition and Renovation
Manteo Elementary School - Addition and Renovation
o Franklin County Schools, Louisburg, NC
- Bunn High School - Addition and Renovation
o Martin County Schools, Williamston, NC
- Williamston Middle School - New
K -12 Education - South Carolina
o Dorchester District 4 Schools, St. George, SC
- St. George Middle School - Addition and Renovations
Religious
o Wendell Baptist Church, Wendell, NC
- Family Life Center - Addition (Concept Design)
Selected Experience with Other Firms
o Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA
a Millersville University, Millersville, PA
o University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL
o Nichols Research - Building 5, Huntsville, AL
e Quality Research Building, Huntsville, AL
o Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
o Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, AL
Pra essio. nil License/Registration.
North Carolina State Board of Architecture
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
Professional Memberships
American Institute of Architects
Education.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA
Bachelor of Architecture, 1986
163
164
Construction Administration Service Delivery Model
165
Preconstructio Monitoring — MBAJ Architecture's
construction monitoring begins in the early stages of the
project's design process. An MBAJ Construction Administrator
partners with the MBAJ Project Team for the life of the project.
As part of MBAJ's in -house quality control, the Construction
Administrator performs constructability reviews throughout the
document preparation.
Upon award of the project, the selected contractor joins the
MBAJ Project Team. The shared ownership of the project with the
`7 have worked with two construction contractor is critical to the project success. MBAJ Architecture creates
administrators from your firm. I am a Construction Project Team that is inclusive of the contractor and
very pleased with theirprofessionalism, takes advantage of the contractor's knowledge and experience to
attention to detail, courtesy and overall achieve the best possible product for the client.
performance... They earn exceptionally
high marks in the areas of documents Construction Monitoring — Successful construction administration
depends on effective communication. During the construction period,
MBAJ `Architecture's Construction Administrator visits the site weekly
and remains on call at all times. The Construction Administrator
serves as MBAJ's point -of- contact for clarity of communication. A
timely MBAJ response to issues that arise in the field is critical to the
project's success. All site visits, meetings, and contractor queries are
documented, and in a timely manner, followed with a clearly -
written communication from MBAJ.
'Emely Decision Ma — Most construction disputes arise
out of poor communication or untimely decision - making. To
minimize these occurrences, the MBAJ Project Team strives to
remain ahead of potential problems and resolves issues as they
arise. A tailored approach to Quality Assurance, coupled with
positive communications, speeds up the MBAJ response time
throughout the construction of
777 . your facility.
... Both our superintendent and I share the
opinion that Dan is one of the best construc-
tion administrators we've ever worked with. He
did an amzaing job of balancing everyone's
interests throughout the project..."
— Craig Floyd
Project Manager, Branch & Associates, Inc.
Owner Occupancy — The culmination of the design and delivery process
is owner occupancy of the new or reconditioned facility. This is the most
rewarding aspect of a successful project. MBAJ assists the owner with a
smooth and timely transition from construction completion to occupancy and
operations.
Construction Contract Closeout — The most critical milestone of the design and
delivery process is the final payment to the contractor. Upon completion of all
punch list items, receipt of operation and maintenance manuals, and submission
of as -built and contract closeout documents, MBAJ will certify on behalf of the
owner, the final payment to the contractor. MBAJ has long established proven
procedures and checklists which are diligently respected to ensure proper
project closeout.
Post Occupancy Warranty Period. a. d Inspections — Just as MBAJ
methodically closes out the construction contract on behalf of the owner, MBAJ
also remains on call, during the contractor's twelve -month warranty period.
Moreover, MBAJ conducts a twelve -month warranty review of the new or
reconditioned facility to check, on behalf of the owner, items which may require
action of the contractor.
166
Orange County's Desires to Enhance the Local Economy
167
r,
How the firm would encourage local construction companies' participation:
We will proactively recruit local construction companies to participate in this project, We will seek
to do so as follows:
• Notifying local contractors, subs and suppliers at the midway of our construction document
phase when the scope of work and expected trades and materials are understood
• We will require all of our consulting engineers to do likewise
• Advertise upcoming prebid conference and bidding
• Post the same on our web -site and the county web -site
• Offer announcement of upcoming Pre -Bid Conferences and expected bid date at two County
Commission meetings in advance
• Conduct an informative pre -bid conference at the site
Im
WE=
169
,., fMr, /;U'l6ffA� U». u; 15+/. Y✓+ 1'' ralY^ J! �; ti. YYYffi' A. rql �. i+, 1�ibWr, 5�i; 4�N1PJZ' 9": YkF�kU.. l' hv?.., k %7/tdi:';,::s"sk!£wwla5➢.'(+'.: FAF:?.�"h .. •,'"er. :R :in..Rq v�y.tir' :_. -, ..''. A!N:*,i'K+ �i.
Yaiif
Describe how existing trips to the area could contribute to cost savings:
Our office in Raleigh is only 30 miles away. Therefore, we can make, trips easily and cost effectively
during design, bidding, and construction. Especially during construction, we will make every effort
to combine trips with other work as much as possible.
Current Project List
Phase
Final
Completion
Completion
Proj #
Project
Owner
Phase
Contract Amouni
Project Start Date
Date
Date
1112
Duplin Airport Terminal
Duplin County
CA
$86,895
Winter 2011
1016
Autobody Building
Edgecombe CC
CA
$89,875
Fall 2010
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
WV Community &
North Central Advanced
Technical College
1008
Technology Center
System
CD
$161,832
Spring 2010
11/31/2012
7/30/2014
New River Community
1026
Arts & Science Center
&Technical College
Bid
$185,307
Summer 2010
10/30/2012
12/31/2013
Johnston County
1222
JNX Airport Terminal
Airport Authority
CD
$107,650
Winter 2012
1/31/2013
11/31/13
Rodgers Elementary Multi-
Martin County
1137
Purpose Building
Schools
CD
$111,800
Winter 2011
11/15/2012
7/31/2013
Martin County
1140
Williamston Pre -K Center
Schools
CD
$84,900
Winter 2011
12/31/2012
9/30/2013
1218
County Administration Building
Onslow County
Bid
$748,000
Summer 2012
11/14/2012
6/30/2014
Aviation & Technical Training
1120
Center
Currituck County
CA
$415,300
Summer 2011
3/31/2013
3/31/2013
Early College Classroom /
Vance - Granville
1011
Library Building
Community College
SD
$830,948
Spring 2010
1/31/2013
0
171
Scctlon
172
Dolly Oak Park
Shelby, North Carolina City of Shelby, Parks & Recreation J:'
Owner: Charles Holtzclaw, Director Number: 704- 669 -6596
In conjunction with the City of Shelby's construction of park
facilities in the years following World War II, Holly Oak Park was
developed during the 1950's as the park facility for the African -
American community. The park opened in 1958 and the main
Community Center building was dedicated in 1960. Very little had
been done over the years to keep the facility up to current Parks
and Recreation standards. MBAJ Architecture was commissioned to
assist in developing a master plan for Holly Oak Park to upgrade the
main buildings on the site.
The 11,800 square foot Community Building contains a gymnasium,
a game room, toilets, and administrative offices. The scope of the
project was to renovate the building; provide handicap accessibility
to all parts of the building, update the HVAC, electrical, and
plumbing systems; and update the building's interior colors and
finishes. One objective of the renovation was to use vibrant color
and improved artificial lighting to change the character of space.
Statistics
Project Area:
Date of Completion:
Project Manager:
Original Contract Amount:
Number of Change Orders:
Total Amount of Change Orders
19,000 Sq Ft (renovated)
December 2005
Stan Anthony
$961,281
4
$267,747
* *Under same contract as Shelby Community Center
Shelby Community Center
Shelby, North Carolina I City of Shelby, Parks & Recreation
Owner: Charles Holtzclaw, Director I Number: 704 - 669 -6596
e �
173
The Community Center building was originally constructed in
1948 and was in need of a major update to carry out its mission to
provide a multi - functional recreation center for Shelby residents.
MBAJ Architecture responded with plans to update the mechanical
services, improve the internal circulation patterns, invigorate the
interiors, improve the lighting, and provide a new entrance.
The centerpiece of the renovations, the gymnasium, was
transformed from an under -lit institutional type space, to a
community focal point through the use of energetic colors,
translucent clerestory windows, and improved lighting. The space
also includes a renovated stage area.
The gymnasium lobby is now home to the Cleveland County Hall
of Fame, recognizing persons or teams who have made the best
contribution or brought positive recognition to the community.
With renovations to the main entrance, administration, gym,
aerobics room, and restrooms, the Shelby Community Park Center is
poised to serve the Shelby residents for another fifty years.
Statistics
Project Area:
Date of Completion:
Project Manager:
Original Contract Amount:
Number of Change Orders:
Total Amount of Change Orders
19,000 Sq Ft (renovated)
December 2005
Stan Anthony
$961,281
4
$267,747
* *Under same contract as Holly Oak Park
Onslow County Administration Complex
Jacksonville, North Carolina I Onslow County i
Owner: Jeff Hudson, County Manager I Number: (910)347 -4717
First Floor
999
9� SIG
a W9
tt �F.D
Second Floor ° ° ° °
Third Floor
174
Onslow County, NC, has been named one of America's fastest - growing
counties over the past five years due to its booming economy fueled by
US Marine Corps, its agricultural base and its tourism industry.
Currently, the County Government houses over 1,200 employees and
maintains 47 worksites across the county. The average age of the Coun-
ty's current facilities is 30+ years old. In order to best serve the rapidly
growing population, Onslow County commissioned MBAJ to develop
a one -stop County Government Center that will co- locate many of its
worksites in one facility.
The new Onslow County Government Center consists of a 70,000 sq. ft.
three story office building and a one -story 20,000 sq. ft. meeting annex.
The office portion of the facility will locate Planning and Environmental
Health Departments on the first floor, Tax, IT, GIS, and Veteran Services
Departments on the second floor, and Purchasing, Finance, Human Re-
sources, County Attorney, County Administration and the Commissioners
on the third floor. Additional shell space is available on the third floor for
future growth of existing departments or opportunities for new depart-
ments to be located in the facility. The meeting annex contains the Board
of Elections offices, the Commissioner's Chamber, and six training /meet-
ing rooms. The meeting annex will also serve as a backup Emergency
Operations Center and a location for on -site voting. In addition, a 10,000
sq. ft. storage building is located in close proximity on the site to house
departmental storage needs.
The new Government Center is located on a county owned site in a local
Business and Industrial Park. The aesthetic of the building was designed
to complement other historic buildings owned by the County.
Statistics
v•t'it'm`rya
100,000 Sq Ft (3 buildings)
Total Project Budget:
$20,450,000
Anticipated Date of Completion:
August 2014
Project Manager:
Angela Crawford Easterday
Original Contract Amount:
$14,260,000
Number of Change Orders:
Project under constriction
Total Amount of Change Orders:
Project under construction
�y
First Floor
999
9� SIG
a W9
tt �F.D
Second Floor ° ° ° °
Third Floor
174
Onslow County, NC, has been named one of America's fastest - growing
counties over the past five years due to its booming economy fueled by
US Marine Corps, its agricultural base and its tourism industry.
Currently, the County Government houses over 1,200 employees and
maintains 47 worksites across the county. The average age of the Coun-
ty's current facilities is 30+ years old. In order to best serve the rapidly
growing population, Onslow County commissioned MBAJ to develop
a one -stop County Government Center that will co- locate many of its
worksites in one facility.
The new Onslow County Government Center consists of a 70,000 sq. ft.
three story office building and a one -story 20,000 sq. ft. meeting annex.
The office portion of the facility will locate Planning and Environmental
Health Departments on the first floor, Tax, IT, GIS, and Veteran Services
Departments on the second floor, and Purchasing, Finance, Human Re-
sources, County Attorney, County Administration and the Commissioners
on the third floor. Additional shell space is available on the third floor for
future growth of existing departments or opportunities for new depart-
ments to be located in the facility. The meeting annex contains the Board
of Elections offices, the Commissioner's Chamber, and six training /meet-
ing rooms. The meeting annex will also serve as a backup Emergency
Operations Center and a location for on -site voting. In addition, a 10,000
sq. ft. storage building is located in close proximity on the site to house
departmental storage needs.
The new Government Center is located on a county owned site in a local
Business and Industrial Park. The aesthetic of the building was designed
to complement other historic buildings owned by the County.
Statistics
Project Area:
100,000 Sq Ft (3 buildings)
Total Project Budget:
$20,450,000
Anticipated Date of Completion:
August 2014
Project Manager:
Angela Crawford Easterday
Original Contract Amount:
$14,260,000
Number of Change Orders:
Project under constriction
Total Amount of Change Orders:
Project under construction
175
Carlton Watkins Center
Charlotte, North Carolina I Mecklenburg County Area Mental Health Authority - fir°
Owner: Mecklenburg County Number: 704- 336 -2023 a
The Carlton Watkins Center is a 47,600 sq ft office building occupied
by the Mecklenburg County Area Mental Health Authority. The
building, originally built in the early 70s for inpatient mental health
care, was later converted to office space and is now used for the
Preschool Screening & Assessment and Call Center Departments.
Much of the building had not been modernized in 15+ years.
The Owner wanted to update these areas to provide a better
work environment and to optimize space. The employee space
requirements vary from month to month, due to changing state
regulations for county - provided service. Also the building's fire
alarm system did not meet current code regulations.
Renovations included enlarging the main waiting area by
incorporating an adjacent small waiting area; installing new finishes
and creating a more secure reception desk. Also, new finishes
were installed in four team areas and several individual offices.
The Owner reused existing modular furniture and recovered
the panels with new fabric. Two tele /data closets were enlarged
and modifications were made to other support spaces. Work
also included new electrical and data wiring in renovated areas,
upgrades to the HVAC system, and a new building fire alarm
system. The project was successfully completed in small area
phases, while the building remained operational.
Statistics
Project Area: 11,000 Sq Ft (Renovated)
Total Project Cost: $650,000
Date of Completion: May 2007 (Construction - 11 months)
Project Manager: Doug Buchanan
Original Contract Amount: $645,500
Number of Change Orders: 1
Total Amount of Change Orders: $4,458
Lexington County Dept. of Health & Human Services
Lexington, South Carolina Lexington County
Owner: Katherine Hubbard Number: 803 -785 -8100
SO
G
"% s
176
Sustainable Design Features
Low Impact Development
Site Concepts
Day Lighting
Foot - candle prescribed low -
energy light fixtures
Iligh Efficiency Mechanical
Equipment with WEB based
Direct Digital Controls
R -410 environmental
sensitive refrigerants
Low -flow plumbing fixtures
Recycled materials; metal
studs, carpet, gypsum board,
ceiling tile, etc.
Low VOC finished; paints,
sealants, etc.
Reconditioned office system
work stations
As the Lexington County Department of Health & Human Services
had outgrown their existing facilities, which were spread across the
County, they desired a new central facility to house the Department
of Social Services, Health Department, Adult Services, Child Health/
Immunization, WIC, Vital Records, TB, Dental, and Central Records/
Administration departments.
Rather than construct an entirely new facility, the County chose to
purchase and renovate the existing Winn -Dixie and Revco buildings
located at the Red Bank Crossing shopping center. The plan was
arrived at collaboratively with the users, while also maintaining
central administrative control of the resources available.
The solution transforms the exterior of a dated "grocery store" into a
more pleasing place with a new and clearly defined safe entry. The
interior results in a very efficient and functional state -of -the -art work
place, which supports client services for the citizens.
Statistics
Project Area:
55,350 Sq Ft (renovated)
Total Project Cost:
$4,618,846
Date of Completion:
June 2010
Project Manager:
James Golightly
Original Contract Amount:
$4,528,000
Number of Change Orders:
4
Total Amount of Change Orders:
$111,311
County Tl�D7. »� /� �
'~~^^^^��~~- -----/ ---r�- -- Health �- --------- ---v----
Page 2
01 WC
��
UAM
PublicLabbyJ
Iredell Government Center South
Mooresville, North Carolina I Iredell County
Owner: Joel Mashburn I Number: 704 - 878 -3050
178
"They did a superb job in keeping costs to a
{ minimum while thoroughly meeting the objectives
and scope of the renovation. The firm's attention
Y a�
? to detail, planning, and communication with
Iredell County was probably the best I have seen
in my years in the construction field."
,;�,' —James J. Vernon, Director
Support Services, Iredell County
This project was the renovation of a 4 -story, abandoned hospital in
downtown Mooresville, NC, into various County agency offices. The
County purchased the old building to maintain the vitality of the
neighborhood. This project has been an impetus for new growth
and revitalization of the neighborhood.
The first phase included renovation of the first floor, into space
for the county health department offices; clinics; labs and support;
environmental health services; parole /probation offices; civil court
with holding facilities; and sheriff's office. Phase two converted the
third and fourth floors into administration offices for the NCDENR.
Each user group had an active role in the planning of their
respective agency /area. The existing public entrance of the hospital
was retained to serve as the new public entrance and lobby for the
Health and the Environmental Health Departments. A new separate
public entrance was created for the judicial areas, separating and
directing people to court and the Sheriff's Office. Likewise, new
separate /secure access points were created for the judges and the
sally port.
Statistics Phase I Phase II
Project Area: 29,000 Sq Ft (renovated) 31,220 Sq Ft (renovated)
Total Project Cost: $1,312,250 $1,265,300
Completed: 2003 2004
Project Manager: Rob Johnson
Original Contract Amount: $1,448,900
Number of Change Orders: 10
Total Amount of Change Orders: $229,991
Iredell Government Center South
179
Iredell Department of Social Services
Statesville, North Carolina I Iredell County
Owner: Joel Mashburn I Number: 704 - 878 -3050
"The firm's attention to detail, planning, and communication with Iredell
County was probably the best I have seen in my years in the construction field."
- James J. Vernon, Director of Support Services, Iredell County
:1
Iredell County needed a new facility that would unite all staff, from
three locations, in one building, thus providing a one - stop -shop
for persons requiring public assistance and increasing department
efficiency. The design, a two -story building with 190 finished
offices, includes space for future office upfit. The first floor has most
of the Income Maintenance divisions, as these receive the most
traffic. They include Food Stamps, Children's Medicaid, Adoption,
Adult Services, and Adult Blind and Disabled Services. The second
floor has most of the Social Services divisions. These include
Family Support and Resource Teams, Daycare, and Work First. The
administration staff offices are also located on the second floor.
There is a plaza area at the back of the building for use by building
occupants. The site is graded to allow for future installation of park
benches and picnic tables overlooking the detention pond, which
was reconstructed to allow for future development.
There are 90 client parking spaces in front of the building with a
covered drop -off area at the main entry. There are 246 staff parking
spaces just north of the building in a separate lot. The public entry
onto the site will be controlled by a traffic signal.
The Department of Social Services Building was built on the north
quadrant of a 23 -acre, L- shaped site. Future phases of work may
include a maintenance building and an office building.
181
DA' YCARF
Statistics
Project Area:
Total Project Cost:
Date of Completion:
Project Manager:
Original Contract Amount:
Number of Change Orders:
Total Amount of Change Orders:
55,747 Sq Ft (new)
$5,776,521
February 2006 (14 months)
Rob Johnson
$5,829,725
3
-$55,904
MEDICAID (CHILDREN)
Iv-D
FOOD STAMPS & FRAUD
AABD-MA, SAA
ADULT SERVICES
ADM INISTRATION/SUPPORT
CIRCULATION
BUILDING SER-,.ncEs
FUTURE UPFIT
Statistics
Project Area:
Total Project Cost:
Date of Completion:
Project Manager:
Original Contract Amount:
Number of Change Orders:
Total Amount of Change Orders:
55,747 Sq Ft (new)
$5,776,521
February 2006 (14 months)
Rob Johnson
$5,829,725
3
-$55,904
Cabarrus Business & Technology Center
ZMEMM
Concord, NC I Cabarrus Business & Technology Center
Owner: Mike Downs, County Manager I Number: 704 - 920 -2100
182
E
In an effort to counter the Pillowtex Plant closing and historic
layoffs, Cabarrus County commissioned MBAJ to work with Rowan -
Cabarrus Community College to create a Workforce Development
Business Counseling Center. The selected site was a County -owned
regionally- centered site with an aging building.
Phase one was planned, bid, renovated, and occupied in March
2004 on a very fast track. This phase encompassed the creation of
teaching laboratories serving the Building Trade programs.
Phase two, completed in 2005, accommodated programs with
higher technology requirements. These programs were designed to
`retool' a previously manufacturing- oriented workforce into a more
technology- driven workforce for the current market place. While the
majority of the project involved the renovation of existing spaces
utilizing the North Carolina Rehab Code, an addition was very
strategically planned and sited to serve as a symbolic gateway for a
new community-use training and resource center.
MBAJ reorganized the campus and redesigned the existing highway -
focused entrance to create a new campus- centered entrance. The
new campus arrangement is more efficient and allowed for much -
needed expanded parking.
Project Area:
Total Project Cost:
Date of Completion:
Project Manager:
Original Contract Amount:
Number of Change Orders:
Total Amount of Change Orders:
Cabarrus Business & Technology Center
Page 2
Both phases bid precisely in line with our
estimates during a period in which steel,
concrete, and other building products were
escalating significantly. The landlord and tenant,
as well as local governing authorities, were
actively engaged in the planning, procurement,
and implementation of the project.
183
Im
MR
w"Im M=
/ \ \ > \ \ } � :
^\ \may /.:. \ \�f ƒ� \{ \�\
\ ® \�" z `t
1111111 11 PIPE 11
M illill'
M�
LODC - Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
185
FIRM PROFILE
LHC Structural Engineers was founded in 1966 and is currently managed by
Bobby Lasater as President and Rob Stevenson as Vice President. The firm
provides structural engineering services for buildings and building systems and
has compiled an extensive list of projects throughout North Carolina and other
southeastern states. These include municipal buildings, community college
facilities and K-12 schools completed with MBAJ Architecture over a period of 15
years.
LHC is proposed as the structural engineer for this project with Bobby Lasater
serving as lead structural engineer. Bobby holds a bachelors' and masters'
degree from North Carolina State University. He has been a structural designer
with LHC for over 25 years and the Engineer of Record on over 200 projects
including the recently completed Department of Social Services Building
Renovation and the Orange County Courthouse Expansion. Bobby currently
serves on the General Contractor's Licensing Board and on the organizing
committee for the Paul Zia Distinguished Lecture Series at NC State University.
He is a member of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), American Institute of
Steel Construction (RISC) and American Council of Engineering Companies
(ACEC).
Recent LHC projects in Orange County include the following:
Proiect Client
Gateway Center Parking Deck Due Diligence
Orange County
Inspection
Department of Social Services Building Renovation
Orange County
and Fit-Up
Whitted Building Renovation
Orange County
Orange County Courthouse Expansion
Orange County
Chapel Hill Public Library Expansion
Town of.Chapel Hill
Town Operations Center
Town of Chapel Hill
Central Orange Senior Center Addition and
Orange County
Sportsplex Renovation
Durham County Off-Campus Center
Durham Technical CC
East Chapel Hill High School
Chapel Hill Carboro
City Schools..
Gravelly Hill Middle School
Orange County Schools
:.
Progressive Design Collaborative is a plumbing, mechanical, electrical and technology consulting
engineering company located in Raleigh. We have been in business since 1974 and have been working
with MBAJ for over 15 years. We have a diverse project experience that is highlighted below.
HISTORICAL RENOVATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• Cumberland County Courthouse (Old) — Fayetteville, NC
-Three -phase renovation of approximately 35,000 square feet of existing courthouse /office
area (constructed in 1915) into county office building. Renovation included a totally new
HVAC system with upgrading of the existing plumbing and electrical systems.
• Maureen Joy Charter School — Durham, NC
Re novation of the former Y.E. Smith School (circa 1898).
• Poole House — Poole Road, Raleigh, NC
- Re novation of historical home into Wake County offices.
• Wilson County Municipal Building — Wilson, NC
- Co nvert an 80 -year old jail building into county offices. 16,000 square foot, 3 -story building.
HEALTH CENTER PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• Cumberland County Former Health Center — 1st Floor HVAC Renovation, Fayetteville, NC
• Freedom Hill Community Health Center, Edgecombe County, NC
• Wilson County Health Center — Medical Building, Wilson, NC
NC DHHS PROJECT EXPERIENCE
• Dorothea Dix Hospital — Lineberger Building — Building Renovation
• Eastern Region VR Facility — HVAC and Electrical Upgrade
• Governor Morehead School
- Dormitory — HVAC Renovations
- Vocational Building — HVAC Renovation
• John Umstead Hospital — Barrett Building — Building Renovation
• Murdoch Center — Meadowview Cottage Renovation
• Walter B. Jones — Activities Building — Kitchen Upgrades
=1000'
PROGRESSIVE DESIGN COLLABORATIVE, LTD.
187
Firm Profile
Established in 1993, CLH Design, PA is a 12 person design firm located in Cary, North Carolina offering
award winning, collaborative civil engineering and landscape architecture services.
With an impressive seven year resume of 40 municipal projects for 15 local governments, CLH Design
has wide- ranging experience in the successful planning and construction of public facilities. Our reputation for
excellence in practical, sustainable design is supported by our design of 21 LEED projects across the state, including the
City or Raleigh's Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Administration Building Additions which achieved LEED Silver
Certification. Our other crowning achievement is the new Wake Forest Town Hall, the first LEED Platinum Town Hall in
the state, third in the country.
Of CLH Design's 21 environmental education projects, 17 have been within the past three years. Our goal is to
maximize the opportunities for natural outdoor play, while emphasizing our strong understanding of healthy living. Our
current projects include Onslow County Environmental Educational Center & Public Library; Annie Louise Wilkerson, MD
Nature Preserve Park; Knightdale Historic Downtown Park; NC Aquarium at Fort Fisher Nautilus Fossil Dig Area for
Outdoor Playground, and NC Zoo Kidzone Playground.
We understand the importance of each project, how to have good humor and patience through each hurdle and how to
end up with a personalized project for which we can all be proud. Additionally, CLH Design is HUB certified with the
Federal Government and State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, as a Woman Owned Business
Enterprise (WBE).
.. r
Role
Principal -in- Charge, Civil Engineer
.
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, 1991
Registration
Registered Professional Engineer: North Carolina # 22625
Experience
Mr. Miller has over 20 years of engineering design, project management and construction administration of multiple
commercial, institutional, industrial and residential projects. He remains involved in all phases of CLH projects from
preliminary design until final construction through constant collaboration with owners, clients, regulators and CLH's
landscape architects, design technicians and construction administrators. Mr. Miller utilizes his experience with
complete project development to support CLH's production of consistent, clear and complete construction documents.
Mr. Miller's field of specialization is technically sound high performance design of educational and institutional sites
stressing environmentally friendly development to provide protection of natural resources by means of practices that
also enhance the site's educational resources.
::
Current Area Experience
Chapel Hill — Carrboro YMCA Renovations (2013)
UNC- Chapel Hill Projects
Carolina North Campus Research Building, New Construction (2013)
Craige Parking Deck Expansion Phase 1 (2012) & Phase II (2013)
UNC Cogeneration Facility Landscape and Stormwater Revisions (2013)
Area Experience Within The Past 5 Years
Carrboro High School Fine Arts Addition (2011)
Carrboro High School Physical Education Building Addition (2012)
UNC- Hospitals Projects
Imaging and Outpatient Center (2010) — LEED Certification Pending
UNC - Chapel Hill Projects
Cobb (North East) Parking Deck, Chiller Plant, & Tennis Courts, New Construction (2007)
Cogeneration Facility Tunnel Replacement (2009)
Cogeneration Plant Tunnel Replacement —South Columbia Street Realignment (2007)
Gerrard Hall, Additions & Renovations (2008)
Gilsulate Steam System Replacement Package A— Fetzer Path Restoration (2008)
Hanes Hall Renovations (2008)
Manning Hall Accessible Entrance Ramp (2012)
Playmakers Theater (former Smith Hall) & Gerrard Hall Renovations (2008)
Sara Lee Gifford Memorial Azalea Garden Improvements (2008)
Steele Building Renovations (2008)
Adaptive Reuse / Downtown Revitalization Project Experience
Cary Arts Center & Elementary School Construction Coordination, Cary, NC (2010)
Cary Arts Center & Cary Elementary School, Traffic Improvements, Cary, NC (2011)
Cary Downtown Streetscapes Improvements, Cary, NC (2012)
Cary Downtown Theatre Renovations, Cary, NC (2012)
Garner Town Center Concept Plans, Garner, NC (2013)
Garner Town Hall Study, Garner, NC (2013)
Golden Belt Textile Warehouse Downtown Revitalization Project, Durham, NC (2008) — LEED GOLD Certification
Winner of City of Durham's 2009 Golden Leaf Award for Sustainable Properties
Holly Springs Library & Holly Springs Cultural Arts Center, Holly Springs, NC (2006)
Knightdale Historic Downtown Park Master Plan (2010) & Phase I, Knightdale, NC (2013)
Maureen Joy Charter School (in the historic YE Smith School Building), Durham, NC (2013)
Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School, Raleigh, NC (2002)
Project Enlightenment Renovations / Conversions, Raleigh, NC (2005)
Wake County Public Schools CTE High School (in the old Coke -a -Cola Bottling Plant), Raleigh, NC (2013)
Wake Forest Town Hall, Wake Forest, NC (2010) — LEED Platinum Certification
Third Town Hall in the Nation to achieve this level of certification, and one of only three buildings in the
Triangle to earn this designation.
Winner of First Annual, Greater Triangle Stewardship Development Award — GOLD, 2011
Wake Young Men's Leadership Academy at the Thompson Building, Raleigh, NC (2013)
Wake Young Women's Leadership Academy on the Governor Morehead School Campus, Raleigh, NC (2013)
I•
Willingness to Affiliate Minority, Woman-owned,
or Disadvantaged Businesses
190
MBAJ has selected to choose for this project:
LHC - Structural Engineer - Minority Firm
CLH - Civil Engineer - Woman -Owned Firm
191
I
„/4rio /W ii 1)ra rl txit�;.!:5d�9 ��: ✓unF`r,A%k�4'.. .. .., k'M/'�k" '�kRdN/xt�".S kd.::v"A "d....:�kk�'.'WUSa .+ .� �� ,� ... �I�, / %j� �
Quality Control and Assurance Processes
192
r �
l ✓u
7xG,�1; Knr AI[��
Demonstration of Quality Control and Assurance processes:
MBAJ Architecture's Quality Control System flogs
seanrlessly as an effective tool throughout the life of a client's
project. The Quality Control System leads and supports the
project process from conception to completion.
Quality Control System - MBAJ's face -to -face meetings at
the beginning, middle, and end of each phase of work include
all of the design team members. Client project management
and maintenance teams are invited to attend these meetings.
Throughout the project, an MBAJ Principal -In- Charge is the
Project Manager and the primary contact. The MBAJ Principal-
In- Charge performs the final document coordination review.
First Flight High School, Kill Devil Hills, NC Additionally, another MBAJ Principal, acting as a second pair
of eyes, performs a detailed check on coordination of trades
and coordination between the plans and the specifications.
This review serves to prevent construction- related problems and to minimize opportunities for change
orders.
Construction Administrator Reviews - The MBAJ
Construction Administrator, a member of the Project
Team, performs constructability reviews throughout
the design phase of the project and conducts on -site
document reviews at the end of each design phase.
This extra effort, in addition to the Project Team's
normal exploratory visits, enhances the Team's
ability to ensure accuracy and thoroughness of the
documents produced at MBAJ.
are
Quality Assurance Record. - MBAJ Architecture successfully completed approximately $2 billion of
work in the past five years. MBAJ's change orders during construction over the same period averaged
1.5% of the construction cost.
193
Se,r,.-,Ntl*on 13
111,11, 111111 Pill il, iiiiiiiil
194
Technical and Legal Issues
MBAJ Architecture has successfully completed over $2 billion work on public institutional proj-
ects, but like all firms with a long history of designing successful publicly funded projects, a few
of our projects have had some technical issues and two have required legal remedies for closure.
Gaffney High School
In 2004, MBAJ was named as a party in a lawsuit between Cherokee County Schools and USF&G
(the contractor's bonding company) for a project constructed in 2000 and occupied in 2002.
Mitchell Construction Company, the general contractor, bid the project significantly below the
second low bidder. At that time we counseled the owner about the potential for issues during con-
struction should they choose to award such a critically low bid. Consequently, during the project,
the contractor encountered significant financial and schedule problems and declared bankruptcy.
The project was finally delivered to the Owner for occupancy one year late with a number of
construction deficiencies. Because of the contractor's financial difficulties, the project was turned
over to USF &G, the contractor's bonding company, for completion of the project. USF &G took ex-
ception to the scope of the documented deficiencies and was reluctant to complete all the items in
the manner required by the contract documents. The Owner filed suit against the bonding com-
pany. MBAJ was named, along with all other parties involved in the process, in an effort to avoid
an `empty' seat in the litigation process. MBAJ fully supported and cooperated with Cherokee
County Schools throughout the process. The suit was resolved through mediation with a finding
of no fault against MBAJ Architecture.
Rocky River Elementary School
In 2006, MBAJ was commissioned by Mooresville Graded School District to design a new El-
ementary School. Part of the contract involved the design of a new automobile access road into
the school property. The construction of the new access road included a crossing over an exist-
ing creek with a new bridge. Mooresville Graded Schools provided geotechnical and wetlands
information about the creek and the required unsuitable soil remediation. MBAJ's Civil Engineer
designed the bridge to meet those requirements. During Construction, when the contractor ex-
cavated for the foundation of the new bridge, the degree of unsuitable soil remediation required
exceeded the projections provided by the Owner's Geotechnical Engineer. As a result, significant
additional undercut and re- design of the bridge was required, resulting in a Change Order from
the General Contractor (GC). The Owner held MBAJ responsible for this additional work. Both
parties agreed amicably to go through voluntary mediation to resolve the issue.
195
IV
11`1
VA
196
Hourly Rates for Professional Services
Managing Principal
$150.00 per hour
Principal -in- Charge
$125.00 per hour
Project Manager
$100.00 per hour
Construction Administrator
$100.00 per hour
Project Architect / Project Captain
$ 95.00 per hour
Staff Architect / job Captain
$ 80.00 per hour
Architectural Intem
$ 75.00 per hour
Architectural Technician / Technical Support
$ 75.00 per hour
Administrative
$ 60.00 per hour
Services for professional consultants engaged for the normal structural, HVAC, plumbing and electrical engineering services
at a multiple of 1.20 times the amount billed the Architect for such services. We shall inform the Owner of the extent of
services in these areas before we engage engineers.
Drawings and specifications are instruments of service and remain the property of this firm. Drawings and specifications
are not to be used on other projects or extension of this project except by agreement in writing and with appropriate
compensation.
Reimbursable Expenses: Actual expenditures made by the Architect, his employees or his professional consultants in the
interest of the project shall be billed at a multiple of 1.20 times the actual cost.
Invoicing shall be monthly for the work completed to date; accounts shall be past due after thirty (30) days; one and one-
half (15%) percent per month service fee will be added to past due accounts. Accounts will be adjusted to include legal
fees for collection to the extent allowed by law if such fees become necessary.
Section
197
Firms Willingness to Sign Orange County
Standard Contract Agreement
IM
'ju
Firms Willingness to Sign Orange County Standard Contract Agreement for Design
Consultant Services
We have reviewed the Orange County Standard Agreement with our Professional Liability insur-
ance agent. They did advise us of a few words and phrases that may imply different thing to
different people. However, none are "deal breakers" as they say, and we trust that these could all
be easily resolved thru open, professional discussions.
199
200
XUACHM ENT 3
Charge of the Northern Human Services Center Resident Design
Advisory Work Group
The Charge for the Northern Human Services Center Community Center Resident
Advisory Work Group will be to work with County staff and MBAJ Architects of Raleigh,
NC to provide recommendations to the Board on interior space design, utilization, and
functionality of the new Community Center that best serves the residents of Orange
County within the Board approved estimated 10,000 square foot adaptive re -use
renovation area and a Capital Investment Plan budget of $2,250,000.
The recommendations for the facility that will include but not be limited to the following
contextual topics:
1. Recognition of the rich cultural and historical significance of the former Cedar
Grove School;
2. The history and content of past public input for the facility, as well as future public
comment during the Work Group's Charge duration;
3. The previous Board of County Commissioner decisions regarding the
deconstruction of the classroom wings and the adaptive re -use renovation to
yield an estimated 10,000 square foot community center facility on the site within
a Capital Investment Plan project budget of $2,250,000;
4. Physical and operational limitations to the site and the property, to include but not
be limited to sanitary sewer constraints that govern the intensity of use for the
facility in a manner consistent with a community center use.
The Work Group is directed to work with staff and MBAJ Architecture to present a
schematic plan for the interior and grounds of the facility to the Board of County
Commissioners by October, 2013.
Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 18, 2013.
201
ATTACHMENT 4
MBAJ Architects Base & Alternate Use Fee Illustrative
5/20/2013
Cedar Grove Community Center
Proposed
Estimated
Estimated Total
Proposed CIP Notes
Design Fee (Not
Construction
Cost
to Exceed)
Cost
A. Base Fee - per 4/1/2013 proposal
167,500
2,000,000
2,167,500
2,250,000 10,000 SF Community Center, Deconstructed Classroom Wings
Additional Cost Estimates - per 5/16/2013 proposal
B. Alternate Uses - Progamming & Schem. Design
40,800
0
2,208,300
2,250,000 Option #1- Classroom Wings as deferred use ( "Mothball ")
Option #2 - Open Air Pavilion
Option #3 - Full Use
C1. If Option #1 Selected (Deferred Use) - Construction 34,000 600,000 2,842,300 2,250,000
Documents, Construction Administration
C2 If Option #2 Selected (Open Air Pavilion) - Construction 81,600 1,300,000 3,589,900 2,250,000
Documents, Construction Administration
C3. If Option #3 Selected (Full Use) - Construction 122,400 2,600,000 4,930,700 2,250,000 Est. $1.7 million for renovation, $800,000 for sanitary sewer expansion
Documents, Construction Administration
Additional Notes:
1. Estimates do not contemplate any operating costs for the alternate scenarios.
2. Avoided deconstruction costs are substituted for construction costs for the alternate scenarios.
3. Alternate estimated costs include an allowance of $100,000 for potential stormwater improvements due to potential increases in impervious surfaces.
202
ATTACHMENT 5
[Departmental Use Only]
TITLE NHSC Design
FY FY12 -13
NORTH CAROLINA
SERVICES AGREEMENT OVER $90,000.00
RFP — WITH REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
ORANGE COUNTY
This Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement "), made and entered into this 4th day of
June, 2013, ( "Effective Date ") by and between Orange County, North Carolina a body politic
and corporate of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter, the "County ") and MBAJ Architects,
Inc., (hereinafter, the "Provider ").
WITNESSETH:
That the County and Provider, for the consideration herein named, do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Services
a. Scope of Work.
i) This Services Agreement ( "Agreement") is for professional services to be
rendered by Provider to County with respect to (insert type of project): the
Northern Human Services Center Community Center renovation, as outlined by
the attached proposal dated April 1, 2013
ii) By executing this Agreement, the Provider represents and agrees that Provider is
qualified to perform and fully capable of performing and providing the services
required or necessary under this Agreement in a fully competent, professional and
timely manner.
iii) Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement.
iv) The services to be performed under this Agreement consist of Basic Services, as
described and designated in Section 3 hereof. Compensation to the Provider for
Basic Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth herein.
2. Responsibilities of the Provider
a. Services to be provided. The Provider shall provide the County with all services
required in Section 3 to satisfactorily complete the Project within the time limitations set
forth herein and in accordance with the highest professional standards.
b. Standard of Care.
i) The Provider shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing services
under this Agreement in accordance with the highest generally accepted standards
of this type of Provider practice throughout the United States and in accordance
Revised July 2010 1
203
with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the
performance of these services. Provider is solely responsible for the professional
quality, accuracy and timely completion and /or submission of all work related to
the Basic Services.
ii) Provider shall be responsible for all errors or omissions, in the performance of the
Agreement. Provider shall correct any and all errors, omissions, discrepancies,
ambiguities, mistakes or conflicts at no additional cost to the County.
iii) The Provider shall not, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement,
subcontract the performance of any work under this Agreement without prior
written permission of the County. No permission for subcontracting shall create,
between the County and the subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship.
iv) Provider is an independent contractor of County. Any and all employees of the
Provider engaged by the Provider in the performance of any work or services
required of the Provider under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or
agents of the Provider only and not of the County, and any and all claims that may
or might arise under any workers compensation or other law or contract on behalf
of said employees while so engaged shall be the sole obligation and responsibility
of the Provider.
v) Provider agrees that Provider, its employees, agents and its subcontractors, if any,
shall be required to comply with all federal, state and local antidiscrimination
laws, regulations and policies that relate to the performance of Provider's services
under this Agreement.
vi) If activities related to the performance of this Agreement require specific licenses,
certifications, or related credentials Provider represents that it and /or its
employees, agents and subcontractors engaged in such activities possess such
licenses, certifications, or credentials and that such licenses certifications, or
credentials are current, active, and not in a state of suspension or revocation.
3. Basic Services
a. Basic Services.
i) The Provider shall perform as Basic Services the work and services described
herein and as specified in the County's Request for Proposals (the "UP ") "R-FP
Number 5191 for "Northern Human Services Center Project" issued December
14, 2012, 2013, and the Provider's proposal, which are fully incorporated and
integrated herein by reference together with Attachments issued by MBAJ
Architects, Inc. entitled "Northern Human Services Center Renovation" dated
April 1St, 2013 (designate all attachments). In the event a term or condition in any
document or attachment conflicts with a term or condition of this Agreement the
term or condition in this Agreement shall control. Should such conflict arise the
priority of documents shall be as follows: This Agreement, the County's RFP
together with attachments, Provider's Proposal together with attachments.
Revised July 2010 2
204
ii) The Basic Services will be performed by the Provider in accordance with the
following schedule: (Insert task list and milestone dates)
Task
1.
Schematic Design (15 %)
2.
Final Design, CDs (65 %)
3.
Project Bid Phase (70 %)
4.
Construction (95 %)
5.
Commissioning (100 %)
6.
Grand Opening (100 %)
7.
N/A
8.
N/A
9.
N/A
10.
N/A
Milestone Date
10/15/2013
1/31/2014
4/28/2014
3/1/2015
3/1/2015
3/1/2015
iii) Should County reasonably determine that Provider has not met the Milestone
Dates established in Section 3(a)(ii), County shall notify Provider of the failure to
meet the Milestone Date. The County, at its discretion may provide the Provider
seven (7) days to cure the breach. County may withhold the accompanying
payment without penalty until such time as Provider cures the breach. In the
alternative, upon Provider's failure to meet any Milestone Date the County may
modify the Milestone Date schedule. Should Provider or its representatives fail to
cure the breach within seven (7) days, or fail to reasonably agree to such modified
schedule, County may immediately terminate this Agreement in writing, without
penalty or incurring further obligation to Provider. This section shall not be
interpreted to limit the definition of breach to the failure to meet Milestone Dates.
4. Duration of Services
a. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from June 4, 2013 to May 1, 2015.
b. Scheduling of Services
i) The Provider shall schedule and perform his activities in a timely manner so as to
meet the Milestone Dates listed in Section 3.
ii) Should the County determine that the Provider is behind schedule, it may require
the Provider to expedite and accelerate his efforts, including providing additional
resources and working overtime, as necessary, to perform his services in
accordance with the approved project schedule at no additional cost to the
County.
iii) The Commencement Date for the Provider's Basic Services shall be June 4, 2013.
5. Compensation
a. Compensation for Basic Services. Compensation for Basic Services shall include all
compensation due the Provider from the County for all services under this Agreement
except reimbursable expenses as specified in section 5(c), below. The maximum amount
payable for Basic Services is One Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
Revised July 2010 3
205
($167,500). In the event the amount stated on an invoice is disputed by the County, the
County may withhold payment of all or a portion of the amount stated on an invoice
until the parties resolve the dispute. Payment for Basic Services shall become due and
payable in direct proportion to satisfactory services performed and work accomplished.
Payments will be made as percentages of the whole as Project milestones as set out in
Section 3(a)(ii) are achieved. (For example, if there are 10 Project Tasks with Milestone
Dates then Provider may invoice for the first 10% of the whole upon County's
acknowledgement of the satisfactory completion of Task one. Upon the County's
acknowledgement that the second Task has been satisfactorily completed Provider may
invoice for the next 10% of the whole.)
b. Additional Services. County shall not be responsible for costs related to any services in
addition to the Basic Services performed by Provider unless County requests such
additional services in writing and such additional services are evidenced by a written
amendment to this Agreement.
c. Reimbursable Expenses Reimbursable expenses are in addition to the fees for Basic
Services and are for the following expenditures to the extent reasonable and actually
incurred by the Provider with respect to the Project:
i) Actual expenditures for postage, reproductions, photography, and long distance
telephone charges directly attributable to this Project.
ii) The actual cost of reproduction of reports, plans and specifications excluding
documents for exclusive use by the Provider.
iii) The Provider shall not be entitled to any mark -up on actual expenses incurred.
iv) Reimbursable expenses shall be compensated by the County along with invoices for
Basic Services provided by Provider. Payment of Reimbursable Expenses shall be
subject to Provider's timely submission of valid receipts for any such expenses and
approval by the County. Any additional charges not specified herein, must be
mutually agreed to in advance by County and Provider and documented in writing
with a letter signed by authorized representatives for County and Provider and,
subject to budgeted funds.
6. Responsibilities of the County
a. Cooperation and Coordination. The County has designated the (Jeff Thompson) to act
as the County's representative with respect to the Project and shall have the authority to
render decisions within guidelines established by the County Manager and /or the County
Board of Commissioners and shall be available during working hours as often as may be
reasonably required to render decisions and to furnish information.
7. Insurance
a. General Requirements. The Provider shall purchase and maintain and shall cause each of
his subcontractors to purchase and maintain, during the period of performance of this
Agreement:
i) Worker's Compensation Insurance for protection from claims under workers' or
workmen's compensation acts;
Revised July 2010 4
206
ii) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering claims arising out of or
relating to bodily injury, including bodily injury, sickness, disease or death of any
of the Provider's employees or any other person and to real and personal property
including loss of use resulting thereof,
iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance, including hired and non -owned
vehicles, if any, covering personal injury or death, and property damage; and
C. Limits of Coverage. Minimum limits of insurance coverage shall be as follows:
INSURANCE DESCRIPTION MINIMUM REQUIRED COVERAGE
• Worker's Compensation Limits for Coverage A - Statutory State of N.C.
Coverage B - Employers Liability
$500,000 each accident and policy limit and disease each
employee
• Commercial General Liability ' $1,000,000 Each Occurrence; $2,000,000 Aggregate.
• Automobile Liability Combined Single Limit $500,000
• Professional Liability
$1,000,000 per claim/$ 1,000,000 aggregate
d. Additional Insured. All insurance policies (with the exception of Worker's
Compensation and Professional Liability) required under this Agreement shall name the
County as an additional insured party. Evidence of such insurance shall be furnished to
the County, together with evidence that each policy provides the County with not less
than thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, non - renewal or reduction
of coverage.
8. Indemnity
a. Indemnity. The Provider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County
from all loss, liability, claims or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of or
related to the Project and arising from bodily injury including death or property damage
to any person or persons caused in whole or in part by the negligence or misconduct of
the Provider except to the extent same are caused by the negligence or willful
misconduct of the County. It is the intent of this provision to require the Provider to
indemnify the County to the fullest extent permitted under North Carolina law.
Revised July 2010 5
207
9. Amendments to the Agreement
a. Changes in Basic Services. Changes in the Basic Services and entitlement to additional
compensation or a change in duration of this Agreement shall be made by a written
Amendment to this Agreement executed by the County and the Provider. The Provider
shall proceed to perform the Services required by the Amendment only after receiving a
fully executed Amendment from the County.
10. Termination
a. Termination for Convenience of the County. This Agreement may be terminated without
cause by the County and for its convenience upon seven (7) days prior written notice to
the Provider.
b. Other Termination. The Provider, may terminate this Agreement based upon the County's
material breach of this Agreement; provided, the County has not taken all reasonable
actions to remedy the breach. The Provider shall give the County seven (7) days' prior
written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for cause.
c. Compensation After Termination.
i) In the event of termination, the Provider shall be paid that portion of the fees and
expenses that it has earned to the date of termination, less any costs or expenses
incurred or anticipated to be incurred by the County due to errors or omissions of
the Provider.
ii) Should this Agreement be terminated, the Provider shall deliver to the County
within seven (7) days, at no additional cost, all deliverables including any
electronic data or files relating to the Project.
d. Waiver. The payment of any sums by the County under this Agreement or the failure of
the County to require compliance by the Provider with any provisions of this Agreement
or the waiver by the County of any breach of this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of any claim for damages by the County for any breach of this Agreement or a
waiver of any other required compliance with this Agreement.
11. Additional Provisions
a. Limitation and Assignment. The County and the Provider each bind themselves, their
successors, assigns and legal representatives to the terms of this Agreement. Neither the
County nor the Provider shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
b. Governing Law. This Agreement and the duties, responsibilities, obligations and rights
of respective parties hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of North
Carolina.
Revised July 2010
c. Dispute Resolution. Any and all suits or actions to enforce, interpret or seek damages
with respect to any provision of, or the performance or non - performance of, this
Agreement shall be brought in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina sitting in
Orange County, North Carolina. It is agreed by the parties that no other court shall have
jurisdiction or venue with respect to such suits or actions. The Parties may agree to
nonbinding mediation of any dispute prior to the bringing of such suit or action.
d. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the RFP and its attachments and the
Proposal and its attachments, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
County and the Provider and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both parties. Modifications may be evidenced by facsimile
signatures.
e. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held as a matter of law to be
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and binding upon the
Parties.
f. Ownership of Work Product. Should Provider's performance of this Agreement generate
documents, items or things that are specific to this Project such documents, items or
things shall become the property of the County and may be used on any other project
without additional compensation to the Provider. The use of the documents, items or
things by the County or by any person or entity for any purpose other than the Project as
set forth in this Agreement shall be at the full risk of the County.
g. Non - Appropriation. Provider acknowledges that County is a governmental entity, and
the validity of this Agreement is based upon the availability of public funding under the
authority of its statutory mandate.
In the event that public funds are unavailable and not appropriated for the performance of
County's obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically
expire without penalty to County immediately upon written notice to Provider of the
unavailability and non - appropriation of public funds. It is expressly agreed that County
shall not activate this non - appropriation provision for its convenience or to circumvent
the requirements of this Agreement, but only as an emergency fiscal measure during a
substantial fiscal crisis.
In the event of a change in the County's statutory authority, mandate and /or mandated
functions, by state and /or federal legislative or regulatory action, which adversely affects
County's authority to continue its obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement
shall automatically terminate without penalty to County upon written notice to Provider
of such limitation or change in County's legal authority.
h. Notices. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested to the following:
Orange County
Attention: Jeff Thompson
P.O. Box 8181
Revised July 2010 7
Provider's Name & Address
MBAJ Architects, Inc.
9131 Anson Way, Suite 204
1:
209
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Raleigh, NC 27615
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by and through their authorized agents, have
hereunder set their hands and seal, all as of the day and year first above written.
ORANGE COUNTY: PROVIDER:
By: By:
Frank Clifton, County Manager
Printed Name and Title
Attest:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
[SEAL]
This instrument has been approved as to technical content.
Jeffrey Thompson, Department Director
This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
Office of the Finance Director
This instrument has been approved as to form and legal sufficiency.
Office of the County Attorney
Revised July 2010 8
9131 Anson Way, Suite 204
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office: 919- 573 -6400
Toll-free: 800-590-MBAJ
Fax: 919- 573 -6495
April 1, 2013
Mr. Jeff Thompson
Orange County Director of asset Management Services
200 South Cameron Street
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Northern Human Services Center Renovation
COMM. NO.: FILE NO.: A -1.0
Dear Jeff:
We are excited to have been selected by Orange County for the design of renovations at the
Northern Human Services Center project. We look forward to developing a strong working
relationship with you through this project. As requested, below is our proposal for professional
services.
Project Scope
MBAJ Architecture will provide architectural and engineering design services for the Northern
Human Services Center Renovation. The scope of services will include Programming, Design and
Construction Observation for upgrades and renovation to the existing Cedar Grove facility. The
exact scope of the renovations will be determined during the programming phase utilizing a round
table format to gather input from the project committee. The project scope will include a
recognition of the cultural significance of this site. The exact nature of this recognition will be an
integral part of the programming process. The final proposed scope of the project will be balanced
against the funding available for the project.
MBAJ will engage independent engineering consultants to provide Structural evaluation for the
proposed demolition, along with Civil /Landscape, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and
Technology design for the proposed facility renovation. Design services shall be provided in the
traditional phases of Programming, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration. Based upon our pre - contract discussions,
our proposed fee does not include hazardous material abatement design, storm water BMP design,
fire protection design, surveying, geothermal conductivity test wells or geotechnical investigation
for the project.
The total budget for the facility including design, construction, and contingency is $2 million. The
fees proposed are based upon the scope of work as we understand it at this time and the project
durations outlined in the attached schedule.
M: \PROSPECT - CLIENT\Civic - Governmental \North Carolina\ County \Orange \Proposals \20130401jft_Revised Fee
Proposal.docx
211
MBAJ Architecture
Page 2 of 2
Letter to: Jeff Thompson
April 1, 2013
Proposed A/E Fees
Based upon the above outlined scope of professional services, and the terms of the Orange
County Professional Services Agreement, MBAJ proposes a lump sum fee of $160,000 with
additional reimbursable cost (printing, reproduction, shipping, fees paid to jurisdictional
authorities, renderings, etc...) not to exceed $7,500.
Engineers
MBAJ will be utilizing the following engineers for the project:
Structural Design
LHC Engineers
1015 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Civil Engineering / Landscape Design
CLH Design
400 Regency Forest Drive, Suite 120
Cary, North. Carolina 27518
Plumbing Mechanical, Electrical, and Technology Design
Progressive Design Collaborative, LTD.
2900 Rowland Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27615
Schedule
Our preliminary schedule is attached. We recognize that the County will not have construction
funding available until July 2014 and we have formulated the proposed schedule to conform to
that parameter.
If there are any questions, please feel free to call. We look forward to hearing from you and
working with you to make the Northern Human Services Center project a success.
Sincerely,
Jo as. Jr.., AIA
Enclo e
cc: Vanda Hamrick
®`poa °' SAO °A
f
1T 52
a
Coo
Orange County
Northern Human Services Center
Preliminary Project Design Schedule
3/20/13
LIM
N
N
213
ATTACHMENT 6
[Departmental Use Only]
TITLE NHSC Design
FY FY12 -13
NORTH CAROLINA
SERVICES AGREEMENT OVER $90,000.00
RFP — WITH REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
ORANGE COUNTY
. This Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement "), made and entered into this 4th day of
June, 2013, ( "Effective Date ") by and between Orange County, North Carolina a body politic
and corporate of the State of North Carolina (hereinafter, the "County ") and MBAJ Architects,
Inc., (hereinafter, the "Provider ").
WITNESSETH:
That the County and Provider, for the consideration herein named, do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Services
a. Scope of Work.
i) This Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") is for professional services to be
rendered by Provider to County with respect to (insert type of project): the
Northern Human Services Center Community Center renovation, as outlined by
the attached proposal dated April 1, 2013 as well as the additional proposal dated
May 16, 2013 entitled "Northern Human Services Center Renovation A/E fee for
Additional Project Scope"
ii) By executing this Agreement, the Provider represents and agrees that Provider is
qualified to perform and fully capable of performing and providing the services
required or necessary under this Agreement in a fully competent, professional and
timely manner.
iii) Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement.
iv) The services to be performed under this Agreement consist of Basic Services, as
described and designated in Section 3 hereof. Compensation to the Provider for
Basic Services under this Agreement shall be as set forth herein.
2. Responsibilities of the Provider
a. Services to be provided. The Provider shall provide the County with all services
required in Section 3 to satisfactorily complete the Project within the time limitations set
forth herein and in accordance with the highest professional standards.
b. Standard of Care.
Revised July 2010
214
i) The Provider shall exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing services
under this Agreement in accordance with the highest generally accepted standards
of this type of Provider practice throughout the United States and in accordance
with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the
performance of these services. Provider is solely responsible for the professional
quality, accuracy and timely completion and /or submission of all work related to
the Basic Services.
ii) Provider shall be responsible for all errors or omissions, in the performance of the
Agreement. Provider shall correct any and all errors, omissions, discrepancies,
ambiguities, mistakes or conflicts at no additional cost to the County.
iii) The Provider shall not, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement,
subcontract the performance of any work under this Agreement without prior
written permission of the County. No permission for subcontracting shall create,
between the County and the subcontractor, any contract or any other relationship.
iv) Provider is an independent contractor of County. Any and all employees of the
Provider engaged by the Provider in the performance of any work or services
required of the Provider under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or
agents of the Provider only and not of the County, and any and all claims that may
or might arise under any workers compensation or other law or contract on behalf
of said employees while so engaged shall be the sole obligation and responsibility
of the Provider.
v) Provider agrees that Provider, its employees, agents and its subcontractors, if any,
shall be required to comply with all federal, state and local antidiscrimination
laws, regulations and policies that relate to the performance of Provider's services
under this Agreement.
vi) If activities related to the performance of this Agreement require specific licenses,
certifications, or related credentials Provider represents that it and /or its
employees, agents and subcontractors engaged in such activities possess such
licenses, certifications, or credentials and that such licenses certifications, or
credentials are current, active, and not in a state of suspension or revocation.
3. Basic Services
a. Basic Services.
i) The Provider shall perform as Basic Services the work and services described
herein and as specified in the County's Request for Proposals (the "REP ") "RFP
Number 5191 for "Northern Human Services Center Project" issued December
14, 2012, 2013, and the Provider's proposal, which are fully incorporated and
integrated herein by reference together with Attachments issued by MBAJ
Architects, Inc. entitled "Northern Human Services Center Renovation" dated
April 1St, 2013 and "Northern Human Services Center Renovation A/E Fee for
Additional Project Scope dated May 16th, 2013 (designate all attachments). In the
event a term or condition in any document or attachment conflicts with a term or
Revised July 2010 2
215
condition of this Agreement the term or condition in this Agreement shall control.
Should such conflict arise the priority of documents shall be as follows: This
Agreement, the County's RFP together with attachments, Provider's Proposal
together with attachments.
ii) The Basic Services will be performed by the Provider in accordance with the
following schedule: (Insert task list and milestone dates)
Task
1.
Schematic Design (15 %)
2.
Final Design, CDs (65 %)
3.
Project Bid Phase (70 %)
4.
Construction (95 %)
5.
Commissioning (100 %)
6.
Grand Opening(100 %)
7.
N/A
8.
N/A
9.
N/A
10.
N/A
Milestone Date
10/15/2013
1/31/2014
4/28/2014
3/1/2015
3/1/2015
3/1/2015
iii) Should County reasonably determine that Provider has not met the Milestone
Dates established in Section 3(a)(ii), County shall notify Provider of the failure to
meet the Milestone Date. The County, at its discretion may provide the Provider
seven (7) days to cure the breach. County may withhold the accompanying
payment without penalty until such time as Provider cures the breach. In the
alternative, upon Provider's failure to meet any Milestone Date the County may
modify the Milestone Date schedule. Should Provider or its representatives fail to
cure the breach within seven (7) days, or fail to reasonably agree to such modified
schedule, County may immediately terminate this Agreement in writing, without
penalty or incurring further obligation to Provider. This section shall not be
interpreted to limit the definition of breach to the failure to meet Milestone Dates.
4. Duration of Services
a. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from June 4, 2013 to May 1, 2015.
b. Scheduling of Services
i) The Provider shall schedule and perform his activities in a timely manner so as to
meet the Milestone Dates listed in Section 3.
ii) Should the County determine that the Provider is behind schedule, it may require
the Provider to expedite and accelerate his efforts, including providing additional
resources and working overtime, as necessary, to perform his services in
accordance with the approved project schedule at no additional cost to the
County.
iii) The Commencement Date for the Provider's Basic Services shall be June 4, 2013.
5. Compensation
Revised July 2010 3
216
a. Compensation for Basic Services. Compensation for Basic Services shall include all
compensation due the Provider from the County for all services under this Agreement
except reimbursable expenses as specified in section 5(c), below. The maximum amount
payable for Basic Services is Two Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Dollars
($208,300). In the event the amount stated on an invoice is disputed by the County, the
County may withhold payment of all or a portion of the amount stated on an invoice
until the parties resolve the dispute. Payment for Basic Services shall become due and
payable in direct proportion to satisfactory services performed and work accomplished.
Payments will be made as percentages of the whole as Project milestones as set out in
Section 3(a)(ii) are achieved. (For example, if there are 10 Project Tasks with Milestone
Dates then Provider may invoice for the first 10% of the whole upon County's
acknowledgement of the satisfactory completion of Task one. Upon the County's
acknowledgement that the second Task has been satisfactorily completed Provider may
invoice for the next 10% of the whole.)
b. Additional Services. County shall not be responsible for costs related to any services in
addition to the Basic Services performed by Provider unless County requests such
additional services in writing and such additional services are evidenced by a written
amendment to this Agreement.
c. Reimbursable Expenses Reimbursable expenses are in addition to the fees for Basic
Services and are for the following expenditures to the extent reasonable and actually
incurred by the Provider with respect to the Project:
i) Actual expenditures for postage, reproductions, photography, and long distance
telephone charges directly attributable to this Project.
ii) The actual cost of reproduction of reports, plans and specifications excluding
documents for exclusive use by the Provider.
iii) The Provider shall not be entitled to any mark -up on actual expenses incurred.
iv) Reimbursable expenses shall be compensated by the County along with invoices for
Basic Services provided by Provider. Payment of Reimbursable Expenses shall be
subject to Provider's timely submission of valid receipts for any such expenses and
approval by the County. Any additional charges not specified herein, must be
mutually agreed to in advance by County and Provider and documented in writing
with a letter signed by authorized representatives for County and Provider and,
subject to budgeted funds.
6. Responsibilities of the County
a. Cooperation and Coordination. The County has designated the (Jeff Thompson) to act
as the County's representative with respect to the Project and shall have the authority to
render decisions within guidelines established by the County Manager and /or the County
Board of Commissioners and shall be available during working hours as often as may be
reasonably required to render decisions and to furnish information.
7. Insurance
Revised July 2010 4
217
a. General Requirements. The Provider shall purchase and maintain and shall cause each of
his subcontractors to purchase and maintain, during the period of performance of this
Agreement:
i) Worker's Compensation Insurance for protection from claims under workers' or
workmen's compensation acts;
ii) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance covering claims arising out of or
relating to bodily injury, including bodily injury, sickness, disease or death of any
of the Provider's employees or any other person and to real and personal property
including loss of use resulting thereof,
iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance, including hired and non -owned
vehicles, if any, covering personal injury or death, and property damage; and
c. Limits of Coverage. Minimum limits of insurance coverage shall be as follows:
INSURANCE DESCRIPTION MINIMUM REQUIRED COVERAGE
• Worker's Compensation Limits for Coverage A - Statutory State of N.C.
Coverage B - Employers Liability
$500,000 each accident and policy limit and disease each
employee
• Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 Each Occurrence; $2,000,000 Aggregate.
• Automobile Liability Combined Single Limit $500,000
• Professional Liability
$1,000,000 per claim/$ 1,000,000 aggregate
d. Additional Insured. All insurance policies (with the exception of Worker's
Compensation and Professional Liability) required under this Agreement shall name the
County as an additional insured party. Evidence of such insurance shall be furnished to
the County, together with evidence that each policy provides the County with not less
than thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, non - renewal or reduction
of coverage.
8. Indemnity
Revised July 2010 5
218
a. Indemnity. The Provider agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County
from all loss, liability, claims or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of or
related to the Project and arising from bodily injury including death or property damage
to any person or persons caused in whole or in part by the negligence or misconduct of
the Provider except to the extent same are caused by the negligence or willful
misconduct of the County. It is the intent of this provision to require the Provider to
indemnify the County to the fullest extent permitted under North Carolina law.
9. Amendments to the Agreement
a. Changes in Basic Services. Changes in the Basic Services and entitlement to additional
compensation or a change in duration of this Agreement shall be made by a written
Amendment to this Agreement executed by the County and the Provider. The Provider
shall proceed to perform the Services required by the Amendment only after receiving a
fully executed Amendment from the County.
10. Termination
a. Termination for Convenience of the County. This Agreement may be terminated without
cause by the County and for its convenience upon seven (7) days prior written notice to
the Provider.
b. Other Termination. The Provider may terminate this Agreement based upon the County's
material breach of this Agreement; provided, the County has not taken all reasonable
actions to remedy the breach. The Provider shall give the County seven (7) days' prior
written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for cause.
Compensation After Termination.
i) In the event of termination, the Provider shall be paid that portion of the fees and
expenses that it has earned to the date of termination, less any costs or expenses
incurred or anticipated to be incurred by the County due to errors or omissions of
the Provider.
ii) Should this Agreement be terminated, the Provider shall deliver to the County
within seven (7) days, at no additional cost, all deliverables including any
electronic data or files relating to the Project.
d. Waiver. The payment of any sums by the County under this Agreement or the failure of
the County to require compliance by the Provider with any provisions of this Agreement
or the waiver by the County of any breach of this Agreement shall not constitute a
waiver of any claim for damages by the County for any breach of this Agreement or a
waiver of any other required compliance with this Agreement.
11. Additional Provisions
a. Limitation and Assigm-nent. The County and the Provider each bind themselves, their
successors, assigns and legal representatives to the terms of this Agreement. Neither the
Revised July 2010 6
219
County nor the Provider shall assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
b. Governing Law. This Agreement and the duties, responsibilities, obligations and rights
of respective parties hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of North
Carolina.
c. Dispute Resolution. Any and all suits or actions to enforce, interpret or seek damages
with respect to any provision of, or the performance or non - performance of, this
Agreement shall be brought in the General Court of Justice of North Carolina sitting in
Orange County, North Carolina. It is agreed by the parties that no other court shall have
jurisdiction or venue with respect to such suits or actions. The Parties may agree to
nonbinding mediation of any dispute prior to the bringing of such suit or action.
d. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the RFP and its attachments and the
Proposal and its attachments, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
County and the Provider and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or
agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both parties. Modifications may be evidenced by facsimile
signatures.
e. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held as a matter of law to be
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and binding upon the
Parties.
f. Ownership of Work Product. Should Provider's performance of this Agreement generate
documents, items or things that are specific to this Project such documents, items or
things shall become the property of the County and may be used on any other project
without additional compensation to the Provider. The use of the documents, items or
things by the County or by any person or entity for any purpose other than the Project as
set forth in this Agreement shall be at the full risk of the County.
g. Non - Appropriation. Provider acknowledges that County is a governmental entity, and
the validity of this Agreement is based upon the availability of public funding under the
authority of its statutory mandate.
In the event that public funds are unavailable and not appropriated for the performance of
County's obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall automatically
expire without penalty to County immediately upon written notice to Provider of the
unavailability and non - appropriation of public funds. It is expressly agreed that County
shall not activate this non - appropriation provision for its convenience or to circumvent
the requirements of this Agreement, but only as an emergency fiscal measure during a
substantial fiscal crisis.
In the event of a change in the County's statutory authority, mandate and /or mandated
functions, by state and /or federal legislative or regulatory action, which adversely affects
County's authority to continue its obligations under this Agreement, then this Agreement
shall automatically terminate without penalty to County upon written notice to Provider
of such limitation or change in County's legal authority.
Revised July 2010 7
h. Notices. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested to the following:
Orange County
Attention: Jeff Thompson
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Provider's Name & Address
MBAJ Architects, Inc.
9131 Anson Way, Suite 204
Raleigh, NC 27615
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by and through their authorized agents, have
hereunder set their hands and seal, all as of the day and year first above written.
ORANGE COUNTY:
By:
Frank Clifton, County Manager
Attest:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
[SEAL]
PROVIDER:
M.
Printed Name and Title
This instrument has been approved as to technical content.
Jeffrey Thompson, Department Director
This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget
and Fiscal Control Act.
Office of the Finance Director
This instrument has been approved as to form and legal sufficiency.
Office of the County Attorney
r 4
Revised July 2010
E.
220
011 full " 9131 Anson Way, Suite 204
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office: 919- 573 -6400
Toll -free: 800 -590 -MBAJ
Fax: 919-573-6495
April 1, 2013
Mr. Jeff Thompson
Orange County Director of Asset Management Services
200 South Cameron Street
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Northern Human Services Center Renovation
COMM. NO.: FILE NO.: A -1.0
Dear Jeff:
We are excited to have been selected by Orange County for the design of renovations at the
Northern Human Services Center project. We look forward to developing a strong working
relationship with you through this project. As requested, below is our proposal for professional
services.
Project Scope
MBAJ Architecture will provide architectural and engineering design services for the Northern
Human Services Center Renovation. The scope of services will include Programming, Design and
Construction Observation for upgrades and renovation to the existing Cedar Grove facility. The
exact scope of the renovations will be determined during the programming phase utilizing a round
table format to gather input from the project committee. The project scope will include a
recognition of the cultural significance of this site. The exact nature of this recognition will be an
integral part of the programming process. The final proposed scope of the project will be balanced
against the funding available for the project.
MBAJ will engage independent engineering consultants to provide Structural evaluation for the
proposed demolition, along with Civil /Landscape, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and
Technology design for the proposed facility renovation. Design services shall be provided in the
traditional phases of Programming, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents, Bidding and Construction Administration. Based upon our pre- contract discussions,
our proposed fee does not include hazardous material abatement design, storm water BMP design,
fire protection design, surveying, geothermal conductivity test wells or geotechnical investigation
for the project.
The total budget for the facility including design, construction, and contingency is $2 million. The
fees proposed are based upon the scope of work as we understand it at this time and the project
durations outlined in the attached schedule.
M: \PROSPECT - CLIENT\Civic - Governmental \North Carolina\ County\ Orange \Proposals \20130401jft_Revised Fee
Proposal.docx
222
MBAJ Architecture
Page 2 of 2
Letter to: Jeff Thompson
April 1, 2013
Proposed A/E Fees
Based upon the above outlined scope of professional services, and the terms of the Orange
County Professional Services Agreement, MBAJ proposes a lump sum fee of $160,000 with
additional reimbursable cost (printing, reproduction, shipping, fees paid to jurisdictional
authorities, renderings, etc...) not to exceed $7,500.
Engineers
MBAJ will be utilizing the following engineers for the project:
Structural Design
LHC Engineers
1015 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Civil Engineering / Landscape Design
CLH Design
400 Regency Forest Drive, Suite 120
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Plumbing, Mechanical. Electrical, and Technology Design
Progressive Design Collaborative, LTD.
2900 Rowland Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27615
Schedule
Our preliminary schedule is attached. We recognize that the County will not have construction
funding available until July 2014 and we have formulated the proposed schedule to conform to
that parameter.
If there are any questions, please feel free to call. We look forward to hearing from you and
working with you to make the Northern Human Services Center project a success.
Sincerely,
Jo as. Jr.., AIA
Enclo e
cc: Vanda Hamrick
�: 52
o-
�`rb
Orange County
Northern Human Services Center
Preliminary Project Design Schedule
3/20/13
N
N
W
9131 Anson Way, Suite 204
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office: 919- 573 -6400
Toll-free: 800 -590 -MBAJ
Fax: 919- 573 -6495
May 16, 2013
Mr. Jeff Thompson
Orange County Director of Asset Management Services
200 South Cameron Street
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Northern Human Services Center Renovation
A/E Fee for Additional Project Scope
COMM. NO.: FILE NO.: A -1.0
Dear Jeff:
We are pleased to provide this proposal for Architectural and Engineering design services
associated with the rehabilitation of the two existing classroom wings at the Northern Human
Services Center project.
Project Scope
MBAJ Architecture will provide architectural and engineering design services for rehabilitation of
the two existing classroom wings at the Northern Human Services Center. The initial scope of
services will include programming, renovation scope exploration and concept development to
determine the appropriate use and approach for the rehabilitation of the wings. MBAJ will work
collaboratively, utilizing a round table format, to gather input from the project committee. The
Committee input will be used to develop three possible approaches to the rehabilitation
(mothballing, open air uses and full use redevelopment). MBAJ will develop each of these
approaches through the Programming and Schematic Design phases and prepare estimates of
probable cost. MBAJ will document and present each option to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners for their consideration. Upon the receipt of a written notice to proceed,
documenting the approved project approach, MBAJ will complete the development of project in
the traditional phases of Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding and
Construction Administration.
MBAJ will engage independent engineering consultants to provide Plumbing, Mechanical,
Electrical and Technology design for the approved facility renovation scope.
Proposed A/E Fees for Additional Scope
Based upon the above outlined scope of professional services, and the terms of the Orange
County Professional Services Agreement, MBAJ proposes the following schedule of lump sum
fees:
Programming and Schematic Design $40,800
(Three Options)
M: \PROSPECT - CLIENT\Civic - Governmental \North Carolina\ County \Orange\ Proposals \20130516jft_Additional
Scope Fee Proposal.docx
225
MBAJ Architecture
Page 2 of 2
Letter to: Jeff Thompson
May 16, 2013
Mothball Option $34,000
Limited rehabilitation of building systems in the classroom wings to prevent
further deterioration of the existing facility and facilitate future redevelopment of
the space.
Phases DD -CA
Rehabilitation area: 17, 500 square feet
Anticipated Cost: $350,000 - $500,000
Open Air Uses Option $81,600
Limited rehabilitation of the classroom wings for use as open air shelters.
Phases DD -CA
Rehabilitation area: 17, 500 square feet
Anticipated Cost: $1.0 - $1.2 million
Full Reuse Option $122,400
Complete rehabilitation of the classroom wings for as yet undetermined fully
conditioned and finished uses.
Phases DD -CA
Rehabilitation area: 17, 500 square feet
Anticipated Cost: $1.4 - $1.7 million
As we have previously discussed, the proposed fees do not include hazardous material abatement
design, storm water BMP design, fire protection design, surveying, geothermal conductivity test
wells or geotechnical investigation for the project. If there are any questions, please feel free to
call.