The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 03-11-2014 - 1 . 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 11, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Cedar Grove Community Center Project Update DEPARTMENT: Asset Management Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ("AMS"), Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation ("DEAPR") ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Thompson, (919) 245-2658 Available Electronically David Stancil, (919) 245-2522 PowerPoint Presentation located at http://orangecountync.gov/AssetMgmt/inde x.asp PURPOSE: To: 1) Receive an update regarding requested information from the Board of County Commissioners during its November 12, 2013 work session; 2) Confirm the project plan as approved in the FY2013-14 Capital Investment Plan; or 3) Provide new direction to staff. BACKGROUND: At the November 12, 2013 Board work session, County staff and the project designer, MBAJ Architecture, presented the schematic design of the Cedar Grove Community Center for the Board's comment and feedback. Staff and the designer also presented a cost benefit analysis of the "mothball" option of the two classroom wings. This presentation was the capstone event of the work performed by the designer; staff and the Resident Advisory Work Group through the summer and early fall of 2013. This group worked in a diligent, thoughtful and productive manner to achieve consensus on a schematic design for the Board's review, comment, and, hopefully, authorization to move forward with construction document preparation and construction bidding in the spring-summer of 2014. The following joined Commissioners Barry Jacobs and Renee Price as members of the Resident Advisory Work Group: 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 Brenda Vanhook Hattie Vanhook Cumilla White r 2 During and after the presentation on November 12, the Board provided thoughtful feedback and guidance to staff and asked for the following additional information with regard to the Community Center project and the existing classroom wings. After receiving Board feedback during this work session, staff will schedule a public meeting with the area residents and other interested persons with regard to programming needs and interests. 1. Status of bus service and associated parking ("Park & Ride", "Kiss & Ride") at the Cedar Grove Community Center Orange County Planning confirms that bus service to the Cedar Grove site is the first service planned to be launched as part of the 5 year bus service program. The design and installation of the planned transit shelter and amenities (signage, schedules, etc.) can be coordinated with the Community Center design should the BOCC choose to move forward with the project. The BOCC should see the final bus service plan for approval in April 2014. 2. Cost-Benefit of including the additional classroom upfit and including it within the Community Center project. The Board asked for the impact of including the following area previously outside of the scope of the project as part of the Community Center plan. The cost of the additional upfit for 732 square feet of multi-functional, programmable space is estimated at $29,000. FAeilily-. MEN . va ✓e ti ; Ots fi57SF Additional space: WOWN 732 square feet as multi-functional, L-;, ,Ij programmable M,Ull-Media Rowe space I f 1,496 SF Is Estimated cost: $29.000 3. Further cost-benefit analysis of classroom wings. The Board may recall the "mothball" cost-benefit analysis from the November 12, 2013 work session. The estimated mothball "base" cost for 21,000 square feet of the classroom wings in order to protect the space for future use is $608,700. This estimate includes $28,800 for the design. The scope of the work includes restoring the building envelope systems (roof, windows, masonry) and providing adequate heating and cooling to preserve the internal areas. The annual utility cost to maintain this condition is estimated between $3,000 and $6,000. The Board asked for clarification with regard to the base "mothball' option to be expanded into a conditioned storage option or a fully programmed space option. Both options would require the full base "mothball"investment. Option A — Conditioned Storage. Should the area be upfit for conditioned storage, a more extensive fire alarm system would need to be installed at an estimated additional cost of 3 $15,000. For bulk, palletized storage, an oversized door could be installed at the north wing entrance, allowing for cargo truck/lift gate deliveries into the north wing entrance. This feature could be installed for an estimated cost of$10,000. Option B—Fully Programmed Space. The cost to convert the wings to fully programmed space involves major investments in the septic system upgrade to allow for the additional required wastewater flow as well as the interior space upfit (to include an expansion of the proposed Community Center HVAC system) that would provide comfortable office, meeting and services areas necessary for programmable space. Septic Upgrade: MBAJ Architects and their engineering sub-consultants reviewed the construction documents and state that the system as designed is adequate for up to 7,000 gallons of daily flow. Full capacity design is estimated not to exceed $800,000, which includes adequate contingency for unforeseen conditions. This system was originally conceived and designed for the Board's consideration for installation from the early 2000s through 2009. The Board chose not to pursue the additional 7,000 gallons of daily flow to support the rapidly declining occupancy and programming of the facility. Upfit: A full occupancy upfit is estimated at $100 per square foot. The estimated full cost for this upfit, which includes the expanded Community Center HVAC system, is $2,100,000. 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 design and construction of the new facility that, when combined with the $250,000 authorized in FY 2012-13, brings the total project capital budget to $2,250,000. The following illustration outlines the costs associated with the alternatives discussed: Option A—Storage Use, additional classroom space(No se tic upgrade) Estimated Current Surplus/(Deficit) Cost Revenues Appropriations Cedar Grove Project $2,000,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $250,000 Classroom Wing "Mothball" $28,800 $0 $0 ($28,800) Design Fee Classroom Wing "Mothball" $579,900 $0 $0 ($579,900) Estimated Construction Cost* Classroom Wing Storage $15,000 $0 $0 ($15,000) Upgrade Estimated Cost Palletized Storage Opening $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 Additional Classroom Space $29,000 $0 $0 ($29,000) U fit Estimated Cost Totals: $2,662,700 $2,250,000 1 $2,250,000 $412,700 *Annual operating costs for storage option are estimated between$3,000 and$6,000 Option A would require an additional appropriation of approximately $412,700 for the project. 4 Option B—Program Use(Se tic u rade) Estimated Current Surplus/(Deficit) Cost Revenues Appropriations Cedar Grove Project $2,000,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $250,000 Classroom Wing "Mothball" $28,800 $0 $0 ($28,800) Design Fee Classroom Wing "Mothball" $579,900 $0 $0 ($579,900) Estimated Construction Cost Classroom Wing Upfit Cost $2,100,000 $0 $0 ($2,100,000) est. $100 per square foot Septic System Upgrade $800,000 $0 $0 ($800,000) Estimated Cost Additional Classroom Space $29,000 $0 $0 ($29,000) U fit Estimated Cost Totals: $5,537,700 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 ($3,287,700 *Annual utility and custodial costs for occupied, programmed space are between$3.50 and $4.50 per square foot. Option B would require an additional appropriation of approximately $3,287,700 for the project. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1) Receive an update regarding requested information from the Board of County Commissioners during its November 12, 2013 work session; 2) Confirm the project plan as approved in the FY2013-14 Capital Investment Plan; or 3) Provide new direction to staff.