Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-07-1999 - 9e1 ' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 7,1999 Action Agenda Item No, q_e SUBJECT: Cost Efficient Facilities Initiatives (CEFI) for Buildings Constructed with County funds DEPARTMENT: purchasing & Central Services. PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Jones extension 2652 Report TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider a concept for maximizing the cost effectiveness of facilities constructed using County funds. BACKGROUND: The attached report outlines a process for pursuing cost efficient facilities for buildings built using County funds. Essentially, the program would create a performance standard overlay to the existing school construction standards.. These performance standards would be used as a benchmark in the design of any county or school facility. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None defined. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board endorse the Cost Efficient Facilities Initiatives (CEFI); and request that the Manager include the item for discussion at the School/Commissioner work session on December 13, 1999. 2 Proposed Cost Efficient facilities Initiatives (CEFI) for County and School Capital Projects December 7,1999 A work group involving two County Commissioners, the County Manager and several County staff members met several times over the past month in an effort to identify. cost efficiency initiatives in the development of County and School facilities. The ensuing report in meant to reflect the essence of these discussions as well as to provide a point of departure for dialogue among. the Board of Commissioners and School Board members. Why Initiate Cost Efficient Facilities Initiatives (CEFI) Now? According to the Orange County Planning Director, projections of school construction needs indicate that approximately 19 schools will be required to meet the student population needs over the next 30 years. Based on construction estimates from the school construction standards ,the present value dollars needed to support construction for these educational facilities is estimated to be $339,463,685. The following table reflecting the projection of school needs is based on the assumption that growth will continue at a constant enrollment increase each year (i.e. Orange County School District at 150 new students per year and Chapel Hill/Carrboro at 300 new students per year. As further development of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) continues, a further analysis of existing capacity as well as proposed capacity will be conducted.) Orange County System Chapel/Hill Carrboro System • Elementary: • Elementary 4x$12,785,485=$51,141,940 7 x $12,785,485=$89,498,395 • Middle: • Middle: 2 x 18,504,670=$37,009,340 3 x 18,504,670= $55,514,010 • High School- High School: • 1000 student capacity: • 1500 student capacity: 1 x $24,700,000 = $24,700,000 1 x $40,800,000= $40,800,000 • 1500 student capacity: 1 x $40,800,000= $40,800,000 3 • Total estimated construction costs over 30 years for Orange County School District is therefore $128.,951,280, • Total estimated construction costs over 30 years for Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District is therefore $ $210,512,405. • Total estimated construction costs over 30 years to meet educational facility needs is therefore $339,463,685. Further, the County is facing significant construction needs of its own through its statutorily required support of court system facilities. Preliminary estimates equate the cost of the judicial facilities (without jail construction) with those of a new elementary school This brings the total potential 30-year construction outlay for education and judicial facilities to approximately $ 352,249,170. Projected costs of this magnitude create a considerable challenge to ensure that. construction and major renovation projects funded by the County are properly designed to meet both County and School needs within available resources. In addition, with the advent of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO), now in development, the fiscal issues will-demand greater attention. As you .may know, the SAPFO will, among other things: • Define a level of service capacity, which each new school will be expected to meet. For example, if "X" number of units are approved for development within the County, then "Y° type of school (elementary, middle, high school) with "Z" capacity must be built within the next "N" .number of years; and • The SAPFO will allow schools to operate marginally over-capacity for only a limited period of time, thereby creating the necessity for school construction to be considered in a timely manner. A potential solution: This .look to the horizon tells us that the limited package of funding resources available to support construction.initiatives will not be sufficient to meet demand without very careful planning. Rather than to immediately raise the funding bar, and potentially the tax rate, it is prudent to consider cost efficiency measures that will provide functionally excellent facilities at a manageable cost. In the Spring/Summer 1999 the Board considered a value engineering option for County and school projects, in which each facility would be subject to a value engineering process in tandem with its design... This approach proved to be unsuitable, particularly for upcoming school construction projects, from a cost and timing point of view. Further discussion has prompted us to suggest an alternative approach that functions as a stand-alone process for County projects but creates a design standard overlay to the existing school construction standards. The process is outlined as follows: • A group similar to the school construction standards committee would be convened to review infrastructure items common to all buildings (HVAC, plumbing, finishes, window glass, etc.). This group would also include a third party consultant to add avalue-engineering component to the development of the standards (accurate cost projections, life cycle cost analysis, etc.) • Functional standards would be developed for each of these components. Examples of the functional standards might be: • The roofing standard for buildings will be metal (unless prohibited as may be the case in historic districts); or 4 • A specific energy efficiency level. (Btu consumption per square foot) mustbe achieved by the HVAC system proposed; or To avoid future maintenance complications, systems, such as water/gas service or wiring raceways, shall not be embedded in the concrete floor slab unless code restrictions prohibit overhead installations. • Upon completion, the resulting standards would be taken by the committee members to their respective governing boards for comment. • Ultimately, the Board of Commissioners would adopt the standard by which they would fund capital projects. Standards would be provided to any firm retained by the County or the Schools to design a facility. The firm would be expected to design in compliance with the design guidelines. Upon completion of a facility design, the designer would provide certification to the School and. the County that the design guidelines had been rnet or cite areas where deviations were mandated by a regulatory body. The County Engineering staff would review the bid/construction documents and the certifications and render an opinion on the sufficiency of compliance documentation. In regard to school projects, if a School Board determines that exceeding a standard is critical to the viability of a given program, then the School Board may submit a proposal to pay for additional costs from other pay-as-you-go funds available to the School, e.g. recurring capital. Funding: Recommendations for funding of capital projects remain as endorsed by the Board in June 1999. The concept is as follows: • While the Board will continue to approve the projects in the County's ten-year CIP, approval of specific project components will occur after costs have been firmly established by bid, a contract, or other highly reliable cost determining means for each component of project development. .Essentially, the appropriation would be equivalent to the amount of money ready to be spent for a particular project component function (planning, site development, construction, etc.) • Capital Policy revisions to reflect this are imminent. As noted in the June action, this process will involve additional steps as the Board is called. upon to take actiorr at various milestones. in the project, rather than allocating a lump sum for each project when the CIP is approved. However, this means of appropriating for capital projects appears to provide the County considerably more. flexibility. in resource management. -Since appropriations would be made by project component and would be based on more accurate cost data, any surplus. from the total project would remain available for appropriation to future CIP projects. Benefits: • We believe this approach promotes greater consistency in systems and does a better job of analyzing systems before they are specified for use in a building. • Major time and cost commitments occur one time. As future refinements of the standards become necessary, they should be manageable and could possibly be accomplished through collaboration of School and County staff. • This .approach provides consistent guidelines for designers retained by the County and Schools for facility design.. Clearly articulated expectations on the front end of a project are likely to yield a more acceptable result. Possibly the greatest benefit to implementing cost efficient facilities initiatives is our enhanced ability to project accurate construction costs. As previously indicated, our accurate projection of costs for the CIP will become essential with the adoption of SAPFO. This becomes apparent when one understands that SAPFO is driven by a complex inter-relationship involving growth-generated demand for school capacity, capacity of existing school facilities, projected school construction/capacity, construction i 5 costs for school facilities and CIP funded budgets for school construction ..Under this scenario, any deviation from original data regarding capacity and subsequent construction costs could cause significant negative impact on CIP appropriations.