Loading...
2007-04-16 Regular Meeting • Minutes Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meeting 16 April 2007 — 5:30 pm KIB Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 5:30 pm. B. Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston, Reed Oswalt and Brent Watkins. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. C. Approval of Agenda It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda amending it by adding Approval of Minutes. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote on the Amended Motion and the Main Motion. • D. Approval of Minutes It was moved and seconded to approve the Minutes of the 19 March 2007 Meeting. There was a unanimous voice vote. E. Review of KMS Seismic Upgrade Drawings K — Tony will be in town on Wed/Thurs. JJ - we'll prepare questions and present? KS - that would be my suggestion. SA — would like to do a walk though w/Tony. Discussion re reusing some materials and also temporary support issues. JJ would like to spend some time with this group and review the general concepts. You can use a percentage plan when dealing with reuse of materials — try to reuse 50% - but plan on 50% new —there are ways of handling. Ceilings going to be replaced up to seismic standards? • 11dove\Departments1EFlArchitectural Review BoardtARB Minutes 2007\070416 Minutes.doc Page 1 of 6 KS — back in the original report we elected not to do ceiling seismic upgrade — not deemed a priority at that time. • SA — if they take a ceiling down it should be put back up with seismic considerations. KS — agreed — noted that the Eidinger Report recommended bringing up to a max of .47 G — that's lower than the 2003/6 Code and we have elected to go with the current Code. Group goes to A-16 discussing ceiling replacement. JJ - how will they be handling the ceilings? KS —Tony will be spending Wednesday night in the school proofing these drawings. JJ — the questions will come from the bidder— bring up to seismic or go back up the way it came down? KS — all of the schools elected to not do suspended ceilings — not a priority— but if we're taking ceilings down, they should go back up to current seismic Code. JJ — can we have Tony mark drawings to show ceiling areas that are coming • down and being put back up seismically? And when is this going out to bid? KS — Intends to put out to bid ASAP — waiting on ARB's review— will do the single story first and 2nd story next summer. JF — re reusing steel studs — that's fine but when you come back— need to oversize screws when the studs get put back in place. Group looks at 305 B — reinstall cap flash. SA — won't be easy to get out. JJ — maybe should be giving some direction. SA —we're calling these 65 —will look at drawings @ 95% [for additional detail?] JF/JJ - would like to see life cycle costs for reuse — some of the stuff [to be reused is 20 years old] - if new—would get longer life. JJ — reusing roof drains — is just a bad idea. Go to 805 left drain elevations — rubberized — added 6" of insulation — big sump — should raise and use original detail. Drain details need to be looked at recommendations given to Tony. • \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070416 Minutes.doc Page 2 of 6 • SA — nail pattern? 3" oc — type of nail info not found. JJ — M&E missing — concerned about how bidders will be affected — things need to be identified and specified. Local bidders will have an advantage — being familiar with the school. SA — re materials — assuming 1/2" — prefers 5 ply. JJ — ask if Tony will specify. GH — can we spec exterior grade? JF — concerned re metal flashing over an expansion joint— driving holes through PVC. JJ— go to 805 — may not be drawn correctly - cap not identified — detail should be a little different. SA — are we addressing all of the roofing issues? • K — Tony's talking about doing all of the roofing work [except metal] this summer. JJ — Tony's talking about "tenting". K — think that's optional. JJ — explanation re M&E — how will it be managed — there's so much unknown — maybe we can't quantify right now. JF — concerned about the integrity of support when taking out the columns. JJ — do we know what kind of allowance there is? Should there be a large contingency? KS — there are complicating factors with the seismic upgrade — working also with Bond Projects — may be difficult to separate out costs. Tony is doing these estimates separately and we are within budget of what Eidinger suggested. JJ — expect to go out to bid when? K— ASAP once ARB makes recommendations. e \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070416 Minutes.doc Page 3 of 6 GH — the M&E details need to get to the School District's communication people. Demo crew will have to be alerted —there are fibers that need to be protected. • Tech Services is concerned about how their lives will be impacted. These areas — 211 A&B —will be occupied all summer. Can move office staff but hardware end can't move. JJ — any other areas that will be occupied during the summer? GH — dance/music — but they can be moved. Also need to consider heat issues, dust issues and have to maintain positive pressure. JF — anti static flooring? GH — 211D should get anti static flooring. JF talked about using a painted on primer over glue and using webcrete. KS —will check on the flooring. JJ — is there language that protects Owner against damage? [example —fiber optics — sla check contract] Need to be clear that the Contractor pays for damage. • E. ADF&G Architect Selection SA — noted dissatisfaction with the Manager's Office in terms of negotiations with ECI/Hyer [increase in design fees] and would be in favor of reassessing the firms interviewed for the ADF&G Building. JF — concerned about how the pool project would go [w.Hyer] if the F&G Building were given to someone else. Questions asked about competitive bidding. KS — USKH will not do competitive bidding — only qualifications based — that's pretty much the architectural community. RO — added the 10' to the design and never wants to be in this position again. Went into negotiations [design on 5/31] to help them work out of some of their problems — not enough room — not up to Code — and then got hit. Sla — explains the contract language re negotiating with the first choice and if not acceptable — written termination and go on to the 2nd/3rd choices. • \\dove\Departments\EFWrchitectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070416 Minutes.doc Page 4 of 6 SA — there is a possibility we can withdraw our original recommendation and • submit another. RO — feels the AK law takes the competition out of the process — not satisfied with Hyer at all. JJ — thinks any other architect would have done the same. Agrees w/RO re the AK law but doesn't see it changing. How soon do we have to make this recommendation? BW — can't just point at Terry — we all had a part in making the building better — need to look at how we change things in the future. GH what assembly action has been taken? None KS — passed around a note from BC — attached. GH — contract language doesn't give us much to work with. SA — only changed schematics — not structural. • JF would like to review the Scope of Work. RO — If someone would change their mind on their vote could look at reviewing the vote again. Bud/Manager did not work for the best interests of the Borough or the public —want to revote. JJ — sources of the problem — delay, cost increases and not a detailed scope. E. Public Comments None. F. Board Member Comments RO — ARB has worked hard — had nothing solid to begin with — thought Bud was going to work on the parking issue. We started with a rough idea. What we wanted — build using architect's skills to develop — and this situation...next time need to get as much information as possible. CJ — Define Scope better in any future projects. BW —Agreed. • \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review BoardWAB Minutes 2007\070416 Minutes.doc Page 5 of 6 JF — Agreed. Wished we had been alerted earlier [of the fee increase] — suggested getting an attorney's opinion before revoting [on F&G Building]. • GH — Asked if the Scope of Work will come to the ARB. Also, if cannot give the F&G Building to another firm, is there a way to address the Board's displeasure? SA — Scope of Work for F&G needs to come to the ARB. JJ — discussed the process [by which the Board got to this point with the pool project] referencing the DEED budget — got a dollar figure before there was a design. KS — said there was a scope — a 6 lane pool, a wading pool, one diving board — and DEED had some basic figures — estimates for 2004 and figures submitted to DEED by Tuck = $6M. That estimate was done on a combination of classroom spaces — DEED does not provide estimates for pools. When Terry Hyer uses the 9.45% as a recommendation for NE fees — DEED does not make that recommendation. He continued — if this project were begun at a different time and there had been a better initial estimate — would not be in this situation. The architect was given a budget — should have alerted as soon as knew it wasn't enough. At that point the ARB could have had some input — we wouldn't have been blindsided. JF — hopes this is a learning experience. • SA — None. G. Adjournment Motion made, seconded and unanimously agreed to recess the Meeting until 7:30 pm Wednesday the 18th of April 2007 to meet with the Architect and do a walk through of the Middle School. • \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 200/1070416 Minutes.doc Page 6 of 6