2007-02-22 Regular Meeting
A.
Minutes
Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meet ~r'UC J J ~ ~ I~' ~
22 February 2007 - 7:00 pm ! II. J
KIB Conference Room 'L~ 7_~0~
BOROUGH CLER!\'S OFFICE
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:04pm.
B. Roll Call
ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Jay
Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Members were Charlie Jerling and Reed
Oswalt. Representing the School District was Robert Tucker. Representing the
Hospital were Brenda Friend and Stan Thompson. Representing the KIB
Engineering and Facilities Department were Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon
Lea Adinolfi.
C. Approval of Agenda
It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda as amended, adding review
of the 65% design drawings for the new pool. There was a unanimous
affirmative voice vote.
D. Design Cost Increase for New Pool
B. Cassidy said that he had been dealing with this issue for a couple of months-
and even since the ARB Meeting on 20 February 2007, the increase had gone up
again to cover additional civil engineering costs. Staff met with the Architect on
Wednesday the 21 st to talk through the various increased amounts. It was noted
at that meeting that the Architect was adamant about the increase and that he
felt [even with the increase] the Borough was still getting a good deal. The
Architect pointed to the new DEED Cost Model as a guide for what the AlE cost
should be and that ECI/Hyer was below that allotted amount.
B. Cassidy said Staff could spend time talking about all the particulars, but that
could take a lot of time. Instead Staff chose to look at the DEED cost model.
Given that guideline, ECI/Hyer's fees are less than the model. He indicated that
this was a difficult issue for those working with it.
S. Arndt said there is always going to be a bit of give and take and he was not
opposed to that. He reviewed the process [from RFP forward] starting with the
interviews of the four firms and noted that all the firms had said "no" to the
question of whether or not the pool could be built with the original budget; all
firms said they would be willing to work with the Owner if there were time delays;
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 1 of 10
the Board expressed to all firms that the desire was to design to the program.
After the recommendation was made by the ARB to award the Project to
ECI/Hyer, the EF Department negotiated the contract and the Project had gone
from conceptual to 35% with no indication of a change in design costs. He said
he would like to see a breakdown with explanations as to the increases. He
continued saying that he did not have a problem with giving some for increasing
the size of the pool and that there had been some tweaking with the access, but
that he was having a hard time accepting because construction costs had gone
up design costs were going up. He said that just because it [design cost
increase] is under DEED's allowable it should not be automatically accepted and
he did not feel any undue burden had been put on the pool designers or the
mechanical and electrical engineers. He was not convinced that since the first
set of 35% drawings this level of increase was justified.
J. Johnston said that this was a complicated situation and a challenge to figure
out what to do. He said he might buy some of the increases, but some others
were ludicrous. His feeling was that they were asking for additional money to do
what they should have been doing [design]. He said he felt the Architect offered
options and it wasn't realized that every time an option was picked there was a
cost increase. He went on to question at the 35% phase, how much real design
had been done - structural hadn't been done. He said that if the Board were
making changes at 65% he would expect some increase. He said that the issue
is too complicated to resolve at this meeting; more information is required to
make a quality assessment and the only sense he could make out of the request
was that the Architects/Engineers found themselves way under their fees and
were motivated to get more money.
G. Hacker said that he had never been comfortable with design fees being a
percentage of construction costs. He questioned the strength of the contract
[with ECI/Hyer].
B. Cassidy responded that there is a contract based on a scope of work, but now
there is a different scope.
G. Hacker wanted to be sure that the existing Borough contract was not being
violated.
B. Cassidy said there could be a new contract drawn up or an amendment to the
existing contract could be done.
J. Friend sUQQested the Board look at some of the reasons put forth as
justification for the increase, such as adding an inch of paving, choosing a
concrete pool over a metal pool. He went on to say that, in his opinion, half of
the items listed were baloney and there weren't that many changes to warrant a
57% increase. He said that he was extremely pleased with what the Architects
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 2 of 10
had done so far and some of the things the Board had asked for but did not feel
they warranted this kind of increase.
S. Arndt said that the interior finishes selected at the 35% stage were not
acceptable so he didn't feel that the Board had added anything - the Architects
were supposed to be designing.
J. Johnston suggested looking at ECI/Hyer's design development booklets - that
was what they were for - design development - and the Owner has the right to
critique.
B. Watkins suggested that a resolution could be to split the difference [between
the increase figure suggested last week and the new figure suggested today].
He said he felt the firm had worked hard, lots of options had been discussed and
the Architects had gone above and beyond.
Tuck noted that the State calls out 6-8% [of the total Project cost for AlE fees]
and we're at 9%. He suggested offering 8% and agreed that they had done
some extra work.
S. Arndt said the figure he was considering was maybe a 10% increase of their
original cost which would equal $68,000 and that amount would go a long way.
He continued by saying that he did not want to do anything until he saw a
breakdown. He felt that the Board did not have enough information to make a
recommendation at this meeting.
J. Johnston said that if this whole thing were taken apart - a large amount of time
would be spent fighting line item by line item - could take months. He
questioned what is considered a design change and what is a modification. For
the most part he felt they had been in a design process.
K. Smith told the Board that there is not a list of all of the items that were
included in the pool at the point they estimated. He said if we had that we could
compare it to what we have now - that's part of the design process - making
assumptions - developing - throwing out ideas to get to the next design phase.
We could argue forever.
J. Friend expressed concern about letting it go any longer because the
construction fees would be going up - time is money. He would accept resolving
at 8%.
Tuck said that he did not care for the percentages either but saw using the
State's recommended percentage as a way of getting down to a lower number
and being able to justify the increase because it fell into the State's
recommended allowance.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 3 of 10
S. Arndt said that the size of the building had been increased by 10% and that 10
or 15% was as far as he would go. He did not feel that that many changes had
been made and was willing to use a percentage based on increase of size of the
building.
J. Friend said that he would like to be fair and equitable and asked what would
be considered a fair price for the product. He noted there should be room for
negotiation to bring it down a little.
K. Smith addressed the Board explaining that when an architect or an engineer
looks at estimating their fees, they look at it in 2 different ways: as a percentage
of the project and the number of drawings/sheets and man hours. They then
weigh those two figures and try to find a balance. He said that what had
happened in this case was that we had begun with an unrealistic budget. In the
beginning the Architect was looking at a relatively simple building, looking at the
construction costs and then looking at a percentage - if the Architect came up
with 20% [as a fee] - he would know that was not going to fly, so he cut back.
The Architect cut a lot out because the budget could not support a lot. Now we
have a larger budget and that throws everything off. The budget for the project
increased but the Architect did not see an increase in his budget.
Tuck noted that DEED broke it down [the new budget] and everything came back
doubled.
J. Johnston asked if the Board was interested in looking at percentages.
S. Arndt said that he wants to see a split on the different categories.
K. Smith said that the DEED's 6-8% is for schools - DEED does not have a
standard for pools and that percentage is higher.
J. Johnston said that he would like to look for a way to resolve the issue and we
would be losing money if we took too much time.
B. Watkins said that he was comfortable with negotiating with Terry Hyer. He
also said he appreciated the care 1. Hyer took with his buildings after a project
was completed. BW said he would not want to jeopardize that with this building
or other buildings and he did not feel that Hyer was trying to over inflate his fee.
He then asked K. Smith for his opinion.
K. Smith said that he had been struggling with this issue and was having a hard
time but also felt it was something that could be argued forever. For that reason
he would suggest looking at the big picture and not the details.
There was a brief review of the numbers spelled out in the original AlA Contract
with ECI/Hyer.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 4 of 10
S. Arndt listed the various categories in the contract - schematic design, design
development, construction documents, bid phase, commissioning,
reimbursables. This is the breakdown he would like to see based on the new
numbers - and he noted that now CM needs to be added in.
J. Johnston said that this was a narrow enough focus to look at. It would provide
the needed information and should not take a lot of time. He asked what the time
frame would be and would the schedule be delayed if there were not a response
right now.
S. Arndt said there is a contract in place - the schedule should not be delayed.
There was a brief discussion re the need to have the Assembly approve the 65%
drawings. It was the consensus that a report would be brought to the Assembly
as information and that the additional design costs would be a separate issue,
i.e. an amendment to the existing contract or a new contract. The Chair said that
the Board would request from the Architect a breakdown of the increases in each
category [to compare to the original figures].
1. Review of 65% Design Drawings
K. Smith said that he felt the design team had done a good job with the 65%
drawings.
J. Friend moved to accept the 65% drawings with the discussed changes.
Note: Changes were discussed at the ARB Meeting held 20 February 2007
where ECI/Hyer presented the 65% drawings.
J. Johnston seconded the motion.
Discussion
G. Hacker suggested that the 2nd pathway shown be deleted and the path
remaining be designated as "a pedestrian path" - not a tractor ramp.
Question called on amendment - delete steep path and change the designation
of access ramp. There was an affirmative voice vote.
Main motion as amended
There was a unanimous affirmative roll call vote.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 5 of 10
E. Review/Discussion 35% Design Drawings for the CHC Addition
The Chair requested a report from the E/F Department.
B. Cassidy said that the presentation given [by Prochaska and Associates] was a
disappointment. He suggested moving forward, making changes where
necessary and continuing on with the process.
K. Smith made the distinction between what was called by the presenters "design
development" and what was actually the 35% schematic design phase. On a
general note, KS said that the font the Architect was using was less than
standard and difficult to read. He noted that he could print out larger sets for the
Board Members if they would like and said that he was also disappointed in the
presentation.
J. Friend said that two things stood out for him [in the presentation]. The design
of the parking lot is unacceptable. He would like to see the parking lot
redesigned and suggested using existing entry, widening the whole parking lot
making it more accessible, and cutting out the "S" curve. The second item dealt
with insulation. JF said he considered the rate suggested unacceptable. He said
that in his experience [residential] he would want to see an R42 rating used.
J. Johnston questioned the net heat gain possible in this kind of a facility.
S. Thompson said the heat gain would be dependent on the use of the space. He
noted that there were not going to be many heat producing appliances; there
would not be much more heat gain than in an office setting.
J. Johnston asked if this should be a question for the architects.
J. Friend said that the Architects said they would add an inch [of insulation] to the
roof and maybe to the perimeter.
J. Johnston suggested 2 layers of 3 inch insulation be added to the roof.
J. Friend said that EPDM had been called out for the roof material but that he
would rather see PVC used.
J. Johnston and S. Arndt agreed with the use of PVC.
B. Watkins said that he also had been disappointed with the presentation and
that it appeared the people [making the presentation] could neither read nor
follow directions. He said he was not satisfied with the placement of the sheer
walls. He would like to see the numbers run at the 2006 code for ground motion.
He also noted that he did not like the limited egress from the building. He
indicated that there always seems to be some obstruction from the entrance to
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 6 of 10
the admittance desk and it appeared traffic was being routed through the busiest
part of the hospital. He expressed concern about patient privacy and felt the
main entrance to the clinic should be at the lower level. His impression was that
the design had been done to look good in pictures and impress people.
S. Arndt expressed the same concern - a patient having to move through all the
other patients to get to the receptionist. He said he would like to see the
receptionist first and he did not think the layout was functional. He also noted
that he had not paid attention to the finishes - but didn't remember seeing the
same color scheme as the hospital. He said that the exterior was going to be the
same and thought the same should be considered for the interior.
G. Hacker said that keeping interior finishes and fixtures the same made a good
point in terms of replacement parts.
J. Johnston said that in a lot of ways it [the addition] is a different entity - you
may want it to be bright and cheery - some discussion would be worthwhile -
fewer products on the shelf would be a good thing.
B. Friend said that confidentiality is not an issue in a clinic - appointments are
scheduled ahead of time. She also spoke to the color scheme noting that the
Hospital colors were selected ten years ago and the CHC would be a new
building and would not want to use outdated colors. Walls can always be
repainted.
S. Thompson noted that although the addition will be attached to the Hospital it
actually is a separate entity.
B. Watkins advised that he had priced the decorative glass tiles and the cost was
a third higher than some other products which gave him concern about the cost
of other items being considered.
B. Friend said there had been very few upgrades - did not go with carpet and
tried to keep everything basic. They looked for fixtures/items that would be easy
to change and easy to clean.
S. Arndt said that he was concerned about the number and positioning of posts
and sheer walls - saw this making for complications in remodeling in the future.
He would prefer to see flexibility and options. He noted that this kind of design is
very limiting in terms of future renovations.
There was a brief discussion re the permanence of the CHC. Originally thought
that use/rearranging of existing Hospital space would suffice but the Clinic grew
faster than anticipated and an addition became necessary. B. Friend advised the
Board that their funding source was predicated on a 30 year lease, indicating that
the CHC is a long term proposition.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 7 of 10
S. Arndt spoke again re the posts and sheer walls indicating that he thought the
exterior walls could be useful and the walls did not correlate with the posts.
B. Watkins indicated that we would not want to have to go back to FEMA [for
funding to upgrade seismic design if this addition were built to 2003 Code]. He
would like to see the numbers of the design as compared to using the 2006
Code. He suggested that the Board put their questions together and give them
to SLA and have them submitted to the Architects for answers.
S. Arndt said that this building needs to be designed to 2006 code. He said it
would be better to design to a higher seismic code. First it is a life safety issue
and secondly, it is always more expensive to retrofit.
G. Hacker commented on the parking suggesting going back to the existing entry
and eliminating the one way traffic. He said that it may meet Code but doesn't
work well.
B. Cassidy said that this issue was being addressed.
G, Hacker asked about the hopper windows saying that in a sealed envelope he
felt the windows should be fixed. He also noted that the door swing in the exam
rooms could make exiting difficult - looked like a fire trip to him. He questioned
how people would get out of this facility in an emergency. He also thought there
should be a fire entrance for firefighters.
J. Johnston said he would like to see one more entrance.
S. Arndt questioned having only one entrance in a 6000 sf addition.
G. Hacker said it appeared to him as though they worked around the code.
B. Watkins told the Board that a code is a minimum requirement but not always a
good requirement.
B. Friend spoke to the hopper windows. She said that the AlE people had said
this kind of window would not be a problem. She went on to explain that the
need for fresh air is important where there is a large turnover [of patients] and
that there are sometimes instances, such as vomiting, where there is a need to
be able to open windows to get fumes out.
There was continued discussion re privacy issues in the reception area and
looking for options for another egress.
B. Friend maintained that there is a privacy area and that no one will wait in the
waiting room longer than 15 minutes.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 8 of 10
S. Arndt went back to the parking lot issue reiterating that he did not like the one
way design and that it would be possible to pick up another 30-40 spaces if the
exit out were eliminated and should also lower construction costs.
B. Cassidy said we would have the Architects look at it [parking lot plan] again.
S. Arndt said that the Board had questions and he was not prepared to approve
the 35% drawings.
J. Johnston questioned the impact and cost [of delaying approval, asking
questions].
B. Watkins said if they [the Architects] had given a true presentation the Board
could have been prepared to approve. He went on to say that giving them a
week to come back with answers to the Board's questions/concerns should not
have an impact.
J. Friend suggested the firm look at 2006 [Code] and egress and present at the
65%.
G. Hacker asked if they would be designing to the adopted current Code based
on their contract. He also questioned how much change would there be between
the 2003 and 2006 Code and how much will it cost to make those changes.
S. Arndt questioned if the CHC is considered an "essential building".
B. Cassidy said that he would email these questions to Prochaska and to the
ARB.
J. Johnston said that he would like to see snow guards on the roof.
Next meeting date will be left open until answers are received from Prochaska.
F. Public Comments
B. Friend spoke to the importance of the CHC and the need to continue to move
forward. She thanked the ARB for their work on this project.
S. Thompson said that the Board raised issues that others also had raised.
G. Board Member Comments
G. Hacker said that he did not think the actions tonight would slow the process
down.
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 9 of 10
J. Friend said this [CHC] and the pool project were big projects and would take a
lot of work.
B. Watkins said that he was very much in favor of the CHC and did not wish to
slow anything down.
There were no further Board Member comments.
H. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted:
Date:c?1#o?~t?r
Sharon Lea C1inolfi, Projec SSI
KIB Engineering/Facilities Dept.
g~r- #r~/--
Scott Arndt, Chair
Architectural/Engineering Review Board
Date: 3 -;z 7 - ').0(/ ?
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070222 Minutes.doc
Page 10 of 10