Loading...
2007-03-19 Regular Meeting Minutes Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meeting 19 March 2007 -7:00 pm KIB Conference Room A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:02pm. B. Roll Call ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Jerrol Friend, Gregg Hacker, Charlie Jerling, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Reed Oswalt. Representing the School District was Robert Tucker. Representing the Hospital was Brenda Friend. 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 by J. Friend and B. Watkins to approve the Agenda. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. D. Approval of Minutes It was moved and seconded by J. Friend and B. Watkins that the Minutes of 12, 20 and 22 February 2007 be approved as submitted. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote. E. Design Cost Increase for New Pool Staff Report: K. Smith referenced Terry Hyer's letter [attached]. He referred the group to a spreadsheet - showing increases totaling $931 K and added that if there were any other changes, they would be viewed as a change in the scope - [additional costs] . B. Cassidy said that Terry Hyer was out of town but the Members would be able to conference call during the meeting with another member of Hyer's firm. Discussion S. Arndt said he had difficulty with the request for additional fees. He felt the firm was moving their fees up to fit the new DEED guidelines. He did not think there had been that much of a change to the project. The sf was increased by about \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 1 of 8 10% - didn't change mechanical or electrical - all that changed was the structural - and he stated there was no way he could see going over a 10% increase [in fees]. S. Arndt continued saying that a 44% increase in construction administration could not be justified. Also, additional cost for delay of the project was not justifiable - the delay had been minimal. B. Cassidy said that it was difficult to get to what is reasonable - and how do we justify? J. Johnston said he did not think the increase was justifiable - the numbers did not make sense to him. Options were given [at the 35% and DO] and selections were made. He questioned how that had become a design change. He said that there would be some increase construction costs but not design. He noted that when Terry had gotten though the 35% design phase there had been no talk of increase in design or design costs. He said he was willing to go forward bearing increased construction costs, but not design. J. Friend noted that $80K was being added for construction docs and asked what the difference was in the cost of construction docs no matter what design decisions were made. J. Johnston said that just because hardiplank was negated or the cedar interior finish was not acceptable - those selections were not worth increased design costs. He also questioned the process of going through program development, schematic design, public input - and questioned what good the process was if we weren't able to offer input without being charged extra. S. Arndt referenced Terry's letter pointing out that, in his opinion, only items 8 and 9 had some validity and that the other items listed had no justification. B. Watkins questioned the cost of acoustical design. He thought the design team was supposed to use all the right materials in the right places for addressing acoustics. He asked why an additional $8700 was being requested for an acoustician. J. Johnston said he had just suggested having someone look at the plans and give an opinion on the acoustics - he had thought that Terry or Jae would simply make a phone call- not hire someone for close to $9000. J. Friend asked what commissioning was. K. Smith explained. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 2 of 8 J. Friend said he wanted to be sure that there would be training for maintenance - rather not short that - and that would be under a 10% increase. He asked if the $8700 for acoustical - was that an assessment or design. He indicated that he was having difficulty with the increase for construction documents and construction administration. K. Smith responded to J. Friend's question re acoustics saying it was design only. Someone would look at the drawings and design and make recommendations. G. Hacker said there could be other design costs associated [with acoustical]. C. Jerling thought they [the architects] should have been thinking about acoustics in their design - "It's a pool." G. Hacker suggested the Board go down the list [of items in Terry Hyer's letter]- cross out, or agree to and come up with a number. B. Cassidy suggested calling Bryan Meissner at ECI/Hyer and including him in the discussion. S. Arndt said that including Bryan in the discussion would allow the Board to explain its perspective and Mr. Meissner could help analyze the situation. B. Meissner from ECI/Hyer joined the meeting telephonically. S. Arndt introduced the Board to B. Meissner and began the discussion by questioning the justification for a 50% increase in design development. B. Meissner said that in many cases the systems had become more involved. J. Johnston asked why it was more complex - added some sf after 35% but beyond that he was confused [by the increase]. B. Meissner said that during schematic design the pool had become more complex. J. Johnston said he did not understand the shift in direction - ECI/Hyer saw that the budget was out of whack. The owner asked to design to program - why the surprise? B. Meissner asked if the surprise was more fees or more pool. S. Arndt asked what had actually changed [from a "simple pool]. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 3 of 8 B. Meissner said going on what he had been told, at schematic design there was recognition that there wasn't enough money to begin with - it would have been a very basic pre engineered building [given the budget]. But now it was a robust pool with robust systems. He said the other option would have been to design to budget. S. Arndt said that when the ARB went through the interview process - the Board made it clear that they were looking for a 50 year pool - a well built and easily maintained structure. Discussion moved to construction documents. B. Meissner - again implementing more scope and more building than had been anticipated in fee negotiation. J. Friend questioned what kind of systems he was referring to - what was different about them. B. Meissner indicated the UV/Saline systems - saying they were more than the existing chlorine system - this hadn't been anticipated originally. Also, there was now radiant heating in the floor - a heat recovery system- there was redesign on the site, expanded parking. He continued regarding the bid phase. He noted that the project is a year later than anticipated - people are making more money now. Regarding construction administration - he said that all of the construction. items have increased. He said construction administration is much less than what is recommended for public construction. Additional site visits - $17K B. Meissner said the original contract was much too light on the site coverage for this kind of a project. He said there needs to be 3 additional visits for mechanical and electrical people. They need to look at specialty systems when they get installed and 2 or 3 additional visits for architects. Of the 19 original [visits] - the proposal is to bump up to monthly visits. S. Arndt questioned an increase of $6K for-commissioning. B. Meissner said that now there were more mechanical/electrical systems than originally anticipated - saline/UV/heat recovery. S. Arndt asked if the reimbursable expenses were going up because of additional site visits. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 4 of 8 B. Meissner - Yes. Discussion again re acoustics. J. Friend said there are ways that ducts can be treated so they make less noise- the perforated wall panels - making sure they are perforated properly. S. Arndt thanked B. Meissner for his time and the telecon ended at 8:00pm. Tuck indicated that what we don't want to do is end up with something less than what we really want. K. Smith said the Contract can be stopped - go to arbitration and get the attorneys involved. Tuck - don't want to do that either. S. Arndt felt that just because construction costs had gone up and materials had gone up - it was a fallacy that then design costs go up too. C. Jerling said he was concerned that if the cost increases weren't approved the project would be halted. S. Arndt said he thought Terry Hyer would stay until the project was completed. K. Smith noted that AMC would not continue their work without the increase sought. The Board Members reviewed and discussed a compromise proposal to submit to ECI/Hyer. Note: Below is a copy of an email from B. Meissner sent the day after the meeting laying out what was being offered by the Board. From: Brian Meissner [mailto:bmeissner@ecihyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:38 PM To: Ken Smith Cc: Terry K. Hyer Subject: Equitable Adjustment Ken, Thank you for calling yesterday to share the outcome of the ARB's deliberations over our request for equitable adjustment. We appreciate the time that everyone devoted to these deliberations and we appreciate the emotions involved. We understand that the ARB has proposed an equitable adjustment as follows: \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 5 of 8 Fees for bid phase, site visits, commissioning, and reimbursables are accepted as proposed for a total increase of $34,130. Fees for design development, construction documents, and construction administration are to be increased by 22.222% in recognition of the increase in area of the building from 18,000 sf to 22,000 sf. This results in a combined adjustment of $112,413 for these three categories. The total proposed increase in the contract is $146,543. This amounts to approximately 60% of the increase we had requested. Since yesterday I've been in extensive discussions with our subconsultants. A couple of hours ago Terry sent an email asking how things were going. I replied with an email sharing the adjustment proposed by the ARB, but haven't heard back from Terry yet. At this point we're unable to provide a response to the offer on the table. The impacts of our decision could be far reaching, therefore, I would like to converse with Terry before providing a formal response. We'll endeavor to get you a response as soon as we've reviewed all of our options. Thank you, The consensus of the Board was to wait for a written response from Terry Hyer before scheduling another meeting. K. Smith directed the Board's attention to Terry Hyer's letter of 6 March 2007 requesting direction on certain items discussed during the 65% design presentation. 1. Combine items 1 and 2 - require fence along top edge of retaining wall - stay with concrete - provide ramp 3. Regrade - check 4. DDC - [to the maintenance shop] - check 5 Landscaping reduction - check 6. Owner responsible for removing and relocating fence 7. Crawl space - check 8 Entry drive - J. Friend asked if this could be done in house. Do we want to tie to this project? Need a price to do this before can give direction. 9. Acoustician - delete F. Review of Revised 35% Design Drawings for CHC Addition The ARB Members reviewed Don Prochaska's letter of 8 March 2007 responding to questions and comments of the ARB at the 35% presentation. Roof and snow guards: Eliminate EPDM - snow guards on upper roof and would like to see also the issue of pounds per sf addressed - concern re the impact load [of snow from upper roof falling onto CHC roof]. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 6 of 8 Reception area - check Interior finishes, fixtures etc - check Hopper windows - check Motion was made and seconded to approve 35% as amended. Discussion J. Friend said that the revised parking plan looked better than the first one and that he would anticipate seeing accesses, steps, ramps at the 65% level. A Roll Call vote was taken and it was unanimous to recommend approval of the 35% Drawings. G. Public Comments Brenda Friend thanked the Board for the time and effort given to the CHC project. H. Board Member Comments J. Johnston questioned the status of ownership of the pool site. B. Cassidy said that the Borough can get a lease from the National Guard and he was hoping to have that worked out soon. S. Arndt requested an update on project activity. K. Smith reported: There are two grant applications completed - one for the remainder of the non structural items and one for Peterson seismic upgrade. The pool is up and running on the saline system. Readings are being taken 3-4 times a day. The UV system will not be put on line until the saline system is completely on the controller. K. Smith noted that there is a leak in the pool and the pool will be drained and repaired as soon as school is out. B. Cassidy said we were waiting to hear re grant for Middle School work. J. Friend suggested adding project updates to the Agenda each meeting. \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 7 of 8 There were no further Board Member comments. I. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 pm. Respectfully submitted: " haron Lea A . olfi, Project Assista KIB Engineering/Facilities Dept. Date: ~9-tl~~r 5'(: off -;4{i1#- Scott Arndt, Chair Architectural/Engineering Review Board Date: '(- ;l. 0/- ;ZOO 7 \\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070319 Minutes.doc Page 8 of 8