2007-04-10 Regular Meeting
IT)) ~ ~ ~J-;:lrm
tru JUL 2 0 2O~lW
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
Minutes
Architectural/Engineering Review Board Meetin
10 April 2007 - 7:00 pm
KI B 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, Jay
Johnston, Reed Oswalt and Brent Watkins. Absent Member was Charlie Jerling.
Representing the School District was Robert Tucker. Assembly Member Chris
Lynch was present and Assembly Member Sue Jeffrey participated
telephonically. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were
Bud Cassidy, Ken Smith and Sharon Lea Adinolfi. Rick Gifford, Manager, was
also in attendance.
c. Approval of Agenda
It was moved and seconded to approve the Agenda. There was a unanimous
affirmative voice vote.
D. Design Cost Increase for New Pool
S. Arndt began noting that a request for an additional $243,783 on top of the
original contract had been made by ECI/Hyer in March. The ARB met on 19
March 2007 to discuss the request and through a combination of using % and
adding costs for additional site visits, commissioning, construction administration,
etc. arrived at an amount as a compromise offer and that offer was presented to
Terry through his partner, Brian Meissner. A letter from ECI/Hyer was received
on 23 March 2007 indicating the counter offer was not accepted and that
ECI/Hyer was withdrawing their previous request for equitable adjustment. With
that background the Chair turned the floor over to Terry Hyer.
T. Hyer thanked the Board for inviting him and said that his goal was to keep the
project going and to reach a mutually equitable agreement.
He continued saying that he felt the best avenue would be to look to an objective
3rd party for assistance and to try to figure out a methodology that would be fair
to all parties. He presented a history starting with 2003-2004 when the
Enterprise Plan was developed - there was a basic option - and that was the
basis for the budget - 16,000 sf with a projected cost of $6M. There was a
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc
desqription of supporting spaces. After that the Ed Specs were completed and a
proje6t'defined at 18,000 sf for $5M.
At that point ECI/Hyer had a contract [with the Borough] for an 18,000 sf $5M
Project. There was an Agreement between the KIB and the DEED - included
was a fee range for architectural fees based on a % of construction budgeted
costs.
DEED's guidance is seen as a reasonable mid range fee for good services - and
ECI/Hyer's request does not vary much from those guidelines.
The market was volatile at that point - needed more detailed info to figure out
what the pool was actually going to cost. Question came up as to whether to
design to program or budget - direction was program. ECI/Hyer did that and got
an estimate - it came in at $11 M. The Project stopped at that point - went out to
vote - there is now a new Agreement w/DEED which reflects new
architectural/design/engineering costs.
When the new Bond vote passed ECI/Hyer sent a letter indicating there would be
an increase in costs - felt there was a scope that had become far more than
anticipated. There has been a change in the scope of work. - it's not just a req
or new money - there's been a good deal of dialogue - how do we define the
scope of work - it's impossible to define it - we weren't making headway doing
line item approach - go back to an org that has done this kind of thing - he's
developed an exhibit - passes it out - sla check it for the info.
We, in good faith - proceeded through design development - thinking this issue
would be resolved - we've kept up our end
He reviews Exhibit A
See Exh B - indicates what the impact is to the budget - shows a 191 K of
excess.
May not be able to get arms around how much the training pool costs - radiant
heating, etc. from earlier discussions was not resolvable - that's why I think the
3rd party is a way to go.
Sa - ty - refer to staff for input -
B - defers to K
K - we've gone through history - Code does not provide any guidance - we're
looking at the Arb - to make a recommendation - time is money - price
escalation is a factor - missing the short const season can affect - even staff can
disagree on how to resolve\
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc
When we issued this rfp based on quality and not price - picked hyer - very
pleased with the design that's been done.
What he's asking can be eaten up with any delay - legal action - this pool proj is
first in a line of several - completing the pool leads to the start of other bond
projs - voced - staff's recom is to move ahead by approving in the contract
amount - the req has been awkward for staff - a lot of groups an individuals -
community pool group p&z and finally the assembly.
Sa - speaks to sue and gives her the figures
With that throw out for discussion
TH - one more thing - construction admin - deed has a recom of 2-4% and this
is us looking out for your interests during const. in my opinion 2% is low - the
figures in Ex A maintains that 2% - believe you would be better served by going
to 3% - mid range
This comment is unrelated to the req - just saying that it is low.
Chris - industry standards for terry's services are bet 6-12% - always been happy
w/Terry's work - and given we're remote location - new items coming in, etc. -
we have a good proj - we should move one I agree the 2% is low plus the
contingency is low - move forward and be able to make good educated guesses
on those kinds of things.
Jf - looking at k - reads articles re adjustments and allowances changes in the
work.
Refers to figures re AMC figures
Th - it's actually gone up [for amc]-
Jf - so what's your req now - $1.2?
Yes
Th - the expenses really isn't that much - we're recommending 12 more visits -
needs to be done due to complexity - in my opinion we should come down more
during const.
Sj - what's involved in the 3rd party process?
Th - it was an effort to bring objectivity - it's not a consultant - it's the agreement
with DEED that I'm using as an objective party - it contains a recom for what you
should expect to pay for the design work and the CA - here's an org that has
done 1000s of projects all over the State- instead of me bringing it to you or
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc
dealing withe kib and it's view - and went back to the 3rd party as the guide. I'm
applying it to the scope of work increase.
Jj - want to work towards moving forward get it out of the arb tonight - I'm
interested in moving forward - ken's statement says a lot - astute - some room
for negotiation, but I'm hoping for a little more discussion
Jj - 1'1 move to recommend to authorize the manager to write a change order with
eci hyer based on Ex a and jf seconds
Jf - agree - it's fair to pay for the quality we're getting -
Sa - when we had last met and made a recom - to try and resolve when inc was
243K and we came up with an amount and then rec'd a notice that the proposal
was being withdrawn - intended that we would be talking about 243 and now
tonight it goes to 538 - hard time getting a grip - not a believer in dealing with %
- I don't look at it that we changed the scope almost $5m - we know we inc the sf
most of it going into the pool area - I understand the philosophy - but why did we
negotiate a contract to begin with a fixed fee and not a percentage? I realize this
is hitting all of us, this is all new, but it's almost doubling the fee. Trying to get
somewhere on this I thought we would be talking about the $243 - don't want to
stop the project but is staff going to take this to the assembly. Are we going to go
with the deed specs -
Jj - as both terry and ken stated - it's a dark hole to go into line by line item -
that's a job that can't very well be done.
Ro - why can't we look at the bill from the Arch
Jj - we're talking about the scope - the diff bet the orig - and the new des - is a
project in itself - to go through this entire process we'll be spinning our wheels
and going backwards - const cost inc is driving this - if we choose to stop work-
it'll bite us. Are we prepared to stop work again to go through this analysis
process. So I think it's a mistake to slow down - th's approach that we can all
understand - has a basis - my motion sends it to the mgr and staff to negotiate-
motion did not incl a $$ amount - want staff to sit wlterry - arb can offer
expertise if needed. Note - specifically using A and b
Bw - challenging project to begin with - we've thrown a lot of questions and req
at terry and he's come up with good answers - appreciate the ethics of th's
approach - didn't use const. escalation to his advantage - what we have in front
of us is diff than the little square box - think the check should be written and
move on. Until we get this going we're losing money on the projects that are
hinging on this. I think th has justified his request. I'm supporting moving on -
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc
Ro-sad about this situation - need to move ahead - think the mistake was made
a long time ago - sad to have to come to this kind of situation - easy to see how
it came and why it came - the biggest thing is if we hesitate it's just going to cost
us more - don't like it - don't like the situation at all - hope we are wise and pick
up the wisdom of 500k that comes up before us again - think that we're bet a
rock and a hard place - haven't liked this project from the beg - let's do it and get
rid of the damn thing.
Sa - the motion will put it back in bud's and ken's laps -
K - puts it back into b/k and t - we three disagree and that's why we brought it to
the arb
B - think it's now time for the Assembly to make a policy -
K -let's work with what we all agree on
Jj - the motion specifically deals with Ex A and B - clear this is the format we're
going to work with - hope moving out of the mire and this is the format to get it
done.
Ro - talked to several business people - there's been a 15% dec in revenue for
businesses - this is why it hurts - it hurts people, towns and am not a happy
camper.
B -you'll be comf with the number we come up with
Jf-by thurs we'll see this [assy mtg]
Jf - amend the motion - once there is a negotiated price goes directly to the
Assy - so it stays on track
Bw seconds.
And - speaks to the mgr are we giving you what you need to work with
Amendment carries 5 to 0
Main motion 5-0
E. Public Comments
None.
F. Board Member Comments
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc
Ro - went to p and z meeting in Turkey - very interesting handled professionally-
if there are any objections you write them out - you have a change to go to
litigation. Bribes we're involved - called a contribution to the city.
Ro continues - we all are under one flag - to get it done.
Bw-feel like we only came part way tonight - think staff has a sense of what we
think - but didn't feel like the arb solved anything
Jf - I feel like we've given it back to the mgr and staff - only way to do it to keep
on track.
Jj - think we've done a lot - we've put a format out there that the assy can look at
- to date been a qaugmire - we're sending them something they can work with -
a basis.
Jf-the driveway
Sa - re kms seismic upgrade - need to sched a meeting
k-update - we've been trying to work w/crew down here to look at Ouzinkie -
tentatively sched for Fri - at present it's sched for next mon - Tony will be in town
sa - how long in town
k go to ouz in morning and get on plane at 4 but tony would stay over if needed
sa- could we have something around 6 -
would 5:30 work -
jf - think the driveway needs to be part of the recommendation
k-update - survey info is in on that driveway - lId like terry to take a look at it.
Sla - find room - get advertised for Monday night - get room
Jf - bring the driveway into the negotiations - access for this thing has always
been a big issue
b-we're already at the limit of des fees
sa looking at deleting based on the budget
looking for staff recom.
jj-any further info on the line
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc
b-the battle is who is going to issue the lease - the land title isn't the issue - the
state wants to write their lease
jj-moving forward?
b-yes
G. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm.
Respectfully submitted:
Date:
711J (!) 'f
(J
Sharon Lea A in fi, Project Assista
KIB Engineering/Facilities Dept.
~(~rr- #',,,k
Scott Arndt, Chair
Architectural/Engineering Review Board
Date:
7- ;2.0 -:uJcY ?
\\Dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2007\070410 Minutes.doc