01/08/2008 Regular MeetingMinutes
Architectural/Engineering Review Board Mee
8 January 2008 - 7:00 pm F ~' :i
KFRC Conference Room
A. Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
B. Roll Call
((~~~~
~~ ~
L..1~ r- _--~'
~~ ~ ~ `~ l
~~ ~s
'#
~, ~ JA N ~ 1 2008 a~
~ _ __
Br;= '' ~r
ARB Members present were Scott Arndt, Gregg Hacker, Jay Johnston and Brent Watkins. Absent
Members were Jerrol Friend, Charlie Jerling and Reed Oswalt. Representing the School District was Bob
Tucker. Representing the KIB Engineering and Facilities Department were Woody Koning, Ken Smith
and Sharon Lea Adinolfi.
C. Approval of Agenda
The Chair requested Review of the HS Library Wing Seismic Project be added to the Agenda and Staff
Update on the CHC and Pool Projects.
J. Johnston moved to add both items to the Agenda, G1 and G2 respectively. B. Watkins seconded the
Motion. There was a unanimous affirmative voice vote.
D. Approval of Minutes 26 November 2007
B. Watkins moved and J. Johnston seconded a Motion to approve the Minutes as presented. There was a
unanimous affirmative vote.
E. Review KMS Seismic Upgrade Phase II
K. Smith said that this Phase II was essentially Alternate 1 of Phase I and had been previously reviewed
by the ARB with the exception of the removal of the ceiling in the gym. The ceiling work has been
removed primarily because the Project is over budget and the gym area will afford storage space for
classroom items while the seismic work is being done.
S. Arndt questioned structural issues with the roof.
K. Smith said that PND diaphragms would not be sufficient to meet code and would require the
installation of ceiling tubular bracing. He noted that a BCR [benefit cost ratio] had not been completed
yet. The BCR would indicate, on a monetary basis, if the cost would be justified given the use of the gym
and the level of potential hazard. He said that he had been given an estimate of $125K for the steel
required to do the bracing and that cost did not include any overhead or markup costs.
K. Smith indicated that there is a shortfall of approximately $3.2M for Phase II; this due to the new PVC
membrane rather than the planned renovation of the IRMA roof. Also, scope creep played a part. He said
we need to look for money on the whole project. Nearly all of the available bond and seismic grant
monies have been expended on Phase I.
Page 1 of 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc
Note that later on in the meeting K. Smith suggested that if not enough funding were in place, the KMS
and Peterson Seismic Projects could end up as 2009 construction projects.
Both S. Arndt and J. Johnston suggested it would be better to leave the ceiling steel and roofing work in
Phase II so that the Assembly could have information on a total package cost when looking for funding.
K. Smith said that it was the intent to do the roof, but add in the steel at a later date since it can be
installed from the underside.
There was discussion regarding potential asbestos in flooring. The concurrence of the Board was to have
these kinds of potential problems investigated and identified, along with the possibility of floors that may
require self leveling. This information needs to be given to the contractor so that when construction
commences, there won't be as many change orders and the Project does not have to be stopped for
surprise findings. This is a way of handling costs.
Tuck said that this investigation would require substantial destruction but agreed with the Board and
reminded that this is not a project that has the luxury of time.
Discussion followed regarding deducts and add alts.
K. Smith said that more value is derived from add alts than deducts and suggested having the work that is
fully intended to be accomplished in the main bid and have add alts for additional work.
The Board agreed.
G. Hacker asked if the adds alts would be considered for construction year 2.
K. Smith. Yes. Identify when the work is intended to be accomplished.
S. Arndt asked if exterior finish work had been accomplished in Phase I.
J. Johnston indicated that the concrete infills had been painted.
K. Smith added that there had been dryvit work done in a few areas.
S. Arndt asked if exterior finish work was to be included in Phase II.
K. Smith said that this Project was aseismic/roofmg/flooring project.
S. Arndt said that the exterior finish has been an issue for years and it needed to be done.
K. Smith agreed, but questioned where the [cost] line was to be drawn.
J. Johnston suggested that if a dryvit person were already called out in the details, it would be cost
efficient to have the needed exterior work accomplished during the Project.
J. Johnston asked if there were any verbiage [in the construction contract] to identify access and staging
of materials and equipment while both the Seismic and the Pool Projects were going on.
G. Hacker noted that coordination definitely will need to take place.
Page 2 of 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc
S. Arndt noted fire access will need to be provided and contractors will need to be aware.
K. Smith to look into the requirements for fire access when school is not in session.
J. Johnston said he did not find waste materials addressed.
K. Smith said he would check that and that it had been issue last time, resulting in 2 addenda.
J. Johnston asked what had been learned in Phase I that could be incorporated into Phase II.
K. Smith said he would take a look at the pre bid addenda; the asbestos and self leveling floor issues had
already been discussed. He noted that the change orders in Phase I included innerduct work, UPS and
painting. He added that it was cost effective to have this work included from the beginning rather than
using change orders.
S. Arndt said when floor covering and baseboard are to be installed that would be the right time to do
painting.
Tuck said that the walls are covered 4' up with material that would have to be stripped and the walls
floated in preparation for painting.
J. Johnston asked if the hallways should be upgraded.
S. Arndt said it would make a positive impact.
Tuck suggested the work be an add alt.
K. Smith suggested adding in painting of metal doorframes and taking a look at the doors -some should
be repaired/painted/replaced.
J. Johnston asked if the general finishing issues could be turned over to the architect.
K. Smith -Yes.
W. Koning questioned if any structural work was going to be done in the east corner by the stairwell
K. Smith said there is another Bond Project in place for exterior concrete work, but his concern was
bringing in another contractor in addition to the all the work that would be going on.
W. Koning suggested putting it in the Project as an additive alt on this contract and using the contractor
who was working on the Project - he noted that the accounting would have to be separate.
Tuck said that could save money -having the same contractor on site and the coordination would be
easier.
K. Smith said asphalt work in the back could be done if it did not interfere with the rest of the work in
progress.
S. Arndt said maybe wait for a winter bid and do concrete and asphalt in the spring.
Page 3 of 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc
K. Smith said some of the areas need to be done -there is a safety issue. He asked if there was a need to
delineate between asphalt and sidewalk asphalt.
Tuck indicated that it was the concrete around the entryway that was of immediate concern.
K. Smith suggested patching temporarily and then doing the concrete/asphalt work the following year.
B. Watkins said he thought that would be a clean solution.
G. Hacker referred to sheet A001 - telecon plan and UPS -already done in Phase I. He said there should
be a new sheet E202 and M001 needs to have the cooling system to the IT room lined out -done in Phase
I. Section 15781 in specs -rooftop AC can be removed and section 16611 -UPS was done in Phase I.
Above information will be passed to the architect and ARB will meet again for 100% on KMS Seismic
Upgrade Phase II.
F. Review Peterson Seismic Upgrade
K. Smith reported the HMGP Grant Application for $540K was in the approval process and thus far
looked positive. He said the preliminary estimates [for the Peterson Seismic Upgrade] indicate fitting into
a $540K budget.
S. Arndt asked J. Johnston his opinion on pulling back the EPDM and reusing flashing.
J. Johnston said if the flashing is reusable it is a way to help the budget.
G. Hacker said there will be pavers that will be lost.
J. Johnston suggested taking a look at the roof, pavers and LGs -and, depending on what is found, adding
verbiage in the specs to replace, say 50% of pavers and LGs. He added, in reference to rolling back 14' of
the roof membrane and then adding plywood - if that was being done to block, maybe it would be better
to roll back less and do the blocking from below.
G. Hacker and J. Johnston to look at the roof, weather permitting.
J. Johnston questioned a detail on 5200 -does the detail "A" apply to all the shear walls?
K. Smith said that "A", which addresses hold downs, is typical throughout.
Tuck noted on the EFIS there was a hard coat below and soft coat up above -any finish work done would
need to be matched.
K. Smith will check on it.
W. Koning questioned the condition of the finishes.
Tuck said they had been done in the 90s and were not too bad. He noted the floor finishes were in terrible
condition.
G. Hacker added the floors present trip hazards.
Page 4 of 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc
G. Ouzinkie Gym Renovation and Seismic Upgrade
K. Smith reported that for the seismic work there will be bracing in the crawlspace and some new
perimeter shearwalls - see A 200. He noted that a revised set of drawings was expected in the coming
week.
Tuck -see site plan A003 - he noted on the far left side it shows a convex trailer and aboiler -the boiler
is in the convex -the square [shown on the sheet] is the fuel tank and needs to be moved.
Tuck to verify size of fuel tank and whether or not it is on skids.
Tuck noted there are existing fuel tanks shown on other sheets -those tanks belong to the City.
S. Arndt said removal of those [City's] tanks from the site needs to be looked into.
Tuck said the 20' convex will need to be demoed and disposed of.
S. Arndt said the boiler room needs to be at ground level and there should be no interior access. He
questioned the intent for the generator.
K. Smith told the Board the Project now required sprinklers, fire suppression equipment, etc. and a 150kw
generator is recommended. That size is sufficient to run the fire pump and meet the needs of the school.
The KIB has 2 150kw generators. In 2002 the generators were removed from the hospital and the
Borough has stored them. At that time, Bud [Cassidy] had them checked out and they were in good
condition. K. Smith suggested spending money to have the units inspected and use them for Ouzinkie.
S. Arndt questioned the location of the existing generator -the other end of the building [from the boiler].
W. Koning and Tuck agreed that the boiler and generator should be consolidated in one area. W. Koning
also reminded that the recycled generator will need a new house.
S. Arndt said that this needs to be spelled out in the drawings and also a concrete pad will need to be
designed for the tank.
Discussion followed regarding poor siding, rotten studs and sheeting, windows that do not close and
drainage problems. These issues to be addressed by architect. Note the "French drain" called for was
seen as a "weak" solution.
W. Koning asked if test holes were going to be done.
B. Watkins referred to A003 -there are 4 test pits across the back.
S. Arndt asked if a new water line was to be put in.
Tuck said there would be a new water line because of the now required sprinkler system.
G. Hacker noted that a new water tank would not fit in the mechanical room.
K. Smith said that when these drawings were done, it was not known there would be a need for a new
water tank. This will be shown on the next set of drawings.
Page 5 of 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc
S. Arndt indicated he would like to tie the school into the new water line.
K. Smith will check on the abandonment of old water line.
Tuck referred to 402-403 - C-fold paper towel dispensers need to be eliminated -the SD stocks only the
universal standard roll. On A500 need to delete the picture of the dispensers and the hand dryers.
J. Johnston questioned if fixtures were going to be reused.
K. Smith will check that.
Gl Review of Library Wing Project
K. Smith said he had not reviewed the drawings, but wanted the Board to have them when he received
them.
S. Arndt said the Board would acknowledge receipt of the drawings and put review of them on the agenda
for the next meeting.
G2 Update on CHC and Pool
K. Smith reported that cost saving suggestions had been received from Jay-Brant and Brechan
Enterprises. The architects and KIB staff will review and identify which ones to consider. Anew scope
will go out to the two bidders. Bids expected on February 28.
On the Pool, K. Smith said a contract with Janssen Contracting Company, Inc. was being finalized. He
noted the protest put forth by McGraw Construction had been denied.
H. Election of Officers
G. Hacker moved and J. Johnston seconded a Motion to retain S. Arndt as Chair and J. Johnston as Vice
Chair. There were no further nominations. There was a unanimous affirmative roll call vote.
I. Discussion of Role of the ARB
It was with the concurrence of the Board this Agenda item be postponed.
J. Public comments
None.
K. Board Comments
J. Johnston. Although the Discussion of the Roll of the ARB had been postponed, he presented questions
for thought.
Should the ARB revise the process by which architects are reviewed for a project?
What size project should the ARB review?
Should Board have a check list after each review?
Should ARB make its reports to staff instead of the Assembly?
Page6of7
\\dove\Departments\EF\?.rchitectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc
Should ARB conclude its review at 95% and turn process over to KIB staff to complete?
K. Smith told the Board that getting specs at 65% was proving difficult. [Note: In response to the
Board's request to see specs earlier] T. Yorba indicated his subcontractors did not typically provide them
at 65%.
W. Koning noted that even if there was resistance, it was a good concept and perhaps an issue that could
be negotiated with an architect during the RFP process.
W. Koning, in response to one of J. Johnston's questions dealing with the roll of the ARB, indicated that
he [KIB staff) did not want to be the filter between the ARB and the Assembly.
There were no further Board comments.
L. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the meeting, a motion was made by J. Johnston and
seconded by B. Watkins to adjourn and there was a unanimous affirmative voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 pm.
Respe 1 y submitted:
Sharon Lea Adino i, Project Assistant
KIB Engineering/Facilities Department
Sc o!/ ~~~
Scott Arndt, Chair
ArchitecturaUEngineering Review Board
Date•
Date: / - 3/ - .Z D d 8'
Page 7 of 7
\\dove\Departments\EF\Architectural Review Board\ARB Minutes 2008\080108 Minutes.doc