HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-06; City Council; 8119-11; Carlsbad Safety and Service Center Budget Review and Alternativesr. OF CARLSBAD — AGENC BILL
ARtf £//?r&//
MTG. 8/6/85
DEPT. ENG
TITLE-1 CARLSBAD SAFETY AND
SERVICE CENTER
BUDGET REVIEW AND ALTERNATIVES
OEPT HD. /lutf—
PITY ATTY\)frS
CITY MGR.ffi!^r
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City Council to review and approve overall budget of $15.2 million including
alternatives for construction of Phase I of the Carlsbad Safety and Service
Center.
fi
M-lO
I
§D
ITEM EXPLANATION;
On June 25, 1985, we presented to you an alteration to the original phase
allocations for the Carlsbad Safety and Service Center (hereinafter referred
to as the project). The presentation included new concepts and ideas
regarding Phases II and III. This Agenda Bill will attempt to clarify the
additional levels of work in Phase I along with their related costs,
reiterate the changes to Phases II and III and finally, summarize the total
plan for the City Council's approval.
After careful analysis by an independent architect and construction manager,
the following figures have been documented, as detailed in Exhibits 1, 2 and
3, for construction of the project.
July 1985
I
Phase I
Phase II
Site preparation
Police/Fire Admin. Bldg.
Vehicle Maint. Bldg.
Support Facilities
Yard Office
Purchasing Warehouse
Maintenance Shops
$ 10.250 mm
$ 3.400 mm*
-HQ
8
LT>00
U3
00
Phase III Headquarters
Fire Station and
Training Facilities
TOTAL
$ 1.550 mm*
$ 15.200 mm**
* Includes 30% contingency and inflation factor
** Total contingency and inflation factor funding of $1.115 million is
included in Phases II and III.
O<
In addition, we have prepared an analysis of the chronological progression of
the cost of the project from its inception to today.
O
OO
g
U
U
UU
N
0)e
n
uu.<tn
O
03
Qi
U
IACO
CO
•o
3
CO
T3(D
8-
CO
•H
9•Hf-ia
coco
0_
1—zUlceQZ
C_)
1—
O«=ccc1—zaCJ
Ul
z
as:REMARKSUl
z
1— 1rr*
^£
•>
h-
UlCJQ
CD
1 —
UlC3OIDCD
1—1 IUJ
1PQ )an expected. Dueinished grading forall on-site roads,ilities and roadsexisting sources orJZ d- 4->i * •« "5 O4-> ~O _J O
CD C 4->x. 4-> co en
O CO C CD
O fH i-l -H 4->f-< Q.i-1 TJ -Hg DMCD 0 TJ i— 1h 0 C CJ cnQ CO C CE cn -H -H
C 1— 1 4J
O -i-l O CJ •4-> O CD 4-> CO COTJ CO C TDCD CO CD C COU 0 JC D 0 0
O 4-> 0. O CJ (->
aCD0
IA"
CM
^0*«•
0CDO•t
lA
CM
'''i.r^"
*»
aoCD
•t
OOf^
<f>
0oCM
COCM
•k
r—to steel, concrete•s
overrunsu•HCOCO
CD
OOO
ON"
CO
LA
0Oo
ON"
T-00
in"
<«•
0oo•koFACM•s
IA•tfl-
CDoON
in
LA
«k
VO
•CO
u
ectricalrH
CO
•acCO masonry and serviceand fueling)n •
°*i0 E
TD (-1 Q.CD CO -Hfci O D
^0,^CO C CO4J -H(4- -D C
CO 3 O•H -H. CJ 4J
^ C CO• 1— 1 4J
O — CO
aoo
o
lA
T—
Oo0•kol/^
ON
4»
0O0
oor-»,
^-**
oolA
CDVO
lA
^
T—
CD
CO
O
2
CO
COa.
8-
CD
CO
•H
4->COUl
1
O
1
0oCD
^— -F"*"N
^
«
aCDCD
^~
f*^VO
w>
1
CD
1
CD*
O
2
COCDCLs-
CD4JCO
J ^toUl
ooo
ON
CM
OOCD
•k
VOCMfN.
<*
Ooo
irT
IA
«h
1
O
|
CD
CD
JD
O
2
CO
COCLs-
CO4->
CO
^_)
COUl
o
1
0o0
CDoCM
<*
Ooo
ooCM
<*
1
O
1 ith architect for$
CO
o
•o•oCO
COECO
osh-
o0CD^
CD"CM
V*
0oCD
OON
ON
<»
O
OCD
CD"
Q\
**
i
o
i engineering.fllUJ
4J•H
CO
"E
CO
( \
•Hi— 1•H
4J
*» V*
ooo
CM
•O
Ooo
•VO
ON
Oo
VO
•CM
ON
ce
CJto
o•H
"«
COQ.
CO
Q.
CD
•Hto
O
•H
4->co
(4
co•HC•H
T3
CO
u cn\ cCO -HO "D
•H r—I
i—I -H
O DQ- 03
?
o?
COCJ
CO
CO
COI—Io•H
CO
Ul
**
CJIc•H
CD-CO
CJ
CO•ocCO
— 1
*#
COco•H
1 *COo•HcDEEOCJ
*
co•H
4JCJ13
^
OCJ
•a
4-)oCO
4J•H(—
CJ
*f
**
h
CDcnCOcco
^
CO•H
4J(H
COc a.o -^
•H
4J 4J
CO CO(-1 OCO Oa.co enb c
Q. -HTJCO ^H
4-> -H•H D
CO JD
C C
•D T3CD COT! T3D 3i-H i—tCJ CJ
C C
* *
Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. fjlf f/t
As a fall back position the staff, construction manager, and architect are
considering several possible design and component modifications to insure
that the Phase I budget, as proposed, will not be exceeded. The following
cuts are being prepared for consideration by the Council at a later date, if
needed.
1. Canopies - eliminate from building and provide an alternate treatment.
2. Reduce the furnishings budget by downgrading finishes and purchasing less
furniture or lower grade furniture.
3. Eliminate certain interior features, as designed, such as the reception
desk, the locker bases, the atrium railing, etc.
We have reviewed the proposed Phase I budget again and feel we can do it for
10.250 mm. We have identified $500 - 600 m in possible cuts which are your
option to do during Phase I if the balance of the bids result in any further
budget problems.
FISCAL IMPACT;
None.
EXHIBITS;
1. Detailed Budget Phase I.
2. Estimated Budget Phase II.
3. Estimated Budget Phase III.
EXHIBIT 1
PHASE I THRU JULY 21, 1985
Awarded Contracts $ 4,419,338
RMR & Koll $ 990,000
Masonry (to re-bid) $ 700,000
Bid Pkg. #5 and others $ 2,900,000
Gen. Conditions Contractor $ 75,000
Communications $ 200,000
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $ 631,000
Landscaping $ 326,000
TOTAL $10.241.338
The above figures include the rock costs for site preparation
and minor change orders due to the realignment of Faraday
Avenue. They also include concrete, structural and miscel-
laneous steel, and electrical contracts which exceeded the
construction manager's estimates.
EXHIBIT 2
PHASE II
(ESTIMATE DONE BY KOLL CO.)
Site Development $ 200,704
Purchasing Wareshous (22,800 S.F.) $ 601,620
Yard Office (22,400 S.F.) $ 792,358
Maintenance Shops (16,800 S.F.) $ 266,278
SUBTOTAL $ 1,660,256
General Conditions $ 99,615
Testing & Inspections $ 9,000
Field Surveying $ 11,000
Final Clean-Up $ 7,500
SUBTOTAL $ 1,787,371
Construction Fee $ 71,495
Contingency - Estimating $ 37,177
TOTAL $ 1,896,043
Architect's Fee $ 200,000
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment $ 500,000
$ 2,596,043
305S Contingency $ 778,813
GRAND TOTAL $ 3.374.856
EXHIBIT 3
PHASE III
(PREPARED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH ARCHITECT CONSULTANT)
Site Development
Headquarters Fire Station (10,780 S.F.)
Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment
Construction Fee
SUBTOTAL
Landscaping
Architect ' s Fee
30% Contingency
TOTAL
$ 140,000
$ 900,000
$ 50,000
$ 40,000
$ 1,130,000
$ 60,000
$ 60,000
$ 300,000
$ 1.550.000
OF CARLSBAD - AGENL BILL
AR#
MTG 6/25/85
DEPT. ENG
TITLE- CARLSBAD SAFETY AND
SERVICE CENTER
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND
BUDGET ANALYSIS
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report from staff and the Construction Manager for the
Safety Center project.
O
OO
ITEM EXPLANATION;
Subsequent to the election in the fall of 1983 in which the
Safety Center project was approved for $15.3 million dollars,
the City has undertaken the total improvement of the Safety
Center site and the construction of the buildings specified in
Phase I of the three phases of the project.
The initial breakdown of cost to be incurred was as follows:
Phase I
Millions
$ 9.0
Phase II $ 4.6
Phase III $ 1.6
TOTAL $15.2
Partial Site Improvement/Police and Fire
Building/Vehicle Maintenance Buliding
including car wash and fuel island.
Partial Site Improvement/Yard Office/
Maintenance Shop/ Purchasing Warehouse.
Partial Site Improvement/Fire Station/
Fire Training Facilities
Completed project.
O&
As of April, 1984 contracts were executed for the services of an
architect (Ruhman, McGavin & Ruhman) and a Construction Manager
Plans were developed and specifi-
submitted and approved by early
received and contracts awarded for
1985.
(Koll Construction Company),
cations written which were
spring of 1985. Bids were
site improvement in March of
At the present time the site itself is 15% improved and will
undergo initial concrete and fabrication activities in mid-
summer. A major portion of the bid packages have been initiated
and awarded for the actual construction of the Police/Fire
Administration Building and the Vehicle Maintenance facilities.
What we wish to present to the City Council this evening is an
overview of the project as a whole and an analysis of the budget
based on 1985 information and experience. No additional funding
is required as a result of this report.
7
Page No. 2 of Agenda Bill No.
FISCAL IMPACT;
No change in the project budget of $15,200,000.00.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
None.
EXHIBITS;
1. Comparison of Phase I Budgets - Past and Present
lA
00OS
N
V
C
Q£
U
u
uu
u
Q
CD
V)
Uae
u
oo
03
I
0)O>•a
03
r—
LJaiad
CJ
r—
CJ<a:
r—Za
CJ
LJ
CJzrjo2:)an expected. Dueinished grading forall on-site roads,ilities and roadsexisting sources orr* ti_ | \-p -g 3 o03 C 4->
_¥ 4-> CO OlU 03 C 03
REMARKSO rH rH -H 4-JP Q.IH TJ -H
§3 CO
"O •— 1
t-i O C O O>
SCO C C
D1 -H -H
C rH 4J
O -H O O .
4-> O 03 4-> 03 CO
TD CO C -O03 CO 03 C CO3 O XT 3 O OQ 4-> Q_ Q O f-t
LJ
Z^j
IHcc
^£:>
CD
O
O•t
lA
CM
SO*«•
ooo
LJ
CJ
O
CD
lACMrA
^
Or—
LJ
CD
Q
CO.
oo
•s,
Oo
«#>
O
O
r—
LJ
CJ
OrjCD
CM
*sso
00CM
•>to steel, concrete03
•3
verrunso
o•H
CO
CO
CD
O
O091,
o\
COlf\w
ooo
ON
00
lA
Ooo•>o
CM
lA
«•
O
OOx
p^
LALA*
CO4J
0
ctrical03
rHCD
]2
CO inasonry and serviceand fueling)j~ t
<4- CO 4->0 CO C5 92
TD f4 Q.
03 CO -H(4 CJ 3
KCP^
03 C 03
4-1 -H<«- -o c
CO 3 OrH -H
• O 4-1:* c co
« rH 4-)
O -~- CO
Oo0•vo
IA
^».
^
Ooo
CD*
lAON
^
Oo
CD
•kOo
•k
^—*•>
oo
LA•t
GO
IA^
CD
03JO
O4-1
2
CO
03a.
8-
(D1 ^
CO
•H
CO
LJ
1
a
i
ooa
^T
fs.SO
«•
O
Oo.t
r-
fA
SO
•ee-
i
o
|
C3
03JD
O
2
CD
03Q.
03
4->
CO
£*H
CO
LJ
O
O
O
9^
ON
CMif*
O
Oo
scT
CM
W
Ooo
*tLA
lf\
*•>
1
O
1
C3
4?
O4J
2CO
8.
8-
03
4-1COE•H
CO
LJ
1
O
1
Ooo
crToCM
<*
oo0
CD
O
CM
*»
1
O
1 ith architect for3;
CO
o1
1
CO
ECO
o
1 —
ooo
ft
Q
CM
*r>
Ooo
o
ON
<*
ooo
cTr-
<*
i
o
1 engineering.03
4->•HCO
CO
$•H
4->•H
rH•H
3
EXHIBIT 1
Ooo
LASO00««•
Ooo
CM
•O
OO
•fa*>
ooso•>
CM
o
0)COOQLO
(4CL
(0
§
•H
(4a
a.
Co
COf-i
o
CJenLJQ
co•H
4->CO
COCL
03
(40_
03
to
c
•H•o
03U
CO
03
03 -H
U. cn
\ C 0303 -H rH
O T> O
•H rH -H
O 3
Q- CD
LJ
O1
CO
o•H
4->
CO
U
03
CLCO -H
U CCO 3
•E 1CO O
-I CJ
o
o
C4
4-1
CO
oC_3
CJ03 P4-> 03
•H CT.C COCJ C
(4 CO
*
(4
CO
C 0.
O ^•H
JJ -P
CO COf-> OCO CJa.ID enu c
CL-H•o
03 r-l
4J -H
•H 3co .a
c c
TJ T303 03•O T33 3•H iHO CJC C
C