Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-20; City Council; 18601; Library Learning Center13 Ul 1 T \Jr L/AMILODMU - MUCHLSM DILL. ^Ib^ ^ AB# 18,601 MTG. 6/13/06 DEPT. ENG TITLE: CITY LIBRARY LEARNING CENTER, t-ROJECT NOS. 3771 AND 4001 , AWARD OF CONTRACT AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS, OR SELECT ANOTHER OPTION AND DECLARE HOUSE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY DEPT. HB.rjZ^r CITY ATTY./^— CITY MGR. QlA-^ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2006-154 accepting bids and awarding a contract for the City Library Learning Center, Project Nos. 3771 and 4001, and appropriation of funds, or direct staff to pursue another option, and adopt Resolution No. 2006-155 authorizing existing house at 3368 Eureka Place to be declared surplus property. ITEM EXPLANATION: On December 10, 2003, in agenda bill 17,362, the City Council approved the concept of constructing a "Learning Center" of about 12,000 square feet with an estimated cost of $3.5 million. The Learning Center would include Centro de Informacion, and the Adult Learning Program at one location. The Learning Center services would include tutoring rooms, a homework center and family literacy, computers, meeting rooms, general library services and bilingual resources. On April 27, 2004, in agenda bill 17,608, the City Council approved the acquisition of the Girls Club property located at 3368 Eureka Place, as the permanent location for the Learning Center. Through an agreement dated September 23, 2004, the architect began work on modifying the Girls Club main building and installation of up to 4 modular buildings on the site for the Learning Center, plus preparing a rendering for a two-story vision. On April 19, 2005, in agenda bill 18,077, the City Council approved the purchase of modular buildings with the intent of relocating the Head Start Program from the main Girls Club building into the modular buildings. At the same time, it was decided to proceed with the second-story addition to the main building for the use by Centro de Informacion, and the Adult Learning Program and an amendment to the architect's agreement was approved on September 6, 2005, by agenda bill 18,259. The Library Learning Center plans and specifications were completed in January 2006 and included the following improvements: • Provide additional parking space by demolishing an existing house on the site. • Remove existing site improvements and construct an expanded onsite parking lot with sidewalks, landscaping, fencing, and playground area. • Add a second story to an existing "main building" to provide another 5,403 square feet of floor space, resulting in a total "main building" area of 1 1 ,393 square feet. • Install a new 4,800 square foot modular building to be placed on the site east of the "main building", and used initially by Head Start. • Provide for furniture, fixtures, and information technology equipment. On February 7, 2006, through Resolution No. 2006-032, the City Council authorized the City Clerk to advertise to receive bids for construction of the City Library Learning Center. On March 29, 2006, the Engineering Department received five (5) sealed bids as follows: CONTRACTOR NAME 1 . Telacu Construction Management 2. Erickson-Hall Construction Company 3. Solpac, Inc., dba Soltek Pacific 4. The Augustine Company 5. Marcotte & Hearne Builders, Inc. CITY/STATE Santa Ana, CA Escondido, CA San Diego, CA Spring Valley, CA San Diego, CA TOTAL BID $4,015,000 $4,368,000 $4,398,000 $4,583,153 $4,765,000 Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $2,188,000, which was prepared by Precon West under contract by the architect for the Library Learning Center. The estimated cost for HVAC and plumbing was prepared by Teza Design and provided to Precon West. All bids submitted exceed the Engineer's Estimate for this project. To determine the reasons for the increase in cost above the Engineer's Estimate, staff reviewed all subcontractor bids submitted for each division of work as defined by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI). CSI separates the work into 16 Divisions, which includes Grading, Concrete, Rough Carpentry, Roofing, Plumbing, etc. The Engineer's Estimate was similarly divided into the CSI divisions which enabled the comparison of bids. Staff also briefly discussed bids with subcontractors to better understand what they considered. In general, the Engineer's Estimate was prepared by first estimating the quantities of materials applicable to each CSI division of the work effort. The estimated quantities were then multiplied by a unit price applicable to that work effort. The Estimator used unit prices based on constructing a "conventional building". However, the Library Learning Center was designed using higher-grade materials that have significantly higher unit prices. The building's design provided for increased sound attenuation of floors and walls, increased fire protection, low maintenance exterior sunshade, roofing, windows, walls, and high-efficiency HVAC equipment and lighting. Other features included upgraded plumbing fixtures, decking, flooring, counter top surfaces, etc. The wood framing required fire retardant studs. Some materials specified for the project were single source which limited the competition from product suppliers. In summary, the higher-grade materials, thicker walls, upgraded floors and ceilings, use of sole source materials, and high-efficiency equipment resulted in higher unit prices which were not taken into consideration in the Engineer's Estimate. There are two main reasons for the unit price information not being accounted for. First, the estimator indicated that he had the plans, but the architect did not provide specifications for the materials included in the building and exterior improvements; and therefore, he did not consider the cost for upgraded materials above that required for a "conventional building". Also, the HVAC and plumbing unit price information provided to him by Teza Design was too low. Second, the architect and his estimator both indicate that subcontractors are dominating the market. The architect indicated there is insufficient competition and stated: "There is high demand for subcontractor services as evidenced by the large number of public agency building projects bidding at this time. In essence there is so much work and not enough skilled labor to increase competition between subcontractors." A comparison of the bids submitted, and discussion with subcontractors indicates that requesting new construction bids will not result in a lower construction cost for the project as designed because inflation is still occurring for fuel, materials, and labor. The Engineering News Record on March 20, 2006, provided the following comments: • "...nation wide forecasts escalation in 2006 to be between 8 and 10%." • "Costs are running "absolutely" higher in California and Florida than the rest of the country. Expect construction costs to increase at least 15% this year in California." • 'The volume of construction activity, cost pressure on materials and the availability of skilled labor are the primary elements driving cost escalation." Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. PROJECT OPTIONS Based on the bid results, the project cost now exceeds the project appropriation. As a result, staff developed three options for the City Council's consideration. Following is a discussion of each option. The benefits and concerns of each option are listed in Attachment "A". Option 1 - Award contract to apparent low bidder. The construction of the City Library Learning Center Project would be awarded to the apparent lowest responsive bidder, Telacu Construction Management, in the amount of $4,015,000. Staff has reviewed all the bids and has found them to be in order. It is recommended that the additional appropriation required be obtained from Community Facilities District No. 1 (CFD#1); however, this will reduce the available funding for the Cole Library remodel or Council could increase tax rate. Option 2 - Reject all bids, and value engineer the project. Value Engineering is a systematic decision-making process to reduce construction costs without losing building program functionality. It generates alternatives to ensure essential program functions at the greatest worth at lesser costs. This approach is applied in a team setting with the architect. It uses the plans and specifications, and requires a revised product be generated as a result of the study. A preliminary list of possible changes was developed by staff and these are listed in Attachment B. The changes could range from allowing different materials for counter tops to eliminating walls and rooms. Staff estimates possible reduction in construction costs ranging from $250,000 up to $1,000,000 depending on the scope of the changes determined to be eliminated. This process must be performed expeditiously because inflation is expected to continue until new bids are received. Using Option 2 still results in a Project cost exceeding the current appropriation. Funds for any increase to the appropriation would be obtained from CFD#1. Staff may develop Option 2 under a two phase approach. In the first phase, the project plans would be immediately revised, in-house, to only perform grading work, construct additional parking, and install the modular buildings, and then construction performed for that work only. Concurrent with the first phase work, the main building value engineering and design work would be completed, and then the main building would be advertised to receive bids. Construction of the main building would begin upon completion of the first phase work. The phasing approach allows for installation of the modular buildings which increases useable floor space at this site, spends the appropriated CDBG funds, and enables the relocation of Head Start to the modular building this year. Option 3 - Reject all bids, and redesign project without a second story addition. This approach assumes no second story addition to the main building; however, the 4,800 square foot modular building would be installed along with grading work, additional parking, landscaping, and site improvements. The main building exterior would not change. To maintain the approximate 12,000 square feet of floor space, the main building floor plan would be modified to accommodate Centra de Information only. The Adult Learning Program activities would be located into the modular building. Head Start would need to locate to another site once their lease expired in June 2008. The revenue from the Head Start lease, approximately $7,300 per month, would no longer be received. Project cost would be within the current appropriation. The phasing approach described in Option 2 may also be applied under Option 3 in order to install the modular buildings this year. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: On April 20, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration and CUP No. 04-12 for the project by Resolution Nos. 5893 and 5894, respectively. 3 Page 4 of Agenda Bill No. FISCAL IMPACT: If Option 1 is selected, a construction contract for the City Library Learning Center project would be awarded in the amount of $4,015,000. Separate agreements remain to be approved with San Diego Gas & Electric, SBC, and Adelphia for utility installations. Based on the current bid proposal, an additional appropriation is necessary to complete this project as shown in the table below. CITY LIBRARY LEARNING CENTER PROJECT COST AND FUNDING - OPTION 1 Purchase Cost of Property from Carlsbad Girls GI!i$ Total Cost of Design, Administration, and Environmental Purchase and Install Modular Building (Williams Scotsman, Inc): 1. Bid Cost for Construction of Improvements to Main Building, Demolition Work and Site Improvements (Telacu Construction Management) 2. Estimated Cost for Information Technology Infrastructure and Peripherals (Information Technology Department) 3. Estimated Cost for Furniture (Office Pavilion 3/23/2006) 4. Head Start Playground Relocation Expense (Zasueta Contracting, Inc.) 5. Budget for SDG&E Installation of 3-Phase Power 6. Budget for SBC Telephone Installation 7. Budget for Adelphia Cable Television Installation 8. Construction, Inspection, and Administration 9. Construction Contingencies Total Cost to Construct Main Building, Site improvements and FF&E: TOTAL PROJECT COST General Capital Construction (GCC) funding Community Facilities District No. 1 (CFD#1) funding Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR THIS PROJECT TOTAL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $278,000 $304,000 $475,000 $4,015,000 255,000 162,000 15,000 65,000 6,000 5,000 280,000 280,000 $5,083,000 $6,140,000 $600,000 2,941,837 1,048,163 $4,590,000 $1,550,000 The amount shown in the table above for CDBG funding reflects the allocation of an additional $90,000 approved by the City Council on March 28, 2006, under Resolution No. 2006-068, which will be appropriated in the 2006-2007 budget year. The potential project cost and appropriation required for Options 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in the following table. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST AND APPROPRIATION FOR OPTIONS 1,2, AND 3 OPTION 1 2 3 PROJECT COST $6,140,000 $5,200,000 to $5,900,000 $3,000,000 CURRENT APPROPRIATION $4,590,000 $4,590,000 $4,590,000 i ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $1,550,000 $610,000 to $1,310,000 -0- If the City Council desires to explore options 2 or 3 as to the construction of the improvements described in this agenda bill, staff will initiate an amendment process with the architect based upon the City Council's direction. Any changes to the project for Option 3 which would not affect the footprint of the proposed buildings (modular or existing structure) or exceed a 10% change would not require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment. Should more substantial changes be made to the project, it might be necessary to process a CUP Amendment. The Planning Commission would be the deciding body for a CUP Amendment. The attached Resolution for award of contract is applicable to Option 1 only. If Council selects Option 2 or 3, the action is to reject all bids and staff will return at a later date with more information. Page 5 of Agenda Bill No. DECLARATION OF HOUSE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY: The existing house on the property was included in the bid to be demolished. However, staff recommends that the house be declared as "Surplus Property" and disposed of as provided in Chapter 3.29 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This would allow the purchasing officer to submit the house in the open market for public auction with the understanding that the house would need to be moved within 45 days from its foundation to another location, at no cost to the City, and the purchaser assumes all responsibility for the materials that compose the house. If no bids are received, then the house will be demolished. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map. 2. Attachment A- Benefits and Concerns of Project Options. 3. Attachment B - List of Possible Project Revisions from Preliminary Value Engineering. 4. Attachment C - Library Learning Center Site Plan 5. Attachment D - Library learning Center Elevation View for Option 1 & 2 6. Resolution No. 2006-154 accepting bids and awarding a contract for the City Library Learning Center, Project Nos. 3771 and 4001, and appropriation of funds, or direct staff to pursue another option, and declare house as surplus property. 7. Resolution No. 2006-155 authorizing existing house at 3368 Eureka Place to be declared surplus property. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: William Plummer, (760) 602-2768, bplum@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. LOCATION MAP S/7E NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NAME LIBRARY LEARNING CENTER 3368 EUREKA PLACE PROJECT W 4001 EXHIBIT 1 DRAWN BY: SCOTT EVANS. CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPT. 1/18/06 C:\CAPITAL\3771-4001.DWG ATTACHMENT "A" - BENEFITS AND CONCERNS OF PROJECT OPTIONS OPTION 1 - AWARD CONTRACT TO APPARENT LOW BIDDER Benefits: • Project Cost is known because bids have been received. • Project starts construction in July 2006 and is available for move-in by approximately December 2007. • Modular building is installed this year and CDBG funds are used. • All design aspects are incorporated including tutoring rooms, meeting rooms, high efficiency HVAC, upgraded windows, flooring, and lower maintenance materials for roofing, decks, sunshade, etc. • Head Start can be accommodated in the modular building and continued revenue is received from Head Start (or future tenants). • Project identity is maintained enabling the Carlsbad Library and Arts Foundation to continue current fundraising plan. • Growth management requirements are met over a longer period of time providing additional time to pursue outside fund raising to reimburse CFD# 1. Concerns: • Project cost requires appropriation increase of $1,550,000 • Appropriation increase will be provided from CFD#1, but this will reduce the available funding for the remaining projects from this financing program. OPTION 2 - REJECT ALL BIDS. AND VALUE ENGINEER THE PROJECT Benefits: • Potential to reduce project cost in a range from $250,000 up to $1,000,000. • Maintains basic functions and space requirements for Adult Learning Center and Centra de Informacion. • Head Start can be accommodated in the modular building and lease revenue is maintained for the City. • Project identity is maintained, enabling the Carlsbad Library and Arts Foundation to continue current fundraising plan. • With City Council approval, the project could be phased by receiving bids now to grade the site, and expand the parking area, which would allow for installation of the 4,800 SF modular ouilding this year. Concerns: • Project cost is unknown until new bids are received based on value engineering revisions. • Project cost results in a need to increase project appropriation in a range from $610,000 to $1,310,000. • Material substitutions are required, and some materials and features could be eliminated including tutoring and meeting rooms, a small kitchen, and using lower efficiency HVAC and lighting systems. • Value engineering must be completed expeditiously to achieve maximum project cost savings and avoid further inflation. • Additional cost for architect and other professionals to assist in value engineering the project and revise plans and specifications, approximately $60,000. • Funding for appropriation increase will be from CFD#1, and this will reduce the available funding for other remaining projects in the financing program. • Project completion is extended resulting in continuing lease costs for the Adult Learning Program and Centre modular. OPTION 3 - REJECT ALL BIDS. REDESIGN PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND STORY ADDITION Benefits: • Project cost is within current appropriation. • Adult Learning Program can move into modular building with additional space, eliminating their current lease expense of $27,360 ($2,280 per month). Centra de Informacion would move into remodeled main building with additional space. • Additional impacts to CFD #1 program is eliminated. Concerns: • Head Start lease would be terminated after June 2008 and corresponding loss of revenue, minimum$7,300/month. • Project completion is extended resulting in continuing lease costs for the Adult Learning Program and Centra modular. Potential need to process new Conditional Use Permit and associated time delay. Re-design of interior of main building will delay occupancy by Centra de Informacion. Application and issuance of a new building permit may be required. CDBG funds may not be expended before deadline. Additional cost to prepare plans and specifications for remodel work of $35,000. CLAF fundraising plan would be impacted by project scope change, requiring revision of completedwork and potential additional fundraising costs. 7 ATTACHMENT "B" - POTENTIAL PROJECT REVISIONS FROM PRELIMINARY VALUE ENGINEERING ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 DESCRIPTION Eliminate design for "one-hour" fire rating construction, and fire retardant wood studs Change Detail 22 A13.1 - exterior wall construction to standard drywall stucco assembly Review exterior wall framing systems to possibly revise 2x6 framing to 2x4 Revise Drywall design from 3-layer thickness to 1 - layer Delete the existing north kitchen; leave small sink and countertop. Delete all other casework. Modify small north restroom only to ADA compliance instead of all new fixtures, flooring, tile Delete bifold partition system or consider lower cost system Delete the 1/z high exterior planters all around, convert to grade level planters in east elevation Change tropical hardwood handrails to aluminum Change glass and plexi-glass guardrails to less expensive system Interior stairway - modify to more conventional (straight 90 degree angles) Change exterior entries from tile to scored concrete Delete all exterior decks except for exterior exit balconies - convert deck to roof material Delete unneeded doors to former balconies, doors 220, 21 1 , 212 to be single door to exterior Delete classrooms 205 and 206 and combine into one Add small sink and Formica topped casework in large meeting room 205 Delete Room 21 1 door - provide second exit to new room 206 hallway Delete gypsum ceiling soffits throughout except in central hallways and 1SI floor circle ceilings Delete all framed and drywall ceilings on second floor, use standard suspended ceiling Delete metal sunshade or allow standard painted steel Delete "homosote" sound attenuation second floor Change windows to less expensive standard commercial dual glazed system - tint for heat gain Inside doors - delete glass sliders to tutoring rooms and substitute standard doors with full lights Delete sidelights in tutoring rooms - frame and drywall finish Replace all linear air diffusers with standard 2X2 Review floor load requirements to reduce beam and column size Eliminate fire damper based on elimination of 1-hour rating Review number of zone controls for HVAC - minimize zones Rather than Carrier 48PG with VVT control HVAC system, allow 48HJ or ABS DWV Delete skateboard rack, temporary project sign, and Head Start monument sign Delete skeleton clock on exterior wall west side Reduce tile height in bathrooms from full height to Vz height Eliminate reinforced concrete retaining wall and substitute gravity wall Eliminate Public Address System use telephone intercom Revise demolition of foundation for under slab pipelines Review requirement for 3-phase power Delete concrete tiles on exterior decks and use "dexotex" or similar Standardize lighting fixtures and sizes, eliminate sole source supplier requirement Eliminate sole source material requirements and list optional materials Provide for a substitute material on the casement countertops "J-form" material expensive provide for an option in the specifications Delay public art requirement Consider declaring house as excess material to obtain no cost removal performed by others Reuse "Centre's" shelving in place of new shelving Delete ceiling projector and projector screens, smart boards, and miscellaneous equipment, Delete tackable wall board Revise landscaping to minimal, delete relocation of existing palm trees Allow options for lower cost plumbing fixtures Delete study rooms on first floor , i ' i ' v it -s r' L-I r i Attachment C - Library Learning Center Site Plan New Modular EUREKA PLACE51^ 3 !„ ,x ! «/• •» o »l 5,^' 1H kfvC /" — — — fu v., flh / j a \ i — - 1 °$ \ ' • • i i T * i 1 ^> Add ^nd i ': i :v/:,.; ./Mm A i ^ UlStory T "' 1 .L *: i ;to i Main i : ' Ji BMg. 1 i J^;^^i^ ?' [ D j ^^/W/^fa; \ 1 ' - I 'yy/S'^ffl/////^'/^ .yjf ":t ;j!«/ t < < _ '/S/S/////d//S///SA ^^ •i ...'. ..~ . ^ 1 NO WUI« THIS SIDt SW f tMCE UNt f«, Mr j • X X X F *\ X * f " x""..* ""«' — y Y K— —* ^^izr. Nt W ^AiNfC V (D FUTURE MODULAR BUILDING . PRZPAftf fOU»«3AT lOK •taWJNKJB^I^VAi j 1 © j ll 11 •i 21 «j "'""' > t 1 i t I b d 3 *j \ ^j^"^:~"i .-Remove existing rt • - } f - — *- • — J vW .^---'^ ° «i 1 tXtSllNO BUfi.QiNG-'f __ ': t t TO SC PtrvOVEO l-l/~k11CO .[ 1 I J1UUISC .', ; \i , „ ( p_ — -~ — — ^ ^ ^ ^ y | ,;^_ l} •®- IZT^ "*® "" ^M^" ! ^ Wm-%TTFff-^Vf^;'^»'<^^^ * " |1T **''•" '•^»*"x i Attachment D - Library Learning Center Elevation View for Option 1 & 2 Marilyn Strong - Learning Center From: "Jim Comstock" <Jim@comstockandassociates.com> To: <mstro@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/13/2006 12:04 PM Subject: Learning Center CC: "Heather Pizzuto" <Hpizz@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Page 1 of 1 ACTNnA rrwMta / / c: Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Mayor Lewis and Council Members: AB # 18,601 dealing with the Carlsbad Library Learning Center is before you tonight. The Carlsbad Library & Arts Foundation has a long history with this project including our commitment to a capital campaign to raise $1.5 million dollars. The Foundation has prepared for this campaign based upon a built-out project and the board has spent many hours and dollars on this campaign. The agenda bill provides for 3 alternatives: 1. Award contract to apparent low bidder 2. Reject all bids and value engineer the project 3. Reject all bids and redesign project without a second story addition The foundation strongly supports option 1. The foundation believes potential donors will be more inclined to support the vision of the completed project in accordance with Option 1. The opportunity to make this Learning Center a reality is achievable. Knowing that Council faces difficult decisions, we would support you in your ultimate decision. I am available at 518-7061 should you wish to discuss. Unfortunately, I cannot make this evening's council meeting, however, Gina McBride, Board Secretary, will be in attendance and will speak on behalf of the foundation. Jim Comstock, President The Carlsbad Library & Arts Foundation file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mstro\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 06/13/2006 Page 1 of 1 Lisa Hildabrand - Contact with Council members From: Heather Pizzuto To: Lisa Hildabrand; Ray Patchett Date: 06/20/2006 10:01 AM Subject: Contact with Council members CC: Bill Plummer; Pam Pretz ALL RECEIVE For Information ofCity Council CA /x^ CM \S CC Date l^ \^tn\G\a Asst. City Followup: I spoke with Councilwoman Kulchin and she wanted to confirm which options allow for potential cost savings through a change in materials. We spoke about this being possible with options 2 and 3 which would also require rebidding the project. Good morning: In the break between Council briefings yesterday, Councilman Packard posed some additional questions to Bill and me related to the Learning Center. He wished to discuss Option 3 more completely, including the possible alternative of doing an addition to the existing single story building at the back instead of placing a modular facility there. Bill agreed to research the potential for this alternative and the general nature of any cost savings so that he could answer this question if asked at tonight's Council meeting. Councilman Packard also had additional questions for me on which option would best serve the Library. I described my thinking on the pros and cons of each option, and why each presents challenges. I also have a voicemail from Councilwoman Kulchin requesting additional information this morning. Her phone has been busy, so I don't yet know the nature of the questions but will provide you a summary after I've spoken with her. Heather Pizzuto Library Director Carlsbad City Library (760) 602-2056 JUN 2 0 2006 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE file://C:\Documents and Settings\LHild\LocaI Settings\Temp\GW)00003.HTM 06/20/2006 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-154 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY LIBRARY LEARNING CENTER. PROJECT NOS. 3771 AND 4001. WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, through Resolution No. 2006-032, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approved plans and specifications for the construction of the Carlsbad City Library Learning Center, Project Nos. 3771 and 4001; and WHEREAS, five (5) sealed bids were received on March 29, 2006 by the City of Carlsbad for the construction of said project; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsive and responsible bid to construct said project was submitted by Telacu Construction Management in the amount of $4,015,000; and WHEREAS, there are insufficient funds available to complete the project; and WHEREAS, subsection 3.28.040(C)(6) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code authorizes the City Manager to approve change orders in the amount equal to the contingency set at the time of award; and WHEREAS, additional funds in the amount of $1,550,000 are needed to complete the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.i y 2. That the low bid of $4,015,000 submitted by Telacu Construction Management, for the construction of the Carlsbad City Library Learning Center, Project Nos. 3771 and 4001, is 21 accepted and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a contract with Telacu Construction 22 Management for Project Nos. 3771 and 4001. 23 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to approve construction change orders 24 25 26 27 28 up to $280,000. Ill III III III 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. That the award of this contract is contingent upon Telacu Construction Management executing the required contract and submitting the required bonds and insurance policies, as described in the contract, within twenty (20) days of adoption of this resolution with the understanding that the City Manager may grant reasonable extensions of time. 5. That an additional $1,550,000 shall be appropriated from the Community Facility District No. 1 fund to Project No. 4001. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 20th day of June , 2006 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None M. WOOD, City Clerk ".(SEAL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXISTING HOUSE AT 3368 EUREKA PLACE TO BE DECLARED SURPLUS PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, has determined that the existing house at 3368 Eureka Place is surplus property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the existing house at 3368 Eureka Place is declared surplus property and may be disposed of as provided in Chapter 3.29 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 20th day of June , 2006 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose NOES: None (SEAL) 1 Library Learning CenterSite Plan EUREKA PLACERemove existing House New ModularAdd 2nd Story to Main Bldg. N Library Learning CenterExisting Main Building Library Learning CenterMain Building with 2nd Story Library Learning CenterEstimated Project Cost $475,000Modular Building Cost $1,550,000Additional Appropriation Required $4,590,000Amount Appropriated $4,015,000Construction $6,140,000Total Project Cost $1,068,000Contingency, Inspection, Furniture $304,000Design / Engineering Cost $278,000Property Purchase Cost Library Learning CenterProject Options ŠOption 1 – Award contract to install modular building and add 2nd story addition to Main Building: $6.1 million ŠOption 2 –Reject bids then install modular building and value engineer 2nd story addition: $5.2 to $5.9 million (Provided cost backup information) ŠOption 3 – Reject bids then install modular building and revise floor plan on existing Main Building: $3.0 million DESIGN STANDARDS ŠMeets City’s needs (no wasted space) ŠAll materials are long lasting approved by City maintenance staff ŠExterior - stucco finish ŠInterior Walls - painted ŠRoof - single ply plastic membrane (to last longer than built up) 2 DESIGN STANDARDS CONTINUED ŠEfficiency: „AC System, Windows, Lighting, Walls „SDG&E (Savings by Design Program) 14% more efficient than standard bldg. „Floor plan is compact & convertible (clear spans allows for other uses DESIGN STANDARDS CONTINUED ŠFunctionality:Reduce Noise (outside & inside), Sun Exposure (double glazed windows, sunshade), appropriate rooms ŠMaintenance:Ease of replacement -Carpet tiles, stock lights. Durability -Countertops (corian like), slate tile, membrane roofing, Long Life ballast to prolong bulbs (not unique) Š50 Year Life Building ISSUES ON GROUNDFLOOR ADDITION ŠDeposit Paid for modular $383,000 (80 %) ŠMust Cancel Order for Modular Building ŠCanceling Modular Involves a payment ŠHead Start Lease would not be renewed ŠMust Redesign and Obtain CUP Amendment Š1-Year Delay Minimum in Project ŠMust spend CDBG Funds ($175,000) by 4/15/07 $150,000New Design Cost $50,000Cancel Modular Building (10%) $1,160,000Additional Appropriation Required $5,750,000Total Project Cost $2,700,000Construction ($2.1 to $2.7 million) $1,200,000Modify Existing Main Building $1,068,000Contingency, Inspection, Furniture $304,000Current Engineering Cost $278,000Property Purchase Cost GROUND FLOOR ADDITION & DELETE MODULAR