The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988 02-26 CC ADJ MINBook 69/Page 123 J1 held 2/26/88 2(I MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY III, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA HELD FEBRUARY 26, 1988 The adjourned (workshop) meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Waters at 3:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room of the Civic Center. ROLL CALL Council members present: Cooper, Dalla, Pruitt, VanDeventer, Waters. Administrative officials present: Bolint, Caloza, Campbell, Eiser, McCabe. Others present: Staff: Tom Deese, Terry Hart, NCPD; Randy Kimble, NCFD; Arnold Peterson, CDC; Jim Ruiz, Park/Rec; Richard Schulman, Personnel; Jerry Stafford, Engr; Curtis Williams, Pub Wks. Public & Press: Warren Neilsen, Walter Popelar and others. Carol Casteneda, San Diego Union; George McCrory, Star —News; Laura Preble, Evening Tribune. Mayor Waters announced the meeting was for the purpose of reviewing the DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE POLICE FACILITY. He would ask that Council hear first from City Staff, then from the Starboard Corporation, the public and, finally, the City Council. The Mayor turned the meeting over to City Manager McCabe CITY STAFF City Manager McCabe spoke briefly on the project to date, saying Council met in workshop session ten days ago on alternative methods of financing the police facility; today's meeting was on alternative methods of development. Mr. McCabe said there were two alternatives for consideration: the first, construction management or turnkey approach and the other was the more traditional contracting approach. Mr. McCabe said both staff and the Capital Improvement Committee recommended the turnkey approach as the project costs are determined in advance; whereas, in the traditional approach, the cost estimates are determined following completion of appraisal and construction documents; final costs upon receipt of bids or completion of property acquisition. The City Manager turned the meeting over to Assistant City Manager Bolint for a more detailed presentation of the two approaches. Assistant City Manager Bolint displayed "PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND", explaining that on 9/15/87 Council from the Starboard Development Corp. re general finance the Police Facility, preferred site west 11/3/87 the bond measure failed; 11/10/87 Council to the City Manager for study of financing and 2/16/88 Council met in Workshop and approved tax concept. (See Exh. "A") approved a proposal obligation bond to of Civic Center; on referred the project development; and on increment financing Mr. Bolint next displayed "THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR 'TURNKEY APPROACH'", explaining that a development company assembles land and builds for the City and then sells or leases the facility to the City; the project budget and development/construction schedule are established and guaranteed in advance. (See Exh. "B") Mr. Bolint followed with a display "LAND ACQUISITION — 'TURNKEY' (ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY)" and said, assuming the developer is able to assemble land without need for eminent domain proceedings, starting 3/1/88 with purchase options, escrow might close 5/23/88 and tenants relocated by 7/22/88. (See Exh. "C") The next chart displayed was "PROJECT DEVELOPMENT — CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR 'TURNKEY' APPROACH — TOTAL ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME: 17 MONTHS". Mr. Bolint explained that if EIR was required, the schedule could be impacted. (See Exh. "D") Book 69/Page 124 held 2/26/88 Mr. Bolint next displayed "THE TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROACH" and said under this approach, the City would coordinate all phases of land acquisition and project development from A/E and appraisal work to bid preparation, issuance and review through project construction and completion. (See Exh. "E") Next Mr. Bolint displayed a chart "LAND ACQUISITION — TRADITIONAL APPROACH (ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY) and said the schedule shown assumes no extraordinary problems and shows possession of the necessary land 10/88, under the illustrative example. (See Exh. "F") Finally, Mr. Bolint displayed "PROJECT DEVELOPMENT — TRADITION CONTRACTING APPROACH — TOTAL ESTIMATED TIME FRAME 22 MONTHS" and explained that the project might be impacted if an EIR was required or if bids came in high or many change orders were necessary. (See Exh. G") STARBOARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Brad Saunders, President, and Ian Gill, Vice President, Starboard Development Corp. were introduced. Mr. Saunders reviewed their Revised Turnkey Proposal (Document No. 302- 03-01 on file in the office of the City Clerk); the revised project total cost is $7,990,395.00,exclusive of finance cost, is an increase of $318,935.00, an increase of less than 4%, made necessary by cost escalations in material and labor since October 1987. Mr. Saunders recommended Variable Rate Weekly Demand Certificates of Participation for financing during the construction period although the City could convert to a fixed rate any time subsequent to completion and delivery of the facility. Mr. Saunders said all other development costs have been held to the level negotiated previously. Mr. Saunders spoke of other projects they have completed and are now engaged in. PUBLIC Warren Nielsen, 2108 Harrison, San Diego, inquired if consideration was given to expanding the present police facility to the east. No one else spoke. CITY COUNCIL Members of the City Council asked questions of Mr. Saunders and Mr. Gill, including but not limited to: Was the thirty day plan check, proposed under turnkey, realistic? (Dir. Bldg. & Safety Reid assured all that it was possible.) Did Starboard have their own appraiser? Would the cost of appraisal be included in the total? (Mr. Gill said their costs would not change even if they had to go to eminent domain; it might affect the time schedule but not the cost.) Would the City have a coordinator on site? What was the cost to the City of a coordinator at Kimball Towers? (Arnold Peterson, Exec. Dir., Community Development Commission answered.) What would the total square footage of the project be? How could the turnkey developer guarantee the cost? What if he ran into problems such as eminent domain proceedings? Etc. The City Council next discussed the Traditional Contracting alternative and asked questions of staff, including but not limited to: prevailing wage rates, Davis Bacon Act, coordinator present during construction of Kimball Tower. Mayor Waters asked the City Attorney to look at the development alternatives very closely. Mayor Waters read into the record a letter from Kile Morgan stating his opposition to development of the police facility without competitive bidding. (See Exh. "H") The City Council discussed the need for staff to study the alternatives further, to determine if the costs are within reason, etc.; and give Council their input. Moved by VanDeventer, seconded by Cooper, this be an agenda item for the City Council on March 15, 1988, possibly a joint meeting with the Community Development Commission (amended motion). Councilman Pruitt said he would also like to have a report from Mr. Peterson. Book 69/Page 125 AillINMES held 2/26/8 ADJOURNMENT Moved by Cooper, seconded by VanDeventer, the meeting be adjourned to 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 1, 1988. Carried by unanimous vote. The meeting closed at 4:35 p.m. Approved at the regular meeting of March 1, 1988 Corrections No Corrections yor ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED. YOU MAY LISTEN TO THE TAPES AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR THE NATIONAL CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY. COPIES OF THE TAPES MAY BE PURCHASED FROM THE CITY CLERK. 4)- "A" Book 69/Page 126 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND Date Action • September 15, 1987 City Council approves proposal from Starboard Development Corporation regarding G.O. Bond revenue -funded approach to Police Facility to be located at designated preferred site directly across the street from Civic Center. • November 3, 1987 G.O. Bond measure does not receive required 2/3 voter approval. • November 10, 1987 Police Facility issue referred to the City Manager to review alternative approaches to financing and development. • February 16, 1988 City Council holds Police Facility financing workshop and approves tax increment financing concept. Sets development alternatives workshop for February 26, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. Book 69/Page 127 THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR "TURNKEY" APPROACH Defined: A development company assembles land and builds for the City, a new Police facility and then sells or leases the facility to the City. The project budget and development/construction schedule are established and guaranteed in advance. Features: • Maximum project cost on a "not to exceed" basis established at beginning of project. Any savings revert to the City, overruns to be absorbed by developer. Maximum cost serves as insurance aganst project cost fluctuations. • Generally no advance appropriations required (e.g., Architectural and Engineering A/E work). Funding comes from long term financing revenues. • Developer, rather than City, responsible for construction management and coordination. Developer's fee for project management incorporated into maximum project cost. • Project "fast tracking" results in shorter time frame for completion - estimate of approximately 5 months shorter time frame than traditional approach. • Project can proceed prior to completion of final bid documents due to bid package process and guaranteed maximum project price. • A/E work is accomplished at lower cost since vendors do certain design work in developing bid package responses. Under more traditional approach, project A/E does all design work. • Programming incorporated to meet City needs at the desired cost by early value engineering. Potential Timeframe: (See PERT Chart) rJ LAND ACQUISITION - "TURNKEY" (ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY) PERT Chart 02-23-88 09:S7 r001 PURCHASE OPTIONS 23 03-01-88<03-23-88 -.002 ESCROW 60 03-24-88<05-22-88 -JICLOSE ESCROW 105-23-88<05-23-88 RELOCATE TENANTS 61 05-23-88<07-22-88 NOTES: 1. Assumes developer able to assemble land without need for condemnation proceedings. PERT Cf•rt 02-27-00 12117 10 MECN.PERF.SPEC. 30 0]-01-00<03-]0-00 IT ELEC.PCRF.SPEC. 30 03-01-00<03-70-06 r1 SCNEMRiIC DESIGN 70 0]-01-60<03-]0-O0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR "TURNKEY" APPROACH TOTAL ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME — 1 YEAR, 5 MONTHS (17 MONTHS) (ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY) 11 BID PAC. •110 MECNRNICRL 15 04-01-60<04-15-00 12 BIO PAC. ••B• - PLUMBING 5 04-01-00<04-05-00 13 BID PAC. ••C^ FIRE SPA. 15 04-01-00<04- 15-00 10 •ID PRC. "0"ELECTRICAL 1S 04-01-09<04-15-90 02 DCSION DEVELOP • --I VALUE ENGINEER 29 04-16-00<05-14-00 16 fl'ECH.CONST.DOCS. 67 S-16-BB<07-1i-0R IS 19 AWARD BID ►RCS. 1., ►LURB.CONST.DOCS •••• R.B.C.D. O 1••-• 60 05-16-00<0S-15-00J 05-16-60<07-14-00 04-01-00<04-30-00 • 25 ••• I EKTER.FIN 14 •••-••- 05-01-00<0S-14-00 STRUCT. STEEL. DOC 59 04-01-60<05-29-00 rF29 F9[ OCSION DEW. 29 05-01-00<05-29-00 OB26 ID.►RC. •F•• GLASS • OL 1A 05-01-00t05-14-OB SOS BID PAC "0""0"•- • STRUCT.STL 15 06-]O-0O<06-17-00 ]O FF•E CONET.DOCS. 91 05-30-00<00-20-00 ••• •••- Il0LZ PLAN CHECK BLDG. PERMIT ••--- IFIRE SP.CONST.00 60 - 0S-16-60<0T-14-00 21 ELEC.CONST.DOC 60 05-16-00<07-14-00 2T VALUE ENGINEER --- 30 05-15-00<06-13-06 06 RMRRD •ID PAC. O •' 0 06-14-00<06-14-66 71 •ID.PRC. ••J•• FF•E 72 00-29-00<09-29-00 NOTES: 1. Environmental review could were required. If negative 2. Land acquisition timeframe • --•• <LINK> •••• <Cr1t1c•1 'Ink, r1 <T•ok> T11 <Crltic•1 took) 00-25-00<09-26-00 ••- • • ]5 • BID PAC. •'I•' 00 SITEWORK 20 • Ob-09-00<OB-2b-•B • 009 nncn.c0NS1. DOGS. 120 OS-01-00<06-20-00 26 RMRRD BID PRCS. -•- E 6 F 0 06-14-00<06-14-66 -•-I BID PRC ••N•• 22 00-29-00<09-19-00 rALVALUE ENGINEER 10 9-20-00<09-29-06 11° 21 SI TEWORK 70 09-26-00<10-25-00 24 BUILOINO CONST. ••••• 270 10-26-00<0T-70-09 -- - - ...00056 11 YARD BID IRE I -- -- •-- -- -- SITEUORKO OW-2tl-06 0tl 00-28-00 09 [fIAWARD BID PAC H 0 09-30-00<09-70-66 .d72 75 AWARD BID PAC. 110 09-30-06<09-90-06 1-26-09 'ORDER FF•E I10-01-00<O .907 ORDER STEEL 90 06-15-00<09-12-00 impact schedule in the event EIR declaration, impact minimal. on separate chart. • • • • • • • DELIVER 'FOE ]2 06-05-09<07-04-09 6ZI a'Bud/69 )100g Book 69/Page 130 THE TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROACH Defined: The City coordinates all phases of land acquisition and project development from A/E and appraisal work to bid preparation, issuance and review through project construction and completion. Features: • City staff responsible for overall project coordination through a contract construction manager. • Final project construction cost could be lower or higher than Engineer's estimate which is developed by A/E. Final project construction cost unknown until bids received. • Advance City appropriations required due to the fact that long term financing (issue sizing) would not commence until project cost determined. 1) A/E Work - cost estimate is $350,000-$400,000 for remaining work through preparation of bid documents. (Cost dependent upon size and characteristics of proposed facility.) 2) Property Appraisal - cost estimate is $20,000-$25,000. 3) Acquisition/Relocation Assistance - cost estimate is $30,000-$35,000. 4) Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Design - cost estimate is $10,000-$15,000. • Longer project development and construction schedule than under turnkey approach - estimate of approximately 5 months longer time frame than under turnkey approach. • No developer's fee per se. City should retain project construction manager - cost estimate is approximately $400,000 which consists of inspection services, site supervision, value engineering, clerical support and testing services. Potential Timeframe: (See PERT Chart) PERT Chart 02-23-00 10:40 13 01 RFP-ACOUI SI TION RELOCATION 50 03-01-0e>05-30-0e rO3 RFP I SAL 70 03-01-00 05-30-00 ,OD2 AWARD CONTRACT • 1 oa-os-ee<o.-os-se 04 AWARD CONTRACT • 1 04-05-ee<04-05-0e LAND ACQUISITION TRADITIONAL APPROACH (ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY) OS 06 ISAL PURCHASE OFFERS • 31 •24 04-06-ee<05-06-00 05-07-00<0S-50-00 SO NECESSITY NOTICE 11 05-71-00<06-10-0e • 07 ESCROW 61 05-71-9e<07-50-00 11 COUNCIL HEARING • 1 06-21-09<06-21-e0 O6 CLOSE ESCROW 1 07-31-se<07-n1-ee i12 EMINENT DOMAIN • FILE•SERVE 30 06-22-88<07-21-00 15 RELOCATION 62 06-22-00<00-22-00 09 RELOCATION 61 00-01-00<09-50-e0 16 POSSESSION L 0 10-OI-BB 10-01-se r 14 15 ORDER POSSESSIONfluI •• On • 0 07-22-ee<o7-22-BB 10-20-00 10-20-00 NOTES: 1. This schedule assumes no extraordinary problems. (e.g. inability to locate owners, etc.) • a"• <Link> •••• <Critic.I link> r1 <T.sk> R'av <Critical t.sk> i£i a$ed/69 xoog PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TRADITIONAL CONTRACTING APPROr=�CH< TOTAL ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME — 1 YEAR, 10 MONTHS (22 MONTHS) PERT Chart ( ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY) 02-27-00 17:17 i° 01-- SCHEMATIC DESIGN 70 07-01-00<07-70-00 02 DESION DEVELOP • 70 04-01-00<04-70-00 • .009 CONTRUCTION DOC. 120 05-01-00<00-20-08 04 BUILDING PERMIT PLAN CHECK 72 00-29-00<09-29-00 ,y005 IIBI ODI NO • 71 00-29-00<09-20-00 F0 FFOE DESIGN DEV. 31 00-29-00<09-20-00 • -.006 VALUE ENGINEER 29 09-29-00<10-27-00 09 FFOE CONST_ DOCS O7 09-29-00<12-24-00 • *007 i CONSTRUCTION 760 10-20-00<10-70-09 10 FFOE BID 70 12-25-00<01-25-09 • .011 F FOE DEL INSTALL 60 11-01-09<12-70-89 NOTES: 1 Environmenta1 review could impact schedule in the event EIR were required_ If negative declaration, impact minimal. 2. Land acquisition timeframe on separate chart_ 3, SCHEDULE COULD BE AFFECTED IF BIDS COME IN HIGH OR MANY CHANGE ORDERS ARE REQUIRED, <L1 nK> ON, <Cri tl cal l i nk> r—, <T.sk> m.-n <Cri t1 cal task> ZET a2sd/69 )100R Exhibit "H" Book 69/Page 133 KILE MORGAN 1223 "J" Avenue National City, CA 92050 February 25, 1988 City of National City Vice Mayor Dalla, Michael R. 1243 National City Blvd. National City, CA 92050 Dear Vice Mayor Dalla: I have read the recent newspaper articles on the recommended method of financing the proposed National City police facility. I am very much opposed to financing the new police facility through the re- developing agency since this is the only agency left to keep progress going in the city of National City. If this does not change your mind, I am absolutely opposed to building the police facility for an estimated $8 million dollars without competitive bids. The city built Kimbell Tower for $8 million dollars, Morgan Tower for $5 million dollars, the City Hall, $5 million dollars of sewer work, $30 million dollars of drainage and streets, four community buildings, and all other city projects based on competitive bidding. It does not build confidence in government to do otherwise. The 55,000 people in National City have the right to know that they are receiving a fair price for anything being built with city funds. I believe it will be an injustice to the city and its people if the police facility is built without competitive bidding. Sincerely, Kile Morgan