HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2005 Work Session
.
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Room,225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 17, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Ralston, Lundberg, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia
Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Budget Committee Interviews.
Accounting Manager V alerie Warner presented the staff report on this item. The Budget
Committee has a vacancy in Ward 3 due to the December 31,2005 term expiration of Maureen
Sicotte. Ms. Sicotte has served only one term and is eligible to reapply. The person appointed
will serve a three year term which will expire on December 31, 2008.
The Budget Committee has a vacancy in Ward 4 due to the December 31,2005 term expiration
of Dwight Dzierzek. Mr. Dzierzek has served two terms and is not eligible to reapply. The
person appointed will serve a three year term which will expire on December 31, 2008.
Council determined that since no one was running against Maureen Sicotte, there was no need to
interview her. Council consensus was to re-appoint Maureen Sicotte to the Budget Committee
for Ward 3. Council interviewed the following candidate for the Budget Committee, Ward 4:
. Ellen L. Manzer
The Mayor and council discussed the qualifications of the candidate. Council consensus was to
appoint Ellen L. Manzer to the Budget Committee, Ward 4 with the provision that someone from
the Finance staff spend some time with her regarding city government and the different
departments. The appointment would be ratified on November 7,2005 during the Council
Regular Meeting.
2. Justice Center: Review of Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) Construction
Contract Strategy.
Project Manager Carole Knapel presented the staff report on this item. On April 18, 2005, staff
presented a report on an alternative contracting strategy which may be used for this project.
Based on direction received in April, staff is taking a series of steps to enable the city to evaluate
a CM/GC strategy for the project and would like to review the specifics of the CM/GC strategy
with council.
The research completed by staff suggests that the Justice Center project may benefit from the use
of the alternative contracting method referred to as Construction Managerl General Contractor
(CM/GC). Staffinitially presented the CM/GC strategy to council at a work session on April 18,
2005, and would like this opportunity to respond to any questions council may have regarding
this strategy. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) allow for alternative methods of contracting when
~
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 17, 2005
Page 2
.
the project presents unique construction requirements and when there are budget limitations,
time constraints and a complex project scope.
The Justice Center project meets all of these requirements: 1) the construction budget is limited
- resulting in the need to move forward with construction as quickly as possible; 2) the building
has unique security requirements specific to a criminal justice building; 3) the project may
involve phasing and or partially-used spaces, for ex~ple, the Police Department offices, during
construction; and 4) the issues regarding funding for jail operations may change the nature of the
project at some point in the project timeline. These are all design-related complex issues that
lend themselves to having the construction manager involved in the design process with the
Project Architect.
In order for the city to proceed with the CM/GC method, the council must hold a Public Hearing
and request an exemption to the city's existing public contracting rules. Staff has scheduled the
Public Hearing for November 7, 2005. Findings specific to the exemption request will be
presented to the council on November 7, at the work session prior to the Public Hearing.
Staff is planning to advertise for a CM/GC firm beginning October 24, with proposals due
November 14. Interviews with firms are tentatively scheduled for November 22. Staff is
recommending that the committee for selecting the CM/GC firm be comprised of the Assistant
City Manager, the Assistant Public Works Director, the Community Services Manager:, a Police
Captain and! or Police Chief, the Planning Supervisor, the Project Architect, the Project
Manager, the Assistant Project Manager, and one or two City Council representatives as ex-
officio members.
.
The attached materials provide some information and some typical questions and answers
regarding the CM/GC method, and the proposed schedule for retaining a frrm to serve as CM/GC
for the Justice Center project.
Ms. Knapel described the process for choosing a CM/GC. Staff had continued to do some
research on this project to determine how this method would work with this project. They still
believed this was the best method to use. She noted the city was on a tight budget and she
reviewed the requirements needed to allow use of the CM/GC method. Ms. Knapel'said they had
brought this matter up to the Justice Center Citizen Advisory Committee and there was concern
by CAC member Eldon Shields regarding using this type of process.
I
Ms. Knapel said Mr. Shields' concerns were that the design team had the responsibility to do
cost estimating and maintaining the cost of the project. Ms. Knapel spoke with Mr. Shields
regarding his concerns and suggested they get together next week to discuss this further prior to
the scheduled public hearing. She said he may speak during the public hearing to express his
concerns or to note that he no longer had concerns. She referred to Attachment A, page 1,
Potential Construction Methodologies and said it may be that Mr. Shields felt the city was
looking at option 2 rather than option 3.
Councilor Fitch said she had seen other public entities use this process. She discussed some of
the reasons why she would support the CM/GC. She said the council had promised the citizens
that the jail would not be built until funds were located to operate a jail. The rest of the facility
would be built and she would like to have the ability to phase in the jail and hold down the cost.
She discussed a possible public safety measure on the May election ballot from Lane County.
.
.
.
.
if
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 17, 2005
Page 3
Councilor Woodrow said he sat on the CAC and he agreep with Ms. Knapel's assessment of Mr.
Shield's concerns that the city would lose control of the costs. He said even with CM/GC the
city would still go out to bid.
Ms. Knapel said all of the work would be required to go to bid and the city would see the bids.
The city would require the books remain open so the city could see all the subcontractor bids as
they came in. She said the city would require proposals for the CM/GC as they did for the
architect and would look for qualifications.
Councilor Woodrow said he would be supportive of the CMlGC.
Councilor Pishioneri supported the CM/GC process. He said the city would still have the
ultimate control and there were checks and balances. The city would have the ability to answer
citizen inquiries during the project because the books would be open. He said it would add a lot
of integrity to the project. The only downsize he could see was the potential that it could cost a
little more for an extra step, but it would be worth it.
Ms. Knapel said cost was an issue. She said if council directed staff to go with the low bid
process, there could be a request to hire a consultant to do the cost benefit analysis of the phased
construction compared to doing the project all at once. She said this was a way to get some of
those services from someone who would have ultimate responsibility to make sure the project
was finished within the budget.
Councilor Ralston asked if the CM/GC was the same person. He said he thought sometimes they
were different people.
Ms. Knapel said in the older models, the CM was often a different person than the GC. Iri this
case, it would be one person.
Councilor Lundberg asked the architects what their experience was in working with a CM/GC
model and for their feedback.
Mr. Robertson said they finished major projects for the Eugene 4J School District which
including renovation and expansion of North and South Eugene HighSchools. Both were done
on the CM/GC process with the same CM/GC. The architects were hired frrst and were then part
of the evaluation process and selection team for the CM/GC. It was a very good process. Both
were very complicated projects, involving the ongoing operations of the school and renovations
and those issues were worked out with the assistance of the CM/GC. The CM/GC helped look at
alternative materials and guaranteed prices halfway through design development. In that process
the contractor fmished under budget and was able to finish one year early. He noted that was an
exception, but it did work well. Working in a team with a cooperative arrangement, a lot can get
accomplished.
Councilor Lundberg asked if the architect firm would be involved in choosing the CMlGC.
Ms. Knapel said that was staffs recommendation.
Councilor Ballew said she had no problem with the CM/GC. She said she felt council had not
been as involved as they should be in this process and she would appreciate progress reports~
.
.
.
'"'
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 17,2005
Page 4
Mr. Kelly said he was not aware that council felt that way. He said they did not need to rush
through this process if they felt they needed more information before proceeding.
Councilor Fitch suggested staff put memos in the Communication Packet with updates.
Councilor Lundberg concurred.
Councilor Woodrow said he received weekly updates regarding major projects in Springfield
from Development Services Director Bill Grile.
Mr. Kelly said staff could include a copy of what Mr. Grile sent out to see if council wanted to
continue receiving the updates. Monthly updates could also be given.
Councilor Ralston said his concern with the CM/GC was the cost. He referred to a project listed
in Attachment A included in the agenda packet that went over budget.
Ms. Knapel said the changes in that project were initiated by the owner, not the contractor.
Councilor Pishioneri said the councilors that were part of the Justice Center CAC could do a
better job informing other councilors.
Council consensus was to move forward with the CM/GC.
Mayor Leiken said this project was very specialized and even very good developers would not
necessarily be qualified to take on a project such as this. He said it was pertinent for the
architect and the CM/GC to work together. He discussed the importance of keeping the project
within the budget. He said it was important to keep it a high quality project within our budget.
Ms. Knapel said she had a Work Session and a Public Hearing scheduled for November 7 on this
item.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:44 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
~~
Amy Sow
City Recorder