HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-13-094 - Victoria Park Washroom Project - Update IIStaff Rep►�►r
I r Infrastruc�ture5ervrresDepartment wvwuukitchenerra
REPORT TO: Council
DATE OF MEETING: October 7, 2013
SUBMITTED BY: Cynthia Fletcher, Director — Facilities Management- 741-
2600 x 4424
PREPARED BY: Doug Hergott, Manager - Facilities Management — 741 -2600
x 4684
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: October 3, 2013
REPORT NO.: INS -13 -094
SUBJECT: VICTORIA PARK WASHROOM PROJECT — Update II
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
On September 30, 2013, staff was asked to bring back a report to review the potential to
implement this project in 2 phases, with the desire to accomplish a project and retain at least
some of the CIIF allocation.
The concept of phasing the project would entail pouring the slab before the frost season and
changing the design /scope of the above grade components to reduce the overall project costs.
As noted previously, it is already challenging to meet the timelines of the CI IF program, as
construction will be done during the winter months. Any further delay in the project will require
the City to pay a premium on slab construction or move the project onset to the spring. The first
stage of this project involves pouring a slab within the frost level. In order for the slab to cure
properly, 28 days of good conditions is required. Winter /frost conditions are not ideal and extra
measures and potential extra curing time would be needed as we get further into the fall. The
proposed phasing of the project is intended to get the slab poured before frost season. This
proposal will require setting the foot print of the building, as services need to be placed as part
of the slab pour. There will not be an option to reduce the size or configuration of the building
once the slab is poured. As time continues to pass, there may be a need to heat a slab that is
poured.
Staff was also asked to review "less expensive" building materials to get the project completed.
The intention is to reduce the cost of the overall construction project, even if we have to "phase
in" heritage aspects or compromise durability /increase operating and ongoing maintenance.
8 a. -1
REPORT:
Staff enlisted the design consultant to review the following ideas, which do not affect the foot
print of the building and corresponding services within the building:
Component
Potential
Benefit
Risk(s)
Saving
• eliminate
$25,000
Cost savings for
• will require heritage review
entrance porch
the construction
• removes skate changing area
project
• will be more costly to add later
• redesign of remaining roof
would be required
• installing asphalt
$3,000 - $5,000
Cost savings for
walkway verses
the construction
concrete
project
walkway
• install asphalt
$13,000
Cost savings for
• may not meet heritage
shingles, instead
the construction
requirements
of cedar
project
• future cost to add later
• substitute brick
$4,100
Cost savings for
• may not meet heritage
OR
the construction
requirements
project
• put siding
$47,700
Cost savings for
• will not meet standards for
instead of brick
the construction
durability as a park building. A
on the building
project
residential type of construction
requires changing
is not suitable for a public
the wall assembly
building where the intended use
to typical
is washrooms. Commercial
residential not
construction is required to
commercial
ensure longevity of the asset
construction
and reduced liability to the City
(siding, stud,
for its function.
insulation, drywall)
• will result in increased
maintenance and capital repair
Typically, fixtures
costs. ie a drywall
are hung from
interior /exterior siding will not
block walls for
stand up to graffiti removal,
ease of
wear and tear, vandalism. Staff
maintenance.
will incur regular repairs,
Staff will need to
replacements, rebuilds of walls
ensure residential
and finishes.
grade walls are
Anticipated additional annual
reinforced properly
Costs for Security, Pest Control
to handle this type
and Maintenance Response:
of construction
$15,000 labour and materials
(which will add
above the regular anticipated
cost)
costs. The estimate is based on
monthly response to
replace/rebuild portions of the
8a. -2
Because these changes would result in "significant alteration of original scope ", staff are faced
with the following challenges:
1. The new design will require Heritage Kitchener Committee Approval, with the following
timelines:
• October 25th — Heritage Permit Application submission deadline,
• November 17th — Staff Report on HPA is due to Manager /Director,
• November 19th — Heritage Kitchener agenda setting,
• December 3rd — Heritage Kitchener meeting
Staff could take the re- scoping of this project to the Heritage Kitchener Meeting on Nov 5th for
general discussion (no formal HPA but to receive first impressions /comments on possible
alternatives), the deadline for information to be included in the agenda is October 22nd
2. One new quotation package (installation of the slab) and one new tender package
(specifications and drawings) will need to be developed and full tender process
introduced. This work will come with additional costs.
Quotation: Installation of the slab
• October 8th- October 18th — confirmation of specifications and drawings for
services and building foot print
• Oct 21- 24 — 3 quotations received and quotation finalized /awarded
• Oct 25 -Nov 29 — permits, locates and installation of the services & slab
• Month of Dec: slab to cure (frost season, slab will need to be heated)
Tender for re- scoped building
• October 8 -25th ; drawings and specifications revised and finalized
• October 28th: begin approval processes:
8a. -3
building or finishes. Standard
graffiti removal processes will
not work as well on
siding /drywall vs brick /block
and will degrade the material
faster. Drywall construction is
susceptible to mold and
pest/rodent infestation vs
brick /block construction and
not recommended for
commercial washroom
construction.
• will require Building and Fire
approval
• will not meet heritage
requirements
• we will not be able to "add heritage
aspects" at a later date as this is a
completely different wall
construction ie we would only be
able to add brick veneer not true
brick in the future.
Because these changes would result in "significant alteration of original scope ", staff are faced
with the following challenges:
1. The new design will require Heritage Kitchener Committee Approval, with the following
timelines:
• October 25th — Heritage Permit Application submission deadline,
• November 17th — Staff Report on HPA is due to Manager /Director,
• November 19th — Heritage Kitchener agenda setting,
• December 3rd — Heritage Kitchener meeting
Staff could take the re- scoping of this project to the Heritage Kitchener Meeting on Nov 5th for
general discussion (no formal HPA but to receive first impressions /comments on possible
alternatives), the deadline for information to be included in the agenda is October 22nd
2. One new quotation package (installation of the slab) and one new tender package
(specifications and drawings) will need to be developed and full tender process
introduced. This work will come with additional costs.
Quotation: Installation of the slab
• October 8th- October 18th — confirmation of specifications and drawings for
services and building foot print
• Oct 21- 24 — 3 quotations received and quotation finalized /awarded
• Oct 25 -Nov 29 — permits, locates and installation of the services & slab
• Month of Dec: slab to cure (frost season, slab will need to be heated)
Tender for re- scoped building
• October 8 -25th ; drawings and specifications revised and finalized
• October 28th: begin approval processes:
8a. -3
• Regional Heritage review (may be required — will depend on the
significance of changes to the design)
• Heritage Kitchener Dec 3, 2013
• Building /Fire
• CPTED
• Tender let following Dec 3 Heritage meeting (assuming we meet all requirements
and no revision or re- reviews are required)
• Tender closes Jan 2
• Tender review and report to Council week of Jan 6th
• Tender to Council Jan 13th
• Permits, insurance, bonding begins week of Jan 14th
• Contractor mobilizes week of Jan 20th
• Construction period approximately 6 -7 weeks to comply with CIIF. This timeline
is not realistic as the original construction period following the slab curing was
3.5 -4 months
Overall risks of the phased approach:
• High risk that the tenders /quotes will come in higher than expected because of timeline
• Unrealistic timeline to complete the building
• Winter construction will lead to higher cost and could lead to schedule delays
• The City may accomplish phase 1 (the slab pour), may not receive a tender within the
allocation and then will be left with having to complete project regardless of cost.
• High risk that the project will not be completed by the CIIF timeline and the City will lose
grant funding anyway.
• High risk the City may find itself in the role of the constructor in order to complete the
project
• High risk that warranties will be convoluted in a phased approach ie will have contractors
install dependent components in a piece meal manner
• Site safety and security will fall to the City between phases at an cost and risk of liability
A phased approach to this project will not work, as the risks listed above are too great, the
timelines are not realistic and will likely jeopardize a quality long term product.
In order to achieve the intended goal of the proposed phased approach, which is to accomplish
a project and retain at least some of the CIIF allocation, staff see only a couple of options;
1. Work with the lowest bidding firm on the tender on the complete project.
2. Move the start date of the project to the spring, following a re- tendering of the entire
project. We have no guarantee that costs will be any different or that we will retain any
funding from the CIIF program.
The other option is to
3. Cancel project and reintroduce into capital forecast in a later year. There may be future
funding opportunities to which the City could apply.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Through a public engagement process, the need for dedicated public washrooms was affirmed
and endorsed by Council.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
8a. -4
The concept and design for this project was reviewed through a consultation process with the
Victoria Park working group, Heritage Kitchener and Grand River Accessibility Advisory Council
(GRAAC).
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO- Infrastructure Services
8a. -5