QUALITY
Sustainable Development and
Environmental Sensitivity
The initial planning for this project included attention to principles of sustainable development and environmental sensitivity. The intent was to conserve water and non-renewable energy, reduce sedimentation and soil erosion, enhance work environments, provide a pleasant aspect to the community and generally to model the type of new development that is contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Management Ordinance.
In the table in Attachment 2 we describe those elements and note in which of the four concept plans they have been included:
Quality Reductions Needed to Cut
Costs
We have found that reductions in quantity sufficient to meet the fixed cost criterion would be so extreme that the functions of the Public Works Department could not be accommodated in a reasonably efficient and effective manner. We cannot recommend spending as much as $20,000,000 for a facility that would need to be expanded as soon as it is occupied.
Therefore, in order to supplement the reductions noted above in quantity, we reviewed the elements of quality. We believe that the changes we identify here are not consistent with the Council’s values of sustainable development and environmental sensitivity. We list them reluctantly, but we believe that they would be necessary to meet a fixed cost of $20,000,000.
Instead of building an exemplary stormwater management system with the most up-to-date best management practices (BMP’s), we would use only rain gardens, open ditches and wet ponds. The loss of the BMP’s would hurt the public education program that we are required to conduct as part of our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit. More detail is provided in the table.
Other proposed changes in quality
relate to roads and parking: there would be gravel on parking areas for
employees and visitors, and gravel on the access drive to the materials storage
area north of the creek. Improvements to
Another proposed change is the use of a slightly customized standard pre-engineered metal buildings for the fleet maintenance, field operations and building maintenance building. We cannot recommend use of the most basic such building. Because of the constant presence of heavy equipment and large vehicles around the interior and exterior of these three buildings, the most basic metal building would need to be upgraded, at additional cost, to include masonry walls.
Although the site plan was designed and buildings sited to accommodate daylighting, the low-sloped roofs of pre-engineered metal buildings would preclude the use of the roof monitors necessary for daylighting. The additional cost for custom roof profiles could not be included in the $20 million plan. The standard dimensions and simple shapes of pre-engineering metal buildings would limit design flexibility. Although the materials would meet minimum building code standards, we believe that the standard metal buildings would be less durable and would have a shorter life span than would conventional construction.
Conventional construction, as opposed to pre-engineered metal buildings, could accommodate daylighting and would be flexible enough to accommodate all functions efficiently and to facilitate future expansions. However, the extra cost could not be included and still meet the goal of $20 million.
In addition, we considered “high performance” buildings, which include techniques, systems and components meant to minimize the use of non-renewable energy, water and life cycle costs. Our design is not far enough along to be able to specify the inclusion of such specific high performance building elements as photo-voltaic cells, solar hot water panels and geothermal heating and cooling; however, a part of the square foot cost had been allocated for this use. This allocation has been subtracted.
Instead of purchasing non-standard site lighting for the public areas, standard fixtures would be rented from Piedmont Electric on a per fixture per month basis, thus reducing initial capital costs. The bunker walls in the outdoor materials storage area would be reinforced concrete block instead of the more durable poured-in-place concrete.
Finally, instead of exemplary landscaping as requested by the neighbors and recommended by the Community Design Commission, this proposal includes funding sufficient for only the minimum landscaping required by the Land Use Management Ordinance.
OPTIONS
We understand that the Council wishes to see what could be built if the budget were reduced to about $20,000,000. In order to better illustrate the impact of this reduced budget, we provide below an itemized list of elements which were deleted to meet the budget target and which could also be seen as potential additions. We also include the projected costs and the impacts of each.
We caution that the cost projections made at this early stage of planning cannot be precise. As design is refined, cost estimates can also be refined. Also, the smaller the element of the total project for which costs are estimated, the greater the risk of inaccuracy.
These costs include 5% for design contingency; 5% for construction contingency for buildings and 10% construction contingency for site work; furniture and fixtures, except for office furniture; 6% for inflation; 10% for design, value engineering and testing; and 1% for public art. We have also included notes on the impact on operations and other concerns.
POTENTIAL CHANGES TO
$20 MILLION PLAN
|
ITEM |
PROJECTED PRICE |
RECOM- MENDED NOW |
DEFER |
NOT RECOM- MENDED |
|
Add standard asphalt surface course to
employee and visitor parking. Would
reduce recurring maintenance costs and improve use during snow and ice storms
by the employees most crucial to the Town’s response to such storms. (Gravel cannot be effectively plowed.)
Would reduce dust in and around nearby buildings and would avoid mud and dust
for visitors and employees. |
38,600 |
|
|
|
|
Add asphalt surface to the access
roadway to the materials storage and impound lot. Would
reduce recurring maintenance costs caused by frequent use by heavy equipment
and trucks. Asphalt pavement would
avoid dust that would be a problem during dry weather for the equipment (air
filters, etc.), employees and possibly nearby residents. Pavement would also
improve the ability to use the road during snow and ice storms. (Gravel
cannot be effectively plowed.) |
13,530 |
|
|
|
|
Add allowance for additional
landscaping. Would
help to respond to neighbors’ expressed concerns for enhanced buffering, and
address comments of the Community Design Commission during its courtesy
reviews in June and October. Would provide for some larger initial plantings
to more quickly screen and shade parking lots; and would provide an example
of the Town’s expectations of new development. |
96,600 |
|
|
|
|
Add permeable asphalt pavement to employee
and visitor parking instead of standard asphalt paving. Would
reduce recurring maintenance costs and improve use during snow and ice storms
by the employees most crucial to the Town’s response to such storms. (Gravel cannot be effectively plowed.) Would
reduce dust in and around nearby buildings and would avoid mud and dust for
visitors and employees. |
51,500 |
|
|
|
|
Add underground rainwater re-use tanks
for irrigation and flushing toilets. Would
reduce stormwater run-off and erosion, conserve water and reduce water bills.
|
257,750 |
|
|
|
|
Use poured-in-place concrete instead
of block for bunker walls. Would
provide a more durable wall that would better withstand typical bumps from
trucks, fork lifts and buckets of heavy equipment. Our experience suggests
that, in addition to more maintenance over the years, the block walls would
need to be rebuilt once or twice during the life of the facility. |
111,340 |
|
|
|
|
Add non-standard site lighting in
public area. Would
reduce operating costs and enhance appearance around public parking lot and
building entrances. |
215,030 |
|
|
|
|
Increase pavement width on
Would
provide improved cross-section that could accommodate two four-foot bike
lanes rather than wide outside lanes.
Regardless, left-turn lane at intersection with |
25,775 |
|
|
|
|
Add curb and gutter to west side of
Would
provide symmetrical cross-section that meets the Town’s standard, would
protect the edge of the pavement from premature failures, and would reduce
the cost of ditch maintenance and street cleaning. |
22,550 |
|
|
|
|
Use standard construction instead of
pre-engineered metal buildings with masonry walls. Would
allow the design flexibility to accommodate the clerestories and skylights
necessary for daylighting, which reduces energy use and improves working
conditions; and, would allow more flexibility to accommodate specific
functional requirements. More durable materials would likely result in lower
maintenance costs and a longer life. |
575,540 |
|
|
|
|
Use pre-engineered metal buildings
with daylighting and masonry walls. Modifications
to the standard metal buildings would remove almost all of the cost savings,
but would not remove the lack of flexibility to accommodate programmed
functions and future expansions and the lower durability and shorter life. |
55,144 |
|
|
|
|
Add allowance for high performance
building elements. Would
include such elements as geothermal heating/cooling, solar panels,
photovoltaic cells, reused and recycled
materials, etc. and would follow the Triangle J High Performance Building
Guidelines as originally intended. |
417,810 |
|
|
|
|
Add compressed natural gas (CNG)
fueling system. Would
allow the continued expansion of Town’s fleet of CNG-fueled vehicles. There are presently 11 such vehicles. This
system would allow us to begin offering CNG fuel to outside fuel customers
such as those listed elsewhere, thus encouraging wider use and, subsequently,
a better supply network. Grant funding
may be available; various types of appropriate grants are available from time
to time. |
496,370 |
|
|
|
|
Add building area to house automatic
wash bay and associated equipment. Installation
of light vehicle wash with water re-use system would save staff time and
money, because use of off-site commercial car washes and washing on-site with
a hose could be eliminated. Safety
would be improved by eliminating hand washing outdoors, particularly in wet
and freezing weather. Vehicles would be kept cleaner, extending the vehicle’s
life and improving the public image of the Town. |
477,990 |
|
|
|
|
Include Public Housing Maintenance
space in Internal Services Buildings building and add paved parking. Operational
efficiency of public housing maintenance would improve. Inclusion here would
provide better space for parts and materials storage and fabrication than
does the present space, which is partly in a small rebuilt house and partly
in the administrative office building a couple of blocks away. Functional
space would decrease costs through more efficient use of staff time, ability
to keep necessary materials and equipment on hand. Debt service costs could
be paid by HUD Capital Grant funds, which would otherwise go toward Public
Housing renovations. |
1,131,740 |
|
|
|
|
Add two fueling stations and canopy. Grading and site work would accommodate the addition
of these stations at a later date. No change is contemplated in the number
and size of tanks, including a tank for E-85 ethanol.
These
fuel lines would also enhance our ability to continue serving a growing list
of outside public fuel customers with both gasoline and alternative fuels,
including OWASA, Orange County Landfill, Recycling and Emergency Management
Services; Carolina Air Care; UNC Recycling, Public Safety, House-keeping,
Animal Labs and Central Receiving; and, UNC Hospital Bus Service. |
221,490 |
|
|
|
|
Include Information Technology space
and add 16 standard asphalt parking spaces for Information Technology
Department. Would
allow for special construction to protect centralized equipment for entire
Town, and allow for Director of department to be located in the same building
as the |
595,000 |
|
|
|
|
Move Solid Waste area back to Pedestrian
traffic would be exposed to less vehicular traffic between |
972,260 |
|
|
|
Other Cost Savings
We have been able to save costs in other ways. We include them simply to illustrate how the projected price has been reduced.
a. Revisions to site work
$257,750
Savings due largely to buildings being closer together, allowing decrease in clearing and grubbing, storm drainage piping, earthwork, asphalt paving, etc.
b. Deletion of railroad
crossing and signals on
NCDOT Small
Project grant is available for this project.
Half the cost is deducted from the Public Works cost and the other half
from the Transportation facility.
d. Reduction in cost of
new gravity sewer line $ 32,220
Half the cost is
deducted from the Public Works cost and the other half from the Transportation
facility cost. Change is due to more
refined design and cost estimation.
e. Reduction in cost of
relocation $ 56,000
A more detailed
estimate suggests a lower cost.
We also note that the cost of the 15 Year Plan has been reduced since it was presented on September 8 by about $600,000 to reflect additional work in design that uncovered a double-counting error in cost estimation.
NEXT STEPS
The Town must vacate its present site at Horace Williams in three years and two months. Therefore, we recommend that these next steps be taken immediately.
The following resolutions would establish a preliminary budget. The project ordinance would be adopted when bids have been received and financing arrangements completed.
With the guidance established by the decisions made tonight, the design team would proceed to prepare the Special Use Permit application. The first regulatory steps would be review of the concept plan by the Town Council at its November 17 public hearing, including comments made by the Community Design Commission in its review on October 22.
Work on design
drawings and bid documents would continue even while the Special Use Permit
process is underway. We believe that the work can be done concurrently because
of the early guidance of the Council.
Our goal is to have construction work begin by early 2005. If a separate grading contract is let, that
should begin by late 2004. Such a
schedule could allow the completion of the
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have considered the need to limit the costs of this project and tried to balance capital cost against the need for a functional operations center and the need to follow the Council’s values of sustainable development, environmental sensitivity and fiscal prudence. The reductions in developed space would require expansions in about 15 years instead of about 30 years, but we believe that the resulting concept plan would still represent fiscal prudence.
We have also tried to balance cost against the value of following the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and also of providing an example to private developers of the best in high performance building technology, the latest in stormwater management and the best in neighbor-friendly buffering. We urge developers to go beyond the minimum required in these areas, and this is an opportunity for the Town to set a good example.
Finally, we have tried to balance cost with the more difficult to define issues of operational efficiency and staff morale. Efficient interior traffic flow and space for sufficient storage of material, equipment and tools save time and increase safety. Crew rooms that can accommodate complete staff groups allow for better training, scheduling and communications among the employees in each program area. Locker rooms with showers, a place to eat lunch and paved employee parking areas can enhance employee morale and, if insufficient, be a constant irritant and time-waster.
We understand that the balances struck among these values are judgments with which the Council may or may not agree. Therefore, we have provided a resolution which could be amended as the Town Council sees fit.
We have included space for the maintenance division of the Housing Department in the recommended plan and preliminary budget, because it needs functional space, it could share some space efficiently with the building maintenance function of Public Works, and the debt service on the $1,120,400 could be paid over the years by part of our grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The $20 million plan also deletes completely the space for the housing maintenance function of the Housing Department.
We recommend that the following items be accommodated in the preliminary budget for the Public Works Operations Facility:
1. Add permeable asphalt pavement to employee and visitor parking
instead of a gravel surface 90,200
2. Use standard construction instead of pre-engineered metal buildings
with masonry walls to accommodate
daylighting and program 575,500
3. Add allowance for high performance building elements 417,800
4. Add underground rainwater re-use tanks for irrigation and flushing
toilets. 257,800
5. Add compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling system 496,400
6. Add curb and gutter to west side of
7. Add allowance for additional
landscaping
96,700
8. Add asphalt surface to roadway to materials storage and impound lot 13,500
9. Add
building area to house brushless wash bay and equipment 478,000
TOTAL recommended additions to minimum
Public Works area $2,448,500
TOTAL recommended preliminary budget for
Public Works area $23,158,500
10. Include Public Housing Maintenance space in Internal Services
Building and add paved parking (to
be paid by HUD grants) $1,120,400
TOTAL Recommended Preliminary Budget for Public Works/Public
Housing area (after refund of $540,700 in sales tax) $23,738,000
The adoption of Resolution A would authorize a preliminary budget for the Public Works Operations Facility of $23,738,000 after refund of $540,700 in sales tax.
The adoption of
Resolution B would authorize a preliminary budget for the Public Works
Operations Facility of $20,275,000 after refund of $460,000 in sales tax. If the Council wishes to amend either
resolution, we recommend that you do so at the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
2. Comparison of Elements of Sustainable
Development and Environmental Sensitivity Among Four Plans (p. 21).
3. Existing Public Works Facility, photos (p. 23).
RESOLUTION A
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY IN THE
WHEREAS, the Town must relocate
its two largest departments, Public Works and Transportation, by
WHEREAS, the Town of
WHEREAS, a needs assessment, site analysis, and preliminary concept plan have been developed; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered
on
WHEREAS, the Council considered
on
WHEREAS, the Council has considered potential cost reductions, additional identified costs and potential revenues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by
the Council of the Town of
This the 27th day of October, 2003.
RESOLUTION B
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY IN THE
WHEREAS, the Town must relocate
its two largest departments, Public Works and Transportation, by
WHEREAS, the Town of
WHEREAS, a needs assessment, site analysis, and preliminary concept plan have been developed; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered
on
WHEREAS, the Council considered
on
WHEREAS, the Council has considered potential cost reductions, additional identified costs and potential revenues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by
the Council of the Town of
This the 27th day of October, 2003.
Comparison of Public Works Operations Facility Projected Costs
15-Year Plan $20m Plan RECOMMENDED
Construction $18,774,300 $15,083,140 $17,264,754
Equipment 2,347,900 1,719,080 1,719,080
Subtotal
(a) $21,122,200 $16,802,220 $18,983,834
Off-site
(utilities, roads, signals) 1,844,400 $ 1,626,900 1,626,900
Demolition 126,500 126,500 126,500
Subtotal
(b) $23,093,100 $18,555,620 $20,737,234
10%
Design, value engineering,
testing 2,309,310 1,855,560 2,073,723
Subtotal
(c) $25,402,410 $20,411,180 $22,810,957
1%
for Art $254,021 204,118 228,109
Subtotal
(e)$ 25,656,431 $20,615,298 $23,039,066
Relocation
expense 100,000 $44,000 44,000
Removal
of underground tanks 75,400 75,400 75,400
Subtotal
(f) $25,831,831 $20,734,698 $23,158,466
Public
Housing Maintenance* 1,120,400 $1,120,400
Subtotal
(g)
$26,952,231 $24,278,866
Sales
Tax Refund - 599,000 - 460,000 - 540,700
TOTAL $26,353,230 $20,274,698 $23,738,166
Rounded TOTAL $26,353,000 $20,275,000 $23,738,000
*including 10% for design, value engineering and testing
|
Comparison of Elements of Sustainable
Development and Environmental Sensitivity Among Four Plans |
|
|
|
Mgr’s |
|
30-Year 15-Year $20m Rec’d |
|
Element Plan Plan Plan Plan |
|
|
|
Building orientation to accommodate daylighting, with all o o o o |
|
buildings on an east-west axis
allowing for north- and south- |
|
facing windows |
|
Clerestory windows for daylighting, allowing work spaces Ö Ö X Ö |
|
to be lit by natural light,
saving electricity and improving |
|
working conditions |
|
Compressed natural gas (CNG) filling station necessary Ö Ö X Ö |
|
to accommodate continued growth
of Town’s fleet of CNG |
|
vehicles and encouraging other
agencies to use alternative |
|
to gasoline and diesel and
encouraging growth of supply |
|
network |
|
E-85 Ethanol underground fuel storage tank allows use Ö Ö Ö Ö |
|
of alternative fuels by Town
and other public agencies |
|
High Performance Guidelines of Triangle J include locally Ö Ö X Ö |
|
tested aspects of national
guidelines for sustainable building |
|
Landscaped buffers beyond LUMO requirements to Ö Ö X Ö |
|
satisfy request of neighbors
and recommendations of |
|
Community Design Commission for
enhanced screening |
|
Landscaping beyond LUMO requirements, outside of Ö Ö X Ö |
|
buffers would set example for
other developers, improve |
|
public image and work
environment |
|
Potential* for photovoltaic cells which would create electricity,
Ö Ö X Ö |
|
reducing demand from Piedmont
Electric and reducing on-going |
|
cost of power to the Town |
|
Potential* for solar arrays to heat water, reducing used of non- |
|
renewable energy and cost of
power to heat water Ö Ö X Ö |
|
Potential* geothermal heating and cooling system would use Ö Ö X Ö |
|
constant temperature of
underground to provide both heating and |
|
cooling without use of power
beyond power needs of pumps |
|
Recycling of water in brushless car/ truck wash would reduce Ö Ö X Ö |
|
amount of water needed to wash
cars and small trucks compared |
|
to individuals with a hose |
|
Mgr’s |
|
30-Year 15-Year $20m Rec’d |
|
Element Plan Plan Plan Plan |
|
|
|
Stormwater Management |
|
Bioretention/rain garden
areas to improve infiltration,
Ö Ö Ö Ö |
|
reduce run-off and improve water quality |
|
Infiltration beds to
improve infiltration, reduce run-off and Ö X X X |
|
improve water quality |
|
Open ditches for
improved infiltration Ö Ö Ö Ö |
|
Permeable asphalt over a prepared soil
and gravel bed Ö Ö X [s1]Ö |
|
increases infiltrations of stormwater,
decreases run-off, |
|
erosion and sedimentation and improves
water quality |
|
Permeable concrete over
a prepared soil and gravel bed Ö X X X |
|
increases absorption of stormwater,
decreases run-off, |
|
erosion and sedimentation, and increases
water quality; |
|
is more expensive and more durable than
permeable asphalt |
|
Wet
ponds to reduce velocity of run-off and allow Ö Ö Ö Ö |
|
precipitation of sediment, reduce
erosion and |
|
sedimentation and improve water quality |
|
Underground cisterns to collect rainwater for use in irrigation, Ö Ö X Ö |
|
flushing toilets and, perhaps,
washing vehicles |
|
|
|
*An allocation for high performance
elements will provide for inclusion of these items if further design and
value engineering indicate they would be advantageous |
|
|