HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-08 City Council (3)of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS 1
DATE:JULY 8, 2002 CMR:324:02
SUBJECT:PALO ALTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES BOND PACKAGE AND
COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
This is an informational report and no Council action is required..
BACKGROUND
In July 2001, Council directed staff to prepare by June 2002 conceptual designs,
associated cost estimates, and to complete environmental review of the five community
facility projects being considered for inclusion in a bond measure on the November 2002
ballot. The five projects are expansions and renovation of existing facilities at the Main
Library, the Children’s Library, the Mitchell Park Library, the Mitchell Park Community
Center, and the Art Center.
To achieve the Council’s goal, staff entered into contracts with architects to prepare
spatial programs, feasibility studies and conceptual designs of all five facilities. The
feasibility study of the Main Library and Art Center was presented to and approved by
Council in February 2002. The feasibility study of the Mitchell Park Library and
Community Center was presented to and approved by Council in March 2002. The
Children’s Library feasibility study had already been completed in 2000. Conceptual
designs of all the projects have been completed and were presented to and approved by
Council in June 2002.
Environmental review, per the California Environmental Quality Act, has also been
completed on all five of the projects. The draft environmental review documents were
reviewed by the community, boards and commissions, and the Council. Staff responded
to all comments and issued final environmental review documents, which were certified
by Council in June 2002.
The conceptual design-level cost estimates for each of the five projects were prepared by
professional cost estimators acting as consultants to the various project architects. These
estimates were detailed construction cost estimates. Even though the final architectural
materials and systems will not be decided upon until the next phases of design, the
estimators, made certain assumptions, based upon direction from staff, about the materials
CMR:324:02 Page 1 of 8
and systems for inclusion in their estimates. Staff then added the othe~ project costs to
arrive at total capital project cost estimates. Capital costs are those that can be
reimbursed with bond proceeds. The capital cost estimates of the five projects, as
presented to Council in June 2002, are:
Main Library Replacement Scheme (full program):$43,400,000
Main Library Replacement Scheme (reduced program):$42,200,000
Main Library Retention Scheme (full program):
Main Library Retention Scheme (reduced program):
Children’s Library Expansion:
Mitchell Park Library (full program):
Mitchell Park Library (reduced program):
Mitchell Park Community Center:
Art Center Expansion and Renovation:
$52,200,000
$50,6OO,OO0
$ 6,5O0,000.
$30,200,00O
$27,200,000
$10,100,000
$15,500,000
These costs include design, construction, construction management, contingencies,
escalation, and financing costs. They do not include furnishings, staffing, operation or
maintenance costs, as these costs are not reimbursable with bond proceeds.
On June-17, 2002, Council, responding to a colleagues memo, passed a motion that
directed staff to develop a bond package that included the Children’s Library Expansion,
the Mitchell Park Library (full program), and the Mitchell Park Community Center
projects, in the following amounts:
Children’s Library Expansion:
Mitchell Park Library (full program) and Community Center:
Bond financing:
TOTAL:
$ 6,500,000
$4O,5OO,O00
$ 800,000
$47,800,000
DISCUSSION
Staff has developed the bond package as directed by Council. The dollar amounts for
each of the components have been reviewed. Following is a brief discussion of each
component of the bond package.
Children’s Library Expansion
The conceptual design estimate for the Children’s Library Expansion project has
confirmed the amount recommended by Council for that project: $6.5 million. This
amount includes the renovation of the 3,400 square foot (st) existing library, the
construction of north and south additions totaling 7,225 sf, and a considerable amount of
site work. The site work includes renovation of the Secret Garden, landscaping,
reconfiguring the Lucie Stern parking lot, relocation of electrical transformers, and
completing the fire sprinklers in the Children’s Theater.
CMR:324i02 Page 2 of 8 ~
Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
Council used the conceptual design estimates as its guide in determining the bond
amount. Instead of listing these projects separately, Council combined them as the
conceptual designs show them as one combined facility. Council assigned $40.5 million
to this project, which includes, the full program library, the community center, under-
building and surface parking, landscaping, site work, elimination of a traffic signal on
Middlefield Road, and relocation of the tennis and paddle tennis courts. Staff has
preliminarily reviewed the question of potential relocation of the courts to structure(s)
above the parking areas at.the Mitchell complex. Assuming that all of the proposed
parking would remain and that the new court areas could be added on new structure(s)
above either the easterly or northerly parking areas, such structure(s) could be physically
accommodated within the site plan, although design review and interface issues which
would need to be reviewed further. Such structures would, however, cost from 3 to 4
times as much to construct as surface courts - i.e., an order of magnitude cost of
$1,500,000 versus the $400,000 cost for surface courts.
Consequently, the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center total of $40,500,000 is
$400,000 more than the conce ~tual estimates, to accommodate for relocation of the tennis
courts.
Bond Financing
Council used the staff estimated amount of $800,000 for the bond financing costs. That
amount is now been reviewed in detail by staff and its financial advisor, and staff will
provide final dollar requirements at the Council meeting on July 15, 2002.
Public Works Staffing
As staff has kept the Council apprised from early in this project, current staffing levels
are inadequate to proceed into final design and construction of all of the projects if a bond
measure were to pass in November. The 2002-03 Proposed Budget document includes
the following additions to the Table of Organization: an Engineering Technician III, a
Senior Project Manager, and an Office Specialist. These additions to the Public Works
Department have an annual ongoing cost of $246,640 in salary and benefits expense. The
funding, of these positions will be requested by a Budget Amendment Ordinance only
after a successful November 2002 bond measure vote. These positions are not permanent
and should be either terminated upon project completion, absorbed through attrition of
similar positions or alternatively retained to implement the full Infrastructure
Management Program which was has only been staffed to the 75% level.
The cost of three Public Works positions can be capitalized and therefore financed as part
of the bond as long as they are directly related to design and construction activities. Even
though the Main Library is not included in the bond measure, staff still feels that all three
of the Public Works positions are necessary because the Main Library was scheduled to
be the last over a 7 yearperiod of the five projects to be designed and constructed.
CMR:324:02 Page 3 of 8
Accordingly, staff recommends adding $1.3 million to the bond package to finance the
three new Public Works positions for a period of five years. If the Main Library had been
included in the bond package, staff would have requested the three Public Works
positions for a longer period of time.
In summary, staff has prepared a bond package as follows:
Children’s Library
Mitchell Park Library & Community Center
Public Works staffing
Financing costs
TOTAL:
$ 6,500,000
$40,500,000
$ 1,300,000
$ 800,000 (estim~e)
$49,100,000
Palo Alto Community Facilities Cost Advisory Committee
The City Manager convened the Palo Alto Community Facilities Cost Advisory
Committee (Committee) to provide an independent third-party review of the project cost
estimates for all five of the community facilities that are being considered for a November
2002 bond measure. The specific charge to the Committee was:
To provide an independent third-party review of the overall project level cost
estimates for the proposed Palo Alto Community Facilities improvements;
To enable the City Council to properly size the proposed November 2002 bond
measure as to the expected magnitude of the cost of the proposed projects;
To review the overall magnitude of the costs within the given parameters of the
scope of the improvements as proposed by the New Library Plan, the associated
programmatic needs studies, and the conceptual designs;
®To make recommendations on how the estimates can be revised and improved to
be more complete and accurate;
To offer the City Council any ideas and suggestions as to cost effectiveness and
efficiency of the proposed improvements and project delivery; and
To produce a report on the Committee’s finding and recommendations by June 27,
2002. This report will be included in a packet to City Council for July 8, 2002,
Council meeting scheduled to discuss and decide which projects, and for how
much money, will be included in the bond measure.
The scope and level of detail of the Committee’s review was governed in large measure
by the schedule for the Library Program design activities themselves. Given the
CMR:324:02 Page 4 of 8 "
accelerated 6-month.timeline for the conceptual design activities anti theJuly deadline for
a decision on the bond measure, the Committee had only a narrow window of time to
review the products of that conceptual design effort and associated cost estimates during
May and June. Many of the design details and site issues were being finalized during that
timeframe; consequently, it was not possible to engage the Committee in a review of all
of the issues and questions which arose. Its work provides a macro level review of the
adequacy of the cost estimates and proposed funding to enable delivery of the proposed
program.
The Committee consisted of local representatives from various building design,
construction and management professions. The Committee members are:
Rob Steinberg, Chair, Palo Alto, architect, principal of The Steinberg Group, a
large San Jose architecture firm
Loren Brown, Palo Alto, contractor, partner of Vance Brown Construction
John Barton, Palo Alto, architect, Palo Alto Unified School District Board
President
Craig Jones and Bob Diaz, members of Turner Construction Company, a
nationwide general contractor and construction management firm
Gordon Siebert, Deputy Director of Public Works, City of San Jose
Steve Yoshino, Director of Public Works, City of Santa Clara
The City of San Jose recently passed a bond measure for improvement of the. City’s
library system, including design and construction of 20 renovated and new libraries over
the next ten years. San Jose’s Public Works Department has managed the master
planning and design of these libraries, and is now managing the construction of various
libraries.
The City of Santa Clara has started construction of an all new 85,000 square foot, 2-story
library with under-building parking. Santa Clara’s Public Works Department is managing
the design and construction of this project.
The Committee was staffed by representatives from the City Manager’s Office and the
Public Works Department. Staff provided each Committee member with a binder that
contained general information regarding each of the projects, including: the synopsis of
the New Library Plan; summaries of the programs; conceptual plans; and the feasibility-
level itemized construction cost estimates. A spreadsheet was also provided that
summarized the estimates for all five projects. Conceptual-level cost estimates were
CMR:324:02 Page 5 of 8
finished after the Committee had completed most of their work w~re therefore not
reviewed by the Committee. The Committee was asked, at the conclusion of its work, to
prepare a report that would summarize its commendations and findings.
The Committee met four times from May 30 to June 19, 2002. The Committee reviewed
the materials provided by the City, both at the meetings and on its own. One of the first
suggestions the Committee made was that staff should research the costs of recently
designed and/or constructed Bay Area libraries. Consequently, staff obtained cost
estimates and/or bid prices from seven local library projects. Five of those estimates were
felt to be complete enough to be added to the summary spreadsheet so that the Committee
could compare the costs for the Palo Alto community facilities side-by-side against those
from nearby cities.
Upon review of the costs of libraries in other cities, the Committee was able to determine
that the construction costs of the Palo Alto community facilities is higher on a per square
foot basis than those of nearby cities. This is due both to the inherent site improvement
costs incurred in redevel0ping within the exi.sting site constraints and, in part, to staff’s
direction to the architects during conceptual design to design 50-year facilities with high-
quality, durable and low-maintenance materials and to incorporate as many sustainable
.features and systems as practical. Consequently, the Committee has recommended a
number of approaches the City should consider in order to lower the construction costs to
be more in line with those of the other city’s library projects.
The Committee reviewed the itemized construction cost estimates from some of the
community facility. projects. In general, the Committee feels that the estimates for
specific building materials and labor are accurate and in line with its expectations.
However, the Committee noted that the Palo Alto facilities generally include more
expensive building materials and systems than those in other cities.
The cost estimates prepared for the Palo Alto facilities and included in each of the
specific project staff reports to Council were done in a similar manner. Cost estimating
professionals, as consultants to the architects, prepared detailed construction cost
estimates. City staff then added all of the other project costs. Most of these "other costs"
were calculated as a percentage of the construction costs.
The Committee reviewed all of the "other costs" and commented on the percentage mark-
ups the City has used. In general, the Committee feels that certain City mark-up
percentages are low, particularly the contingency. The City has included a 17.5%
contingency for all of the projects, but the Committee recommends 25%. The Committee
feels that higher contingencies are appropriate at the conceptual design phase of a project.
In sum, the Committee recommends about a 10% higher mark-up of construction costs
than what the City has used.
CMR:324:02 Page 6 of 8 ~
The Committee has reviewed and discussed ideas to lower project cdsts. One of the
recommendations is not to expand Children’s Library as it is expensive per square foot to
do so, compared to other facilities, particularly due to the substantial amount of site
improvements necessary. The Committee recommends increasing the amount of
programmed space at the Main Library or the Mitchell Park Library to accommodate the
children’s program needs at those facilities instead of Children’s Library, Staff feels that
since the Main Library project is notgoing ahead at this time, it cannot accommodate any
of the Children’s Library program space. The Mitchell Park Library project already
includes complete children’s program space and additional space would create an
imbalance of Children’s program space between north and south Palo Alto. Furthermore,
staff feels that the building cost for the Children’s Library expansion is in line with those
of other projects. It is the relatively substantial amount of site work at Children’s Library
that caus(s the costs per square foot to be high. Making a decision to relocate the
Children’s Library program areas to Main Library, Mitchell Park Library or any other site
without having analyzed the site impacts at these other locations caused by adding
program space makes it is impossible to know what the costs would be or whether, in
fact, there would be any cost savings.
Other Committee cost-savings ideas include alternative methods of project delivery
instead of the standard design-bid-build model the City normally uses. Staff concurs that
there are some project delivery methods that may be appropriate for the projects. Staff
will research these between now and the bond measure, so that if a particular method
seems appropriate, staff will be ready to make a recommendation to Council after the
bond measure passes.
All of the Committee’s findings and recommendations are detailed in its report, which is
included as Attachment A.
The Committee’s findings can be generally summarized as follows:
There are no "fatal flaws" in the cost estimates which have been prepared for
the Program, and the Program can be delivered for the anticipated amount of
bond issue.
The City should pursue potential cost reduction measures during subsequent
design phases, including:
-Value engineering reviews,
-Cost monitoring and control,
-Investigation of alternative
relationships.
project delivery and contracting
® Any major opportunities for cost reductions in the Program, would require:
CMR:324:02 Page 7 of 8
Revisiting the Library Master Plan, reevaluation of the programmatic
needs, and reallocation of space among the facilities,
Reduction in the quality and durability and sustainability measures of
the selected materials and finishes,
Revisions to the site designs and improvements, which would be
different than recommended during the accelerated review process to
date.
,RESOURCE IMPACT
The Committee has recommended that the City increase its cost estimates for each of the
community facility projects by about 10% to primarily allow for a larger contingency.
Conversely, the Committee has recommended the City explore a number of cost-saving
measures to lower the overall costs of all the projects.
Staff believes that the cost estimates provided Council with the staff reports for the
conceptual designs of each of the community facility projects are still suitable for use in
sizing the bond measure. This is because staff agrees with the Committee in that higher
percentage mark-ups of construction costs, particularly the contingency, are appropriate.
Staff also agrees with the Committee that during the next phases of design, there will be a
number of cost-effectiveness and cost-savings measures that will lower the overall project
costs~ Staff believes that the net result of these recommendations, therefore, is that the
current conceptual-level estimates will be close to estimates produced at later stages of
design. Furthermore, once Council has established project costs for inclusion in the bond
measure, staff will direct the architects to prepare designs that are within these budgets.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: Palo Alto Community Facilities Cost Advisory Committee Report
PREPARED BY: Bob Morris, Senior Project Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~/~, ~~
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: t"--~y~H~Ri~
Assistant City Manager
CMR:324:02 Page 8 of 8 "
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES
COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
June 28, 2002
The City Manager has convened the Palo Alto Community Facilities Cost
Advisory Committee (Committee) to review the cost estimates of all the
community facility projects being considered for a bond measure in
November 2002,
The Committee consists of:
Rob Steinberg, FAIA, Committee Chairman, Palo Alto Architect
Loren Brown, Palo Alto Contractor
John Barton, AIA, Palo Alto Architect and PAUSD Board President
Craig Jones & Bob Diaz, Construction Managers
Gordon Seibert, Deputy Director of Public Works, San Jose
Steve Yoshino, Director of Public Works, Santa Clara
The purview of the Committee is:
To provide an independent third-party review of the overall project level
¯ cost estimates for the proposed Palo Alto Community Facilities
improvements
To offer the City Council any ideas and suggestions as to cost
effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed improvements and on project
delivery alternatives
To produce a report on the Committee’s observations-and
recommendations by June 28, 2002. This report will be included in a
packet to City Council for the July 15, 2002, Council meeting scheduled to
discuss and decide which projects, and for how much money, will be
included in the bond measure
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
City staff that worked with the Committee were: Emily Harrison, Assistant
City Manager; Glenn Roberts, Director of Public Works; Mary Jo Levy,
Director of Libraries; and Bob Morris, Sr. Project Manager in Public Works.
The Committee has met four times: May 30, June 6, June 13 and June 19.
We have completed our work, and our recommendations are summarized
below.
STUDY BASIS
City of Palo Alto Public Works staff provided the Committee with a
spreadsheet summarizing the project costs of the various Library and
Community Facility projects being considered by the City. The spreadsheet
reflected the detailed cost estimates prepared by the City’s cost consultants
and estimates for project indirect costs.
The committee wanted to compare the summarized costs (on a $1square foot
basis) of the proposed Palo Alto projects with other comparable projects and
requested that additional information on comparable projects be researched
and provided by City Staff. Staff responded by providing historical cost
information on five other local library projects (Santa Clara Library, Mountain
View Library, Saratoga Library, West Valley Library, and Blossom Hill
Library) that have built recently or that are currently in design or under
construction. The Mountain View and Santa Clara Libraries are the most
comparable (larger two-story structures over one level of Parking, etc.) to the
Palo Alto Main and Mitchell Park Libraries and therefore the most relevant for
comparison purposes.
With the available cost information provided for comparable projects, the
Committee extracted relevant costs to .generate conclusions found in this
report.
The committee reviewed the estimated amounts for all cost items that are
derived as a percentage of the base building cost as well as the order in
which they appear on the cost summary.- Rearrangement of the cost data
was suggested to Staff where appropriate. The final version of this cost
spreadsheet is attached as Exhibit A.
2 of 11
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS OF COST DATA
The Committee found that the most meaningful cost data provided is the
construction cost per square foot of building area. There is enough
information available to reasonably compare the Palo Alto projects unit
construction costs with the unit construction costs of the five other local
library projects. The cost figures presented below are stated in 2002 dollars.
All unit costs presented below are estimated costs with the exception of the
Mountain View and Santa Clara Library costs. The Mountain View Library
costs are the 1996/97 bid costs including a 20% escalation factor. The Santa
Clara Library costs are the 2002 bid costs. A comparison of these costs
shows the. project area and the cost per square foot of building area for the
individual projects as follows:
Children’s Library 10,
Mitchell Park Library (Full).53
Mitchell Park Library (Reduced)47,
Mitchell Park Community Center 16
Main Library (New)68
Main Library (Addition)69
Art Center 34
625 SF $416/SF
900 SF $382/SF
000 SF $386/SF
800 SF $437/SF
100 SF $396/SF
200 SF $446/SF
075 SF $2711SF
Santa Clara Library
Mountain View Library
84,050 SF $294/SF
60,000 SF $333/SF
Saratoga Library *
West Valley Library *
Blossom Hill Library *
47,500 SF $238/SF
20,200 SF $282/SF
24,000 SF $339/SF
* One story structures generally smaller in scope with no underground
parking component.
In general, it appears that the Palo Alto projects are projected to cost more
than the other projects. Comparing the Palo Alto Library projects (excluding
the Art Center) to the Santa Clara and Mountain View Libraries costs, the
difference is in the range of 25-30%.
3 ofll
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
While these costs (and their differences) can be viewed as indicators, there
was insufficient data or information provided to generate firm conclusions.
Possible explanations can be provided for the differences in cost, however,
more information is necessary to validate such explanations.
Differences could very well be attributed to differences in scope of work from
project to project. Variance in the size of projects always impacts the
S/square foot ratio. Differences between competitively bid costs (i.e.
Mountain View and Santa Clara) and estimated costs can be a significant
cost factor. Remodeling projects generally cost more on a $/sf basis than
new construction costs.
Scope of work differences from project to project could be attributed to
differing site conditions, constraints associated with new design,
programming differences between Palo Alto libraries and other community
libraries, etc. It would require a substantial effort to obtain all the necessary
plans, information and data on the existing projects so that a thorough
explanation of the differences between the comparable projects and the Palo
Alto projects could be provided.
OTHER COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS OF COST DATA
The Committee observes that the "Building Costs" are based upon actual
conceptual estimates prepared by professional cost estimators. These cost
estimators count quantities of materials envisioned for the project and assign
a unit cost of construction for each project component. The Building Cost
represents approximately 50-55% of the total project cost (Bond Measure
cost). The remainder of the total project costs (i.e. contractor fees,
insurance, bonds, design costs, development costs and contingencies, etc.)
are all calculated as a percentage of the Building Cost. Thus a $1/SF
adjustment in the estimated Building Cost results in close to a $2/SF
adjustment to the Bond Measure cost.
4 ofll
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
COMMITTEE COST CONCLUSIONS
Although the Committee lacks sufficient data to determine exactly why the
Palo Alto projects are projected to cost more than the selected comparable
projects, the Committee believes it likely that the Palo Alto projects can be
programmed, designed and constructed for less cost and still substantially
meet the community’s needs.
OTHER COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS
Art Center Project - Combining matching funds by a public/private
partnership and renovating substantial portions of existing buildings at a
modest cost per square foot, the Art Center has creatively leveraged their
resources.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee is sensitive to the fact that the City of Palo Alto would like to
meet the Library needs of its community in the most cost-effective manner.
Cost-effective does not necessarily imply the least expensive, but instead,
has an optimum ratio of cost to benefits provided. Committee
recommendations are organized in the following categories:
Cost Recommendations:
Library Cost Evaluation - The Committee recommends that the Library
Project cost estimates (including the project-by-project cost summary)
be immediately updated and verified for completeness, accuracy and
consistency. Additional comparable project cost information should be
obtained (including a complete definition of the included scopes of
work) for the purposes of gaining a better understanding of the current
market value of libraries. Improved understanding of the current
market value of comparable libraries translates into a greater ability to
determine what the Palo Alto library projects could/should cost.
5 ofll
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
o
Library Cost Monitoring - The Committee recommends that a party
having specialized cost expertise be employed immediately to
supplement the project teams. This party’s role should be to ensure
that cost will be a considered factor in all future decisions relating to
user programming, the determination of the most appropriate
design/construct process, and the construction of the Library Projects.
.Design Process Cost Control -At the conclusion of conceptual design,
and/or in schematic design, require design/construction teams to
conduct value engineering and cost effectiveness reviews for all
projects in order to determine that the most cost effective materials,
systems and methods are being used. Costs should be brought in line
with other public buildings being constructed in adjacent communities.
Use of Design Development Contingencies - It is prudent for the City
to include contingency funds in estimates for design development.
Design development contingencies included in the project cost
estimates are approximately 10% of Construction Costs. While funding
will need to be obtained for this contingency, design control of costs
must be emphasized. It is not intended that project design or project
programming be expanded or grow to consume the design
development contingency. Policy should be established that no project
shall move forward to the next phase unless it is on budget. If
construction bids come in over budget, the design development
contingency becomes available as a bid contingency. If construction
bids come in onor under budget, the design development contingency
becomes available to add to the construction contingency.
Contingency generally should not be used to bring projects into budget
except after bid (construction contingency).
Cost Estimate Allowances - The Committee recommends that
allowances for certain cost components currently included in the Palo
Alto Library Projects Bond Measure Cost estimates be increased to
reflect a slightly more conservative position. Committee
recommended cost component allowances are shown in attached
Exhibit B.
6 ofll
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
Program Recommendations:
Community Facilities Program Evaluation - The Committee
recommends that the programming be evaluated to prioritize the needs
and wants for each project and that downward pressure be applied on
the project scopes as appropriate consistent with the realities of
available funding.
Based upon the current economic realities, reanalyze the Community
Facilities programs to determine if any program spaces can be reduced
or eliminated. Keep only the program spaces and functions that are
essential.
Children’s Library Alternative Concept - The Committee notes a
relatively high cost per square foot to renovate the Children’s Library
and adverse consequences of the renovation. It appearsthat the
Children’s Library program has simply outgrown the existing site.
The Committee therefore recommends the consideration of retaining
Children’s Library in its current configuration. Limit renovation of
structure to deferred maintenance items (i.e. re-roofing, seismic
upgrade, electrical upgrade, mechanical systems upgrade, ADA
compliance, etc.) Alternatively, expand Mitchell Park Children’s Library
to instead become the primary children’s library in Palo Alto. Positive
aspects of this recommendation include retaining the historic character
of the structure, no impact to adjacent uses or surrounding properties,
no impact to the Secret Garden, avoidance of disproportionate site
costs and freeing revenues that could be used more efficiently
elsewhere.
Consider future consolidation of the Children’s Library functions and
programs at the Main Library (when renovated or re-constructed).
Relocation within five blocks should not be a geographical barrier to
current users. The Children’s Library building could remain a library, or
could be converted to another public use. Future consolidation of
Children’s Library at the Main Library would increase operational
efficiencies and reduce staffing and ongoing costs. This concept
7 of 11
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
would eliminate the Children’s Library expansion project from the bond
measure.
Design/Construction Process Recommendations:
Alternative Project Delivery Methods - The Committee recommends~
the consideration of alternative design and/or construction delivery
processes that have been utilized by other public entities. Evaluate
cost and schedule benefits as well as tradeoffs of alternate methods.
Develop project delivery processes that are customized for each
separate project to produce optimum results. Examples of techniques
that have been utilized by other public entities include (but are not
limited to):
Private/Public Partnership
Design-Build
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) - Currently
used by the Palo Alto Unified School District.
Multiple Prime Contractors
Project Design Recommendations"
The Committee provides the following recommendations recognizing that
they may be counter to efforts to reduce initial costs.
Building Flexibility - The Committee recommends that the building
designs for the various projects be configured to provide for the most
future use flexibility (high floor-to-floor clearances, maximum column
spacing, flexible building footprints, etc.). Future uses of these projects
cannot be determined at the present time, however, a building
designed for future flexibility will minimize the costs of future
remodeling, allow uses of the buildings to change over time without
having to tear down the buildings prematurely.
8 ofll
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
Building Design Life Span - The Committee recommends that all new
buildings be designed to last 100 years instead of 50 to delay future
replacement costs.
Building Efficiency - The Committee recommends that life-cycle and
cost/benefit analyses of appropriate building components and systems
be performed in order to determine the cost of a component over the
life of the building, including the energy use, operation and
maintenance.. The City should invest in systems that may have an
initially high cost, but that will pay themselves off through reduced
energy or water use or reduced operation and maintenance costs.
9 ofll
COMPARITIVE STUDY OF PALO ALTO COMMUNITY FACILITIES
CONCEPTUAL-LEVEL PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
PROJECT
YEAR BUILT
TYPE
SIZE
DESCRIPTION OF COSTS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CHILDREN’S
LIBRARY
2004
1 & 2 story additions
3,400 sf (E); 7,225 sf (N)
UNIT I COST
Renovation of(E) bldg $188/sf
New Construction $262/sf
Under-building or structured parking
Sitework, incl. Surface Parking & Landscaping $85/sf
BUILDING COSTS
647,000
1,891,000
900.000
$3,438,000
Sustainability Allowance 2%
General Conditions 8%
Bonds and Insurance 2%
Overhead and Profit 5%
CONSTRUCTION COSTS 17%
68,76(
275,04(
68,76(
171.90C
$584,461:
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL IN 2002 $’S $378/sf
Design Development & Bid Day Contingency 10%
Escalate Mtn View Library Costs to 2002 $’s
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL IN 2002 $’S $416/sf =
$4,022,460
$402,246
$4,424,706
PA Projects Escalation Cost Allowance (@ 4%/Yr’ 8%$353.976
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL IN YR BULL’ $449/sf $4,778,682
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Design (All Disciplines 15%716,802
Construction Managemenl 5%238,934
Testing & Inspection 1%47,787
Permits and Fees 1%47,787
Public Ad 1%47,787
Environmental 1%47,787
Commissioning 1%47,787
Relocafion 1%47,787
Construction Contingency 7.5%358 401
SUBTOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS 33.5%$1,600,859
Escalate Development Costs to 2002 Dollars - If Applicable
TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,600,859~
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT COSTS
BOND MEASURE AMOUNTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (rounded)
compared to
FEASIBILITY-LEVEL ESTIMATE
$6,379,541
Financing Costs
Furnishings $44./sf
$653/sf
$6,479,541
$6,934,541
$6,900,000
$6,000,000
UNIT
$207/sf
$50kJea
$27/sf
2%
8%
2%
17%
$3481sf
10%
$382/sf
12 %
$429/sf
15%
5%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
7.5%
33.5%
$44/sf
$595/sf!
MITCHELL
PARK
LIBRARY
(Full
Program)
2004-2006
New 2-story
53,900 sf
COST UNIT
11,161,100 ~202/sf
3,445,000 $50Wea
1,432,000 $31/sf
$16,038,!00
320,762 2%
1,283,048 8%
320,762i 2%
801.905 5%
$2,726,477 17%
$18,764,577 $351/sf
$1,876,458 10%
$20,641,035 $386/sf
~ 12%
$23,117,959 $432/sf
3,467,694 15%
1,155,898 5%
231,180 1%
231,180 1%
231,180 1%
231,180 1%
231,180 1%
231,180 1%
1 733 847 ~
$6,010,669 33.5%
$6,010,669
$29,128,628
$29,678,628
$32,050,228 $599/sf
$32,100,000
$32,500,000i
MITCHELL
PARK
LIBRARY
(Reduced
Program)
2004-2006
New 2-story
47,000 sf
COST UNIT
9,515,000 $202/sf
3,126,000 $50Wea~
1,448,000 $36/sl
$t4,089,000
281,780 2%
1,127,120 8%
281,780 2%
704,450 5%
$2,395,130 17%
$16,484,130 ;397/sf
$1,648,413 10%
$18,132,543 ;4371sf
MITCHELL
PARK
COMMUNITY
CENTER
2004-2006
New 2-story
16,800 sf
COST UNIT
3,400,000 $269/sf
1,700,000
600.000 $44/sf
$5,700,000
114,000 0%
456,000 8%
114,000 2%
285.000 5~_
$969,000 15%
NEW MAIN
LIBRARY
(Replacement
Scheme,Full Program)
2006-2008
New 2-story
68,100 sf
COST UNIT
18,303,000 $269/sf
$42/sf
3.000.000 $42~f
$21,303,000
ind 0%
1,704,240 8%
426,060 2%
1.065.150 5%
$3,195,450 15%
$6,669,000i $360/sf $24,498,450 $406/sf
$666,90( 10%$2,449,845 10%
$7,335,90( $3961sf $26,948,295 $446/sf
~ ~$880.30~20%$5.389.659i 20%
$20,308,448i ;4891sf
3,046,267 15%
1,015,422 5%
203,084 1%
203,084 1%
203,084 1%
203,084 1%
203,O84 1%
203,084 1%
~7.5%
$5,280,197 33.5%
$8,216,208 $475/sf $32,337,954 $5361sf
1,232,431 15%4,850,693 15%
410,81C 5%1,616,898 5%
82,162 1%323,380 1%
62,162 1%323,380 1%
82,162 1%213,030 1%
82,162 1%323,380 1%
82,162 1%323,380 1%
82,162 1%323,380 1%
616,216 7.5%2.425.347 7.5%
$2,136,214 33.5%$8,297,519 33.5%
MAIN
LIBRARY
ADDITION
(RetentionScheme,FullProgram)
2006-2008
2-storyaddn
69,200 sf
COST
18,592,000
2,900,000
2.925.000
$24,417,000
inc[
1,953,36(
488,34(
1,220,85(;
$3,662,55C
$28,079,55C
$2,807,955
$30,887,505
$6.177.501
$37,065,006
5,559,751
1,853,250
370,650
370,650
370,650
370,650
370,650
370,650
2,779,875
$9,636,902
$5,280,197 $2,136,214 $8,297,519 $9,636,902
$10,352,422 I $40,635,473$25,588,645
$26,088,645
$2.068.000 $44/sf
$28,156,645 $672/sf
$28,200,000
N/A
$200.000
$10,552,422
$739.20(
$11,291,62~
$11,300,00~
$9,650,00C
$730.000
_ $41,365,473
$44/sf $3.005.000 $44/sf
$652/sfi $44,370,473 $731/sf
~- $44,400,000
$42,000,000
$46,701,90~
$820.00(
$47,521,908
$50,591,908
$50,600,000
$42,000,000
ART CENTER
2007
1-sto~ addn, remedel
9,600sf(N), 24,475sf(E)
UNIT I COST
$122/sf 2,985,95(
$300/sf 2,880,00£
$38/sf .. 1,300,00(;
$7,165,95~
2%143,310
8%573,27~
2%143,310
5%358,298
18%$1,218,212
$246/sf $8,384,162
10%$838,416
$271/sf $9,222,578
20%$1,844,516
$325/sf $11,067,093
15%1,660,064
5%553,355
1%110,671
1%110,671
1%110,671
1%110,671
1%110,671~
1%110,671
7.5%830.03~
26%$2,877,44~
$2,877,444
$13,944,537
$250.000
$14,194,537
;30/sf $288.000
$4251sf $14,482,537
$14,500,000
$17,500,000
SANTA CLARA
LIBRARY
(bid costs)
Bid 4/02, in construction
(N) 2-story w/garage
84,050 sf
UNIT I COST
$212/sf 17,845,000
$38KJea 4,525,000
$28/sf 2.380.000
$24,750,000
incl.
incl.
incl.
$294/sf $24,750,000
N/A
$294/sf $24,760,000
16%5,307,410
6.5%2,060,334
incl.
incl.
1.6%400,000
7%2,300,000
28%6.500.000
29%$16,567,744
$16,567,744
$41,317,744
$44/sf ~
$536/sf ~ $45,057,744
I~IT. VIEW
LIBRARY
(multiple primes)
(bid costs)
’i996-1997
2 story + garage
60,000 sf
UNIT I COST
$218/sf 13,074,000
$32KJea 2,500,000
$18/sf 1,085,000
incl.
incl.
incl.
$278/sf $16,659,000
+20%3.331.800
$333/sf $19,990,800
incl.
incl. above
incl.
incl.
I $4,750,000
+20%950.000
$5,700,000
$428/sf $25,690,800
SARATOGA
LIBRARY
(estimated costs)
Bid 3/02, in construction
Mostly new 1 story
47,500 sf
UNIT COST
$228/sf 10,834,000
incl.
incL
incl.
1%90,580
incl.
$230/sf $10,924,580
4%397.000
$238/sf $11,32t,580
12%1,519,000
6.5%752,00O
45,000
1%120,850
23,500i
6.5%748,295
26%$3,208,645
$3,208,645
$306/sf $14,530,225
WEST VALLEY
LIBRARY, SJ
(estimated costs)
In construction
New 1-story
20,200 sf
UNIT COST
$203/sf 4,105,334
$39/sf 784,000
$4,889,334
11%537,822
incl.
incL
$269/sf $5,427,156
5%271,356
$282/sf $5,698,512
15%930,000
10%600,000
5%3OO,OOO
2%125,000
32%$1,955,000
$1,955,000
$379/sf $7,653,512
BLOSSOM HILL
LIBRARY, SJ
(estimated costs)
Bid 4/02, in construction
New 1-story
24,000 sf
UNIT COST
$232/sf 5,560,000
$50/sf 1.200.000
$6,760,000
10%513,000
incL
5%289.000
$802,000
$315/sf $7,562,000
7;5%455,000
$339/sf $8,017,000
15%1,837,0~1
10O/o1,225,000
5%612,00C
2%245,000
LS 10,000
32%$3,929,000
$3,929,000
$499/sfI $11,946,000
S:Morris\Libraries\NLP\Cost estimates02; Last updated 6/28/02 COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE - EXHIBIT A
JUNE 28, 2002
COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 28, 2002
EXHIBIT B
COST ESTIMATE ALLOWANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
o
Revise "Design Contingency" to 15% of total construction costs instead
of 10%.
Revise "Construction Contingency" to 10% of total construction costs
instead of 7.5% for new projects and 12% of total construction costs for
renovation projects.
Revise "Construction Management". services to 6% of total construction
costs instead of 5%, contingent upon the specific services requested.
Revise "Design" services to a range of 13-17% of total construction
costs instead of 15% for design services, with lower amounts for large
projects and higher amounts for small projects; and with lower amounts
for new construction and higher amounts for renovation of existing
construction.
Revise "Relocation/Moving" services to 2% instead of 1% of total
construction costs unless the City intends to move materials from one
library to another.
Revise "Escalation" to 4% per year of total project costs for escalation
instead of 3.5%, calculated to the mid-point, or later, of construction.
11 ofll