2003-1130-Minutes for Meeting July 24,2003 Recorded 7/31/2003COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS CJ 2443'130
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0713112003 09;36;58 AM
11111111111111111111111111 IN III
2003-1130
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.orc
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THURSDAY, JULY 249 2003
Deschutes County Justice Building — Judge Tiktin's Conference Room
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly.
County Administrator Mike Maier was unable to attend due to a wildfire that could
have resulted in the evacuation of his neighborhood. Also present were Susan
Ross and Bonnie Baker, Commissioners' Office; Judges Michael Sullivan, Steve
Tiktin and Ernie Mazorol; and Mike Gorman and Scott Steele of Steele Associates,
Architects. No media representatives or other citizens were in attendance.
The meeting began at 11:10 a. m.
The meeting started with a tour of the outside of the justice building. (A packet of
five sketches was distributed by the architects, and a copy is attached as Exhibit
A) Scott Steele explained phases 1 and 2 of the project. The building will be
expanded almost to the property line at the sidewalk, which will result in a loss of
five parking spaces. He said there will be new security double doors, with an ADA
standard ramp; the existing elevator and stairs will remain. The front portion of the
building will be removed, and a short-term entrance will be placed at the side of
the building while work is being done. Care will be taken to remove as little of the
existing building as possible.
There will be no windows or doors in the courtrooms, so that all lighting will be
artificial. The Judges indicated that this is preferable to them because the existing
skylights cause inconsistent lighting and fluctuating room temperatures.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 1 of 9 Pages
A part of the project is a glassed -in enclosure that will be used for the corridor
tying the courthouse and justice buildings together. It will be secure, with
emergency exit only doors tied to an alarm, and no exterior hardware.
The lower steps in front of the courthouse building will be removed in order to
define the area as no longer being an entrance. The group discussed some possible
uses for the vacated area, including a small park with artwork, benches and
landscaping. Ms. Ross suggested that the area could become a dedicated County
park, which will enable the County to use park funds that are readily available.
The group also felt that the current concrete sidewalks located in front of the
courthouse that connects the courthouse to the justice building need to be
improved, as they are narrow and do not flow well. A suggestion was made that
brick be used to tie parking and the two building together.
The attendees then met in Judge Tiktin's conference room for lunch, after which
Scott Steele discussed potential security problems. There are two main security
issues to be addressed: the overall security of the building and area, and the public
entering the building. Judge Tiktin expressed concern regarding security during
the construction process. Judge Sullivan added that not only is there a security
problem in regard to personnel and visitors; there is a real concern regarding
computer files and exhibits that are held during trials. Mr. Steele stated that it is
important that noise be minimized during construction as well.
At this time Judge Tiktin suggested that perhaps the CM/GC bid process would be
the preferred way to go with this project. Scott Steele explained that the CM/GC
process allows the contractor to come into the project earlier, providing more
control and making it easier to mitigate costs and problems. In a standard bid
process the contractor will not be known for some time. Bidders in a hard bid
process are qualified if they can bond, regardless of other qualities. Even if you
aren't satisfied with the winning bidder, it is very difficult to exclude them due to
factors other than cost.
Judge Tiktin expressed concerns regarding the complexity of the project. Mr.
Steele explained that while construction is occurring, safety and timing are the
most important issues; the ramifications of a failure in this regard could be very
serious. The normal working patterns are disrupted, and noise is also a factor.
He added that the site is also very "tight", meaning that there is not much room to
lay out and store materials, or to keep equipment.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 2 of 9 Pages
He stated that the CM/GC selection process allows the County to select a contractor
based not solely on low bid, but on other factors such as experience in this type of
project. He added that the previous remodel of the Courthouse building was a
CM/GC project, and that Commissioner Luke was involved in that project.
Ernie Mazorol pointed out that the budget for the project is very tight. Mr. Steele
said that in any remodel, but especially the remodel of an older building, there can
be a lot of variables. He reminded the group that the last time the Courthouse was
remodeled several unforeseen problems were found when walls were opened.
Susan Ross stated that the budget has already gone up $140,000 because of design
changes that resulted in more square footage. If the project increases in cost, other
projects could be affected. The current contingency for the Courthouse project is
7.5%, which is fairly low for a remodel. This contingency would work well for
new construction since there are usually no surprises; Mr. Steele said that, for
instance, the new Sisters High School has a 7.5% contingency built in but it will
likely end up being under 2%.
Judge Tiktin again asked whether the CM/GC process would be best for this
project. Mr. Steele and Mr. Gorman emphasized that usually the CM/GC process
results in fewer conflicts, and solutions can be reached earlier and easier. A hard
bid process is more competitive, and contractors are more likely to cut their bids
quite low, which often results in change orders becoming necessary after work has
begun. If there is a "gray" area that the contractors aren't quite sure about when
compiling their bids, they tend to ignore it if possible. This can result in change
orders. The CM/GC process sets a percentage of overhead and profit, and there are
still multiple bids for all parts of the project.
Susan Ross stressed that the CM/GC process is working well on the warehouse/I.T.
project; and that there has been good give and take between all parties.
Mr. Gorman indicated that the contractor should be very well qualified before
working on the courthouse project; and that in his opinion, this particular project
should not become part of a learning process. Mr. Steele added that the CM/GC
process can begin earlier, and it is easier to plan ahead regarding the work
schedule, details and delivery.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 3 of 9 Pages
Mr. Steele said that they hope to do as little work as possible involving the existing
buildings in order to eliminate any surprises. Judge Sullivan asked that they work
with the Sheriff in order to get input regarding security, transportation and other
possible concerns. This should help mitigate costs to the Sheriff's Office.
Commissioner DeWolf added that Juvenile Community Justice and Parole and
Probation should also be involved at some level in this regard. Ms. Ross said that
she will work with the Sheriff and the others on this issue.
Mr. Gorman stated that security will be a big concern throughout the entire project,
and will need to be addressed on a daily basis. Mr. Mazorol said that during the
previous courthouse remodel project, the affected parties sat down and worked out
the details. He added that the workers for the contractor and subcontractors must
have criminal, history checks run prior to beginning work.
Judge Tiktin again asked if the Commissioners would consider using the CM/GC
process. Commissioner Daly indicated he would not; that he got too much
criticism from members of the construction industry when the CM/GC process was
selected for the warehouse/I.T. building. Commissioner Luke stated that he
doesn't feel it is necessary to use other than a hard bid process for this project.
Commissioner DeWolf strongly emphasized that they should use the CM/GC
process; that it is ridiculous not to, especially for this remodel.
Judge Tiktin asked how he and the other judges might be able to make their case
for using the CM/GC process. He said he would be willing to provide letters,
findings or whatever else might help to steer the Commissioners towards using the
CM/GC process for this project.
Commissioner Luke stated that the world did okay without it before, and he does
not agree with statements noting perceived disadvantages, although he
acknowledged it is an easier process for the architect and the project manager.
Using the CM/GC process would narrow down the selection to a handful of
contractors who could do the work. He added that local contractors will never get
experience in this type of work unless they are given the opportunity to get their
foot in the door. He said that it made sense to him in regard to the warehouse
project because of the tight time frame for the construction of that building.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 4 of 9 Pages
He also said that if the plans are detailed enough, most problems can be avoided.
He again stated that contractors need to be able to get this type of experience, and
that he would have a difficult time justifying using the CM/GC process again.
Commissioner DeWolf said that he realizes both Commissioners Daly and Luke
have a construction background and have been very involved in the construction
industry, but feels it is the Board's responsibility to represent the taxpayers, not
specific industries. The question is how to best serve the taxpayers and the users
of the facility; not just the judges and staff, but other citizens as well.
He stressed that the Human Services building was done through a hard bid process,
and they have had nothing but problems with it since. He stated that the goal
should be what is best for a specific project instead of helping out a contractor who
might be "hungry" and who would have to learn on the job.
Commissioner Luke observed that there's no guarantee that the lowest qualified
person would even get the job.
Judge Tiktin asked if it is the right thing to do, having someone "cut their teeth" on
the courthouse project. Commissioner Luke said that it is hard for someone to get
liability insurance now, and the contractor would need a performance bond in any
case. The bonding company would look at their experience level. Commissioner
Daly added that he never got into the bonding issue as a subcontractor, and said
that to be bonded typically requires a lot of money and experience.
Judge Tiktin stated that the Commissioners call the citizens "taxpayers", but he
prefers to call them "users of the facility". The other side of the coin is the users'
ability to utilize the building. If it is the same price, and is more efficient over the
next eighteen months or so, in his opinion the CM/GC process should be used.
Commissioner Daly said that the contractor could not be bonded unless qualified.
Susan Ross observed that if she could trade projects, she would have rather seen
the courthouse project be handled under a CM/GC instead of the warehouse,
because of the relative complexity. She said that, in her opinion, the CM/GC
process works better, is easier for all parties, and there is more give and take; and
is warranted in this situation. She also stated that the State uses the process all the
time and, in fact, has an office that handles just CM/GC projects, using a blanket
exemption.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 5 of 9 Pages
Mr. Steele said that when the Bulletin newspaper ran its series of articles on the
CM/GC process, they overlooked a lot of the important details. For instance, the
primary contractors who lost the bid still supported the process. It does not limit
competition, and is advertised statewide. The only thing that's different with a
hard bid process is having to go with the lowest bidder regardless of other
potential issues that should be considered, especially in regard to such a complex
project.
Commissioner DeWolf stated that in his opinion it's the same as any other work;
and it is only logical that they shouldn't look for the cheapest but the most
qualified contractor. As an example, he asked the group if they would want to use
the lowest bidder for brain surgery without considering the other qualifications of
the doctor. He said in this particular case, the contractor should be experienced in
this specific type of project.
Commissioner Daly responded that it is just another building. Mr. Steele
disagreed; he said there are some big considerations in this case, such as
courthouse security and the nature of the work being done; not to mention the lives
and livelihood of those using the facility.
Commissioner DeWolf added that the design will be handled by the architect,
working with the judges and the Sheriff, and that there is no way to address every
nut and bolt; there will have to be adjustments made during the process. By using
the CM/GC process, many suggestions and problems can be addressed up front,
helping to avoid change orders later.
Mr. Steele said that a 10% contingency should be put into place if the contractor is
selected through hard bid, to allow for change orders. The current contingency is
set at 7.5%.
Judge Sullivan noted that during the next twenty-four months or so, they expect to
have 800 additional cases due to delays in processing; and fewer staff will be
handling more cases. He said they would try to work it out, but stated that he,
frankly, has a lot of concerns. He tries construction -related cases, and sees some
contractors who should not be allowed to work on projects but who are still
operating. Commissioner Daly said that in his opinion the bond requirement
weeds out those contractors.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 6 of 9 Pages
Mr. Steele stated that the feedback he has gotten from contractors regarding the
process is good. He asked why the two Commissioners are so negative about it,
when in reality it is still a competitive bid process.
Commissioner Luke said that it is against his personal philosophy. Commissioner
Daly stated that the general contractors are aware of the process, but the smaller
contractors don't understand why they never get a chance at these types of
projects. He said he feels the general contractor can manipulate the use of
subcontractors and how the work is assigned, and some smaller contractors never
get a chance to do the work.
Ms. Ross said that in any case the contractor still needs to make money. Mr. Steele
added that three competitive bids are still required for all of the work, so the
subcontractors would get a fair shake at getting the work.
Commissioner Luke stated that he has heard all of these arguments before, and
won't be changing his mind at this point.
Ms. Ross then distributed a sheet detailing the estimated project costs (a copy of
which is attached as Exhibit B). She explained that the information does not
include the planned technology upgrades. The group then reviewed the data as
detailed on the sheet.
Mr. Steele said that the inside appearance will be similar to what is now in place.
The windows will not be operable, due to HVAC and security issues. The "worse
case" scenario is shown, but it is hoped that the City's SDC's will come in lower
and that the County will be able to handle doing its own plans. He also indicated
that the City has been outsourcing a lot of its work lately.
Commissioner DeWolf asked if the 7.5% contingency is adequate. Mr. Steele
replied that 10% is better, especially if a hard big process is used. Ms. Ross stated
that there could be additional funds remaining from the Deschutes Services
Building remodel, as some of the anticipated changes relating to that building's
HVAC system may not be needed after all. She said, however, that 10% is better,
given the age and condition of the courthouse and justice buildings.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 7 of 9 Pages
Commissioner Luke stated that he thinks the contingency should be left at 7.5%,
and that it is understood that documents are never perfect, and change orders
should be expected on this project.
The group then discussed how change orders are handled. Commissioner Luke
said that the Board of Commissioners has the final say. Mr. Steele said that there
will likely be construction meetings held weekly, or as often as the parties think is
appropriate.
Ms. Ross then said that a parking committee has been formed to address the overall
parking situation around all of the local government buildings; and that one person
from the courts needs to be involved. This issue is fairly complicated due to the
different groups requiring parking, such as employees, corrections personnel,
jurors and others.
Judge Sullivan asked that some kinds of chairs or benches be installed in the
holding cells, as at the present time the only seating other than the floor is the top
of the toilets. Mr. Steele indicated that it will be easy enough to build in some kind
of seating, possibly made of concrete or some other type of sturdy material.
Ms. Ross told the group that a zone change hearing is being held at the City that
evening regarding changing the courthouse zoning from CL to PF, which will,
among other things, allow the building to be located closer to the lot line.
Mr. Steele concluded with the statement that part of his work is to point out
options to the group for consideration; and that his firm will follow whatever
directives are given.
Being no further issues brought up for discussion, the meeting adjourned at
approximately 12:50 p.m.
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 8 of 9 Pages
DATED this 24th Day of July 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
�lJ it TD -
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Chair 6
To -1h DeWolf, Commissioner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sketches of the courthouse project (5 oversized pages)
Exhibit B: Estimated project costs sheet (1 page)
Minutes of Special Meeting Thursday, July 24, 2003
Overview of Court/Justice Building Remodel Project Page 9 of 9 Pages
Q=/
Cr
o�
a
rL
.0
� Rffr
0
STREET
DIVISION
STREET
V
113 h IF1
—
i al
IST STF
LC a
Ll Q
F-1 A
D.C. PARKNO MASTER PLANd
,moo W �„ ArE Steele Associates ' fi��;`
ARCHITECTS LLC ptl;t�
9w S.W. COLUMB A SUITE 3000 SEND, OREOM 97702
PARKING MASTER PLAN �- �I°°°7 FAX°41�°6°°t°
i -will
P
GQ x
yp
7F titltR Q
0,
��jq q Q U
<j
< <1
<1
km
< <
j
J
-V 0
A <I Ij �i
0
, 'I " <1
j
J
,j
j
<1 J
I <j
<
J I
25
-�l Q
"Of
W-11
-0
zr4-
4,19",
Jg
A "i o
q
"i "I j <1 N
4 ME
<1 I g
q <1 q �1
'j
j �j
-Q
4
J
q
q "I
4
<1
gt
q
I
j
q �j
'go
Q
J
<1
0000—
Ij
7 '1
'55555
It
<1 7
<!
11 I <1
ltz�� "1 0 1 ,j o
< o
j <1 <j j
a 1
<i
BOND" 81NE" <J
I �1' <1
'J 1Ij <j j "i <1 1 '1 - "'I
<
�;j q �j 'i �1
j "0
a
. . . . .. . . . . . .
4"
.. . . . . . . . . .
0
r
717.
Q
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . HARRUM- STREET. . . .
TREET' -
MY
. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
r
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
........... . ..........
. . . . . . . . . . ........ . ..... . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
q . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
ANJ . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .........
m
. . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . .
ul, . . . . . . . . .
N . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . .
V . . . . .
7-
..........
. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
+
+
1i' 1HLL'8F1k&
+ •.1 4 + *
+
t 4. 1
4
4 +
+ 4 4
i 7 i
i
tt"!
4 1
D.C. PAFKM MASTER PLAN
M M NOW AVE
PLAN
Steele Associates iii
ARCHITECTS LLC
OW S.W. COLUMBIA SUITE MM SM. OREGON 97102
64113819067 FAX 541.385.81116 Wilbodmilo4rdLoom
MQ COWTHOM ,usnCE FACWY
Mmem
ro del
FLOOR PLAN
ISteele Associates
nARCHITECTS LLC
ODD S.W. COLUMBIA SURE 3000 SEND. OREGON S770Q
511.3829807 FAX 541MMIS Hoodee"di.own
A&
IV,
MQ COUiTH0 M JUSTICE FACWY M
N Ra c Steele Associates ' j;�
tl�l ARCHITECTS LLC
W
` SOS S.W. COLUMSIA SURE 3000 SEND, OREOCH 97702 �} j
i ° FLOOR PLAN �- 611.362.9161 FAX 611.3SS.S81S M)Odbdemch am t
m
w
LJ
to
Na111111
114A
71�
INN@ qk�-,Tv NO M F,
ko
NEW* -
OR m ut "a
"4111 — 1111!wtVU udim= III
-- -
0 a #A
I
in -m
HII 1m;
Sman, 16
aw" i waloom
Jill
11.1141
twIf
rrar ORRIN
row rrrY
IC
rrw Z%'
11 L1
dCrrY I. =,own
4�
�]
4�
Estimate Project Cost
Deschutes County
Court Room Additions
Revised 5/10/03
Proposed courtroom addition is limited to adding two (2) new courtrooms onto the existing
Justice Center Building, creating a new single entry point between the Courthouse and Justice
Center Building, new covered entry ramp and stairs, remodel of existing entry to hallway. No
cost was added for remodeling to any other Courthouse or Justice Center space.
Estimated Project Cost:
Building Shell 9,350 SF @ $110 SF =1,028,500
(2) Court Room build -out 3,000 SF @ $ 75 SF = 225,000
(2) Office/common build -out 3,500 SF @ $ 40 SF = 140,000
Hallway Remodel/Open Lobby 2,850 SF @ $ 40 = 114,000
New Entry ( between bldg's.) 320 SF @ $ 50 SF = 16,000
New ADA Stair/Ramps 2,000 SF @ $ 28 SF = 56,000
Subtotal 1,579,500
SDC's ( street & Sewer) = 86,400
Permits 2% = 30,000
Architect & Engineers Fee's 12.5% = 197,438
Subtotal = 1,893,338
Contingency n 7.5% = 142,000
Estimated Cost: = $2,035,338
Original Estimated Cost: = $1,893,505
Delta: = $141,883
Steele Associates Architects Exhibit ✓0
Page / of /