Barton Hills Village, Michigan

shim image News

April 17, 2008



April 17, 2008

The special meeting of the Board of Trustees was called to order by President Laporte at 6:05 PM at the Village Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss matters pertaining to the Village Administration Center Project.

ROLL CALL Present: Trustees Al-Awar, Boddie, Butterwick, Langford, Laporte, Lindstrom, MacKrell and Wilkes. Absent: Trustee Bogat.
Others attending: ZPA Perry, Asst. Treasurer Redies, Supt. Esch, BHMC Vice President Kelly, architect Ed Wier, VAC Committee member Chuck Hescheles.

Mr. Lindstrom expressed appreciation to everyone involved in the project; appreciation was likewise expressed by the Trustees for Mr. Lindstrom’s leadership. The objective of the project was read:

Develop a cost effective plan to:

Provide adequate working space for the administration of the Village of Barton Hills
Provide adequate storage to satisfy the state and federal legal requirements for record storage
Ensure the plan for the
Administration Center is coordinated with other potential plans for building
construction by the Village of Barton Hills.

Make recommendations to the Village of Barton Hills Board of Trustees and, ultimately, to the
residents of the Village in an open forum.

Mr. Lindstrom referred to the VAC Committee’s Executive Summary (Page 1 and facing), noting that the committee has been working on development of a plan to meet the objective, has obtained board approval for a potential site plan and building plan, and has received formal construction bids from five contractors. Further discussion has been held with the two lowest cost bidders: Construction Solutions and Phoenix Contractors. It is expected that the total cost of the project will be in the range of $495,000-530,000 beyond the $45,000 already spent. The Committee has concluded that both Construction Solutions and Phoenix Contractors are well suited and either would be a good choice for the project. Their recommendation is to award the contract to the lowest bidder, Construction Solutions, although it was noted that the committee vote was split.

Regarding the bids (Page 2 and facing) Mr. Lindstrom stated that specific drawings and specifications were provided, with seven bidders invited to participate. Two declined, and five submitted bids. The lowest bidder was Construction Solutions (≈$374,000), with Phoenix Contractors about 10% higher (≈$407,000), and Perkins Construction about another 10% higher. The committee pursued the two lowest bids, identifying strengths of each, i.e. Construction Solutions was considerably lower in fixed unit pricing for any changes made; Phoenix Contractors was lower in cost of site work. Both contractors stated they were able to begin work soon and continue working with estimated completion in late fall 2008.     
Mr. Al-Awar arrived

Trustee comment included: (Q-question; R-response)

Q. How much of the total cost is included in allowances? R. Allowances were set for the bricks, carpet, ceramic tile, cabinets and hardware. The hardware amount may be low, but the others are reasonably generous and are not anticipated to be significant sources of cost overruns.

Q. Has there been a change in the plan for the basement? R. Yes. Current Building Inspector Hamlin holds a slightly different perspective than his predecessor, Mr. Dresselhouse. Mr. Hamlin determined that more fire suppression materials were needed, and a sprinkling system or second exit needed in the basement since it will be larger than 1,500 square feet. An alternative to these requirements is shrinking the size, which the committee supported as the lowest cost choice. The basement under the conference room will be only five feet high, with a cement floor. This will be sufficient for utility access but not for general use.

Q. How do the Pella windows proposed by Construction Solutions compare with the specified Eagle windows? R. The committee supports the original choice of Eagle windows, which are extruded aluminum rather than the cold-formed Pella windows (Pella makes extruded windows but that is not what Construction Solutions is proposing). Eagle offers a wider choice of colors that will allow for closer match with the brick and a cleaner exterior look. The difference is aesthetic rather than functional.

Mr. Lindstrom commented on the items listed under “Owner Provided” (Page 3 and facing) and the indication of how the figures were determined. Adding that amount ($64,000), another $10,000 for professional services (for Mr. Wier and Mr. West as needed during construction) and a 10% contingency, the overall estimate of cost was about $495,000 (Construction Solutions) to $530,000 (Phoenix Contractors). Mr. Lindstrom supported the figures as based on reasonable estimates, in contrast to the Board-approved target cost of $380,000 that was determined by informed guesswork.

Discussion regarding the heat pump alternate focused on the possible energy cost savings, especially during the spring and fall. Electricity would be used to run the pump rather than gas to run the furnace/A/C; savings will be somewhat dependent on overall energy costs. Mr. Lindstrom asked a local, reputable company who said they do install the pumps and estimated a cost savings of 20-25%/year based on current energy rates. At a 10% savings (i.e. $200/year) it would take 7-8 years to recover the cost of the pump ($1,200-1,500). Mr. Hescheles reported significant savings with the heat pumps installed in his BHV and northern Michigan homes.

Evaluation of the two bidders is more subjective than the financial accounting. The committee investigated several criteria (Page 4) including quality (reputation), personnel and references. Mr. Lindstrom related that Construction Solutions volunteered a two-year warranty on the project in support of their ability to handle the work. Phoenix offers a one-year warranty, with two years on water-tightness. Given the similarities in other criteria, both contractors have strengths and either would be a good choice. Both companies indicated ability to begin the project soon with consistent work to complete it this season. There will not be any incentives or penalties in the contract relating to the timeframe. Financial information (confidential) was also comparable between the two bidders. Payment procedures were discussed. It was noted that Mr. Wier and Mr. West will provide professional supervision as needed, with Mr. Esch on-site daily.

Trustee comments included:

--How soon can the contractors begin? R. Within thirty days is customary. If the winning bidder can’t start in a reasonable time, the other contractor would be chosen.

--There is still concern for the cost of the project. $550,000 for 2,100 square feet of building seems like a lot. R. Some things cost more because it is a public building, i.e. ADA requirements, parking, etc. The construction cost of about $140/square foot is really good. Even adding in the site-related costs and the fees incurred to date (primarily architectural fees), the cost is about $200/square foot, which is still pretty good.

--We went to the residents and they supported the project. It is a lot of money, but everyone has worked really hard to get the best quality for the best price.

--Financially it will be tight but it is doable. We can watch for opportunities to save money, and make it work.

--These are the best numbers for the design. There are alternatives that have already been investigated and rejected. It’s important that the Board support the project strongly as it moves ahead. (Question was called/defeated 5/3)

--We’ve tried our best to anticipate difficulties and there’s always the risk of unknown problems; that’s what the 10% contingency is for. It’s more likely we will have “honest mistakes” (i.e. wrong materials ordered/delivered) than major problems.

--Could some funds be diverted from other accounts, i.e. delaying paving for a year. R. The concern isn’t the money itself, it’s the perception that we paid a lot for what we got.

--The residents didn’t voice opposition to the cost at the community meeting. We can always accept donations.

--The basic building cost is very reasonable. There are mandated costs, such as the ADA requirements, that should be listed so the residents can see why the total amount is what it is. (Mr. Lindstrom will make this list for the Annual Meeting.)

--I’m happy with the proposal. We should move ahead.

--We’re building for a number of future generations of residents. We received a considerable vote of confidence at the community meeting.

--There is about a 7% difference in the two bids. That’s not a lot; we should decide in favor of quality in the long run.

--Changes are where contractors make money. We need to hold fast to the design.

--The committee has worked hard, being as frugal as possible. We will have better oversight than most house construction has, and the specifications of the design are excellent. If we watch closely, we’ll get a quality building for our money.

Motion Mrs. MacKrell moved that Adele Laporte, Will Boddie and Wayne Lindstrom be authorized to enter into contract negotiations with Construction Solutions. The purpose of these negotiations is to arrive at a mutually agreeable contract for the construction of the planned Barton Hills Village Administration Center, consistent with the bids received for this project. It is expected that these negotiations will take no longer than 10 business days and will require the assistance of outside legal counsel. This resulting contract will be subject to the review and approval of the Barton Hills Village Board of Trustees. Mr. Wilkes seconded. In a roll call vote, Trustees Al-Awar, Boddie, Bogat, Langford, Lindstrom MacKrell and Wilkes voted yes; Trustees Butterwick and Laporte voted no, but then requested the vote be recorded as unanimous. The motion carried.

Mrs. MacKrell moved the meeting be adjourned at 8:15 PM. Mr. Wilkes seconded; the motion carried.

Janice K. Esch, Deputy Clerk