The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-05-18 CRC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION May 18, 1998 City Attorney' s Conference Room 4 :30 p.m. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEMBERS PRESENT: John Dorso, Deric Prescott, Bob Campbell, Barbara McAllister, David Potter and Harriet Acton (arrived at 5 : 15 p.m. ) MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Blakely STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney John M. Kaheny Deputy City Attorney Glen R. Googins Colleen Kelly, Administrative Analyst II Dick Thompson, Building Projects Supervisor OTHERS PRESENT: Ian Gill, Highland Partnership The meeting was called to order at 4 : 32 p.m. 1 . Roll Call . The roll was called and all members were present except Members Blakely and Acton who asked to be excused due to car problems . (Member Acton did arrive at 5 : 15 p.m. ) 2 . Approval of Minutes . MSUC (Campbell/Potter) to approve the minutes of April 20, 1998 as presented. 3 . Proposed Charter Amendment to Allow "Design-Build" Approach to Public Works Projects . As a follow up to Glen Googins' presentation last month, the Commission indicated a desire for more information. Mr. Googins invited Dick Thompson and Ian Gill to discuss the matter. Dick Thompson has been with the City 9-1/2 years as the Building Projects Supervisor. He believes you can have the best of both worlds with a design-build project when a contractor works well with an architect . It can be the best approach for the least amount of money. Mr. Thompson distributed a schematic drawing from Flagstaff National Park Service where a competent builder having this basic information could construct the project . Mr. Thompson mentioned problems encountered with the architect of Norman Park Center and if that project had been done under the design-build theory, it could have saved money. It is estimated to have cost $159/square foot to construct . Recently the City wanted Charter Review Commission Minutes May 18, 1998 Page 2 to make changes to the Norman Park Shuffleboard Court, but since the Architect used building materials that were not readily available, the cost was $100 , 000 over budget . Dick reviewed the plans, found materials that were readily available and was able to reduce the cost by $90, 000 . In Mr. Thompson' s opinion, the Animal Shelter would be an excellent project for the design-build concept . Conceptual drawings could be ready after acquisition of the property and the project could proceed immediately to meet the Council' s 14-month completion date. Using the conventional approach will delay completion. Design- build for this project would have been reasonable and prudent . Member Campbell questioned what type of project would not be desirable to use design-build on. Glen Googins mentioned specialized utilities that are highly technical designs would be an example of where it might not be appropriate . Mr. Ian Gill reported he was the Project Manager Advisor to the South Chula Vista Library. Through the State Bond Act, 65% of the cost for the Library was paid by the state . He distributed a Comparison between the Conventional (Public Works) Approach and Design Build for Facilities Procurement. Mr. Gill discussed the reasons why public agencies are moving away from the Public Works approach: • Social change and a litigious climate • Requirement for more technical buildings • Architect/Agency responsible for design • Errors & omissions cause claims and/or change orders • Mulitiple contracts necessary with architect and contractor • No early cost validation possible • Linear process - no fast track. • Lump sum - savings to contractor • Adversarial project climate Mr. Gill prepared a flow chart showing the bid structure versus the design build structure. The key issues to consider are : • Quality facility • Certainty of cost- Get it built quickly and on schedule • Cost containment/change order management • No claims • Minimize disruption to the Agency Charter Review Commission Minutes May 18, 1998 Page 3 • Building project responds more to the Agency' s needs The pros for the design build approach are : • Advocate versus adversarial culture • Shift of responsibility • Design build team responsible for the design and construction • Single prime construct • Earliest gross maximum price possible • Using multiple tracks provides the fastest schedule • Reduces the amount of change orders • All savings to Agency Some possible cons for the design build approach are : • Shift responsibility requires trust • More of a cost driven approach • Possible lost of control on design concept; quality of materials and systems and method of delivery • Need to balance Agency priorities In order to be successful, design build involves the qualifications of the team selected, teamwork, program/standards agreed to jointly, priorities at commencement of project (such as aesthetics, schedule, budget, operations and maintenance) , integrity and fair dealing and excellent communication. Member Potter questioned if the design build approach led to cronyism. Mr. Gill responded that certain companies specialize in the design build approach, but he has not seen cronyism in agencies that select this method. . However, the City should insist on an open book process where the City can audit at any time . Chair Dorso inquired if penalty clauses are needed. Mr. Gill felt the better approach was to incentivise rather than use liquidated damages . Attorney Googins stated he would check with the City of San Diego to see what they are contemplating for their Charter amendment on the November ballot and report back to the Commission at its next meeting. Chula Vista might be able to piggyback on their measure. Mr. Gill advised the Commission not to be afraid of the design build process, but to tap on the creativity of the private sector. Historically, in the last 8 to 10 years, projects have won awards with the process . Charter Review Commission Minutes May 18 , 1998 Page 4 Bob Campbell asked if the Commission were to recommend such an addition to the Charter, would a lot of changes be required? Attorney Kaheny suggested adding a paragraph to the Section 1009 to . the effect "notwithstanding the above process, the City Council may authorize the design build approach under the following conditions and then list the conditions when it could occur. . . " . 4 . Report by City Attorney John M. Kaheny. The City Attorney distributed a memo regarding an update on Proposition 208 . Until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decides the case some time late in 1998 , no provision of Proposition 208 will be enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission. In accordance with the Commission' s request, Mr. Kaheny checked with the Mayor regarding the Fiscal Year Calendar. Her reason for referring it to the Commission was because City Manager Uberauga of San Diego had previously utilized this in his former City of Huntington Beach. Mayor Horton believed it should at least be reviewed by Charter Review. 5 . Annual Report . The secretary noted the Annual Report is due. Chair Dorso will prepare. 6 . Public Comments . - None 7 . Members' Comments . - None 8 . Adjournment . MSUC (Potter/Prescott) to adjourn the meeting at 5 :35 p.m. to the next meeting scheduled for June 15, 1998 at 4 : 30 p.m. Lorraine Kraker, Secretary C:\crc\minute\5-18-98