AgdaPkt 2005-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�� 3 Staff, developer, and consultants then undertook a series of value engineering (VE) steps to reduce costs while also attempting to retain as much of the design objectives as possible. An additional $400,000 from contingencies and other sources was identified to aid in closing the funding gap (bringing City/RDA available funding to $2.6M). It was agreed that the major design objectives in guiding the VE would be as follows: 1. Retain the vertical elements of the design, including Palm and other decorative street trees, light standards and street furniture. 2. Retain the European feel to Theatre Way through the use of pavers, an outdoor dining terrace, and creation of a pedestrian atmosphere. It was determined that the most significant cost savings could be realized by replacing the granite pavers that were included in the original design. Three alternative pavers have been pursued and analyzed. They include: (1) a man-made granite-like paver, which is referred to as the "Hanover" paver; (2) a locally made clay brick paver, smaller in size than the other options, and (3) a man-made concrete paver, which is gray in color and resembles cobble stone. Estimated construction costs for each of the alternatives have been obtained. The three paver options along with the original granite pavers have been presented to the City Council Downtown Subcommittee and the ARC for their review and recommendation. Both groups eliminated the granite paver due to the high cost and the brick paver due to the redness of the color options and its smaller size. The Downtown Subcommittee preferred the Hanover option, but wanted a recommendation from the ARC. The ARC preferred a combination of the Hanover and the cobble. They felt that the Hanover was not cost effective to use as a driving surface; and hence, recommended the Hanover for the dining terrace and sidewalks and the cobble for the driving surface. ARC also felt that the use of Hanover pavers throughout was overly designed and preferred to use them as accents only. Additionally, ARC provided design input on other VE options. While a number of VE options recommended and agreed to by the designer and the contractor have been considered throughout the VE process, both the Downtown Subcommittee and the ARC agreed that certain options should be retained, as they believed them to be essential to the overall design and in keeping with the previously mentioned design objectives. Thus, only finro areas of VE savings other than the paver options have been included in the total costs. They are: (1) substitution of material around Palm tree wells with a colored concrete band, and (2) a simplification of the marquee design in the pavement at the theatre entrance. The savings is less than $100,000 and is included in the final numbers reflected below. The total construction and soft cost numbers have now been submitted and we also have determined the total funds available from a variety of City/RDA funding sources. The City/RDA has $3.OM available in funding for this project. However, there will still be a funding gap as seen below. The cost differentials and budget impacts of the four alternatives are as follows: Page 3 of 5 _ .