MADISON, WI
|
MILWAUKEE, WI
|
SHEBOYGAN, WI
MEETING MINUTES
Project:
University of Wisconsin Eau Claire Campus – New Student Center
Project No.:
DSF #07E2D, Bray #2934
Meeting Date:
August 6, 2010
Present:
Beth Hellwig, UWEC, hellwiba@uwec.edu
Susan Harrison, UWEC, harrison@uwec.edu
Charles Farrell, UWEC,
Rick Gonzales, UWEC
Jason Anderson, UWEC,
Tim Lauer, UWEC
Jim Bolton, UWEC
Russ Van Gilder, DSF
Ray Maggi, Burt Hill, ray.maggi@burthill.com
Shawn Plum, Burt Hill, shawn.plum@burthill.com
Arthur Sanfilippo, Burt Hill, arthur.sanfilippo@burthill.com
David Hatton, Burt Hill, david.hatton@burthill.com
Ashraf Sadek, Bray Architects, Sadek@brayarch.com
Reported By:
Purpose of Meeting:
Ashraf Sadek/sc, Bray Architects
Budget Review
Discussion/Action
Budget Issues
1.
Russ Van Gilder expressed that while he believed that the project is somewhat over-budget, he is very comfortable
that the percentage of which it is potentially over-budget is within the range that we will see on bid day. He stressed
that all need to be careful not to add any additional cost and continue to focus on reducing costs where we can. At
this point in the project, however, the square footage of the building cannot be altered as a means of managing the
building’s cost, nor can parts of the building be shelled out for future build-out.
2.
The committee agreed with Burt, Hill cost-saving suggestion of eliminating the mullion extensions, which will save
the project approximately $75,000. The trellises, which are estimated to cost approximately $55,000, will remain in
the project, as both Burt, Hill and the committee felt that their loss would significantly impact the aesthetics of the
project.
3.
Russ Van Gilder stated that he did not see any significant exterior material changes that would be advisable or have
any major cost savings at this point in the project. He does not want to make any changes that would unnecessarily
adversely affect the building aesthetics.
4.
Ray Maggi noted that the change of materials at certain locations on the south side of the building from metal panel
to brick would save the project approximately $750,000 and would not impact this elevation in any significant way.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Budget Review
August 6, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Deconstruction Issues
1.
Timing and care of moving historically important and fragile objects from the Davies Center to the new student
center.
2.
Components such as antique windows will need to be evaluated by a professional historical preservationist –
reinstall and protect in a new installation, determine if stain glass windows are by Frank Lloyd Wright. Wood doors
and panels.
3.
The current budget does not account for such a high level of deconstruction for such historical objects. Perhaps
there are professionals within the system. Russ Van Gilder suggested starting looking locally for historic specialist.
Both Russ Van Gilder and Ash Sadek mentioned Charlie Quagliana as a possible resource for this work.
4.
When will the new building need them? (take them out, restore and store until ready for installation) Months
between removal, restoration and reinstallation.
5.
Burt, Hill and the University will continue to work together to compile a comprehensive list of all items requiring
special care, and note said objects in the construction deconstruction documents.
Sustainability, Operational Cost
1.
Choices have been made throughout the project in terms of both sustainability (choices of materials) and operational
systems that maximize efficiencies energy efficiency, operational efficiencies, life cycle costing of systems that
follow DSF standards.
2.
Dr. Hellwig pointed out that both Shaun Plum and Arthur Sanfilippo are LEED Certified Professionals, and have
taken care throughout the project to design the new student center to LEED sustainability principles.
3.
Russ Van Gilder noted that the project is adhering to DSF standards in terms of sustainability, which are very similar
to LEED standards. The project’s goal is to be designed to achieve the equivalency of LEED Silver. Ash Sadek
stated that after the Bid Documents are completed that the LEED checklist will be updated.
4.
Green roof is the first add alternate, with the infrastructure of the green roof being part of the base bid. The total
cost for the green roof is approximately $285,000. The add alternate for the growing media and plants would be
approximately $150,000 of this total cost.
5.
Dr. Hellwig noted that the committee has attempted to keep in the project as many sustainable features as possible.
6.
The University asked for a budgetary range for the solar options that were discussed a few months previously. Ash
Sadek said that he will provide that information once he receives it from his engineers.
7.
Dr. Hellwig expressed that the University is committed to incorporating some sort of solar energy system in to the
project, and is not interested in having this becoming one of the value engineering options.
8.
Russ Van Gilder expressed that while he believed the project is somewhat over-budget, he is very comfortable the
percentage of which it is potentially over-budget is within the range that we will see on bid day. He stressed that we
need to be careful not to add any additional cost and continue to focus on reducing costs where we can.
9.
Dr. Hellwig expressed her concern that the Council Oak Tree is properly protected throughout the construction
process. The most current plan is to have the area around the tree surrounded by an 8’-0” high chain link fence with
a gate.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Budget Review
August 6, 2010
Page 3 of 4
10. The University asked Shaun Plumb of Burt, Hill for clarification on the exact location and operation of the required
ceiling access points for rigging. Shaun responded that she would coordinate and provide this information to the
University and account for it in the Bid Documents.
11. It was decided against constructing a temporary bridge crossing Little Niagara on the west portion of the site.
12. Susan Harrison asked if nursing students and faculty will be able to get to Phillips easily and safely during
construction. Russ Van Gilder stated that along the south side of the site the project needs to maintain a safe
pedestrian route. The project will maintain a portion of the existing parking surface for as long as they can, and then
provide a hard-pack gravel path. In addition, if we can take steps to address the concerns about pedestrian traffic,
how long into year is it going to last, how far out of the way people will have to temporarily need to travel, that is
how we respond to that issue.
13. The bridges are currently sized to accommodate a lightweight vehicle. A 12’-0” bridge would accommodate both a
lightweight vehicle and a pedestrian.
14. It was noted that DSF standard for thickness of concrete sidewalks is 5” for pedestrian sidewalks and 7” for
vehicular sidewalks.
15. Structural support and mechanical infrastructure for fish tank will be part of the bid documents, with any
modifications to the wall taken care of in a change order if it is not able to be coordinated before the drawings are
issued.
16. Russ Van Gilder noted that in terms of the floor finish selections, the best decisions were made in terms of lifecycle
costing if not first cost.
Food Service and A/V Equipment
1.
The guiding principle is that the building needs to be fully operational on day one, especially the food service
component.
2.
Included the full list of all the equipment needs, and have the flexibility the day after the bids come in to designate
the free-standing equipment to be paid for differently if needed.
3.
All of the built-in infrastructure will be in the base bid package, but given that the project’s construction schedule is
approximately two years long, it was recommended by Russ Van Gilder not to purchase the “loose equipment”
immediately, but wait until later as electronic equipment will inevitably improve in terms of technology and
decrease in terms of price.
4.
Decisions need to be made to address how to handle the future purchase of A/V equipment and the best way to
design to this technology. The current placeholder for A/V is approximately 1.8 million, which is less than what the
University feels the total package will cost. It is possible to list the A/V equipment as an alternate for pricing
information.
5.
Add alternates are based on a set scope of work, while an allowance is usually a placeholder for purchase of items.
6.
There is approximately 7 million dollars in a contingency for the project. Any remaining contingency amount will
be returned to the University.
7.
The camera locations and infrastructure are part of the base bid, but not the cameras and related equipment.
8.
It was noted that food operation, bank, bookstore, kitchen, retail and dock will be areas that will require cameras.
He felt that the committee needs to think practically as to how the building will use the cameras.
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com
UWEC New Student Union
Budget Review
August 6, 2010
Page 4 of 4
9.
Jason Anderson noted that there were 77 camera locations identified by a group of staff members. The committee
felt that this number of cameras would be excessive.
10. Russ Van Gilder suggested that a basic level of security cameras needed should be in the base bid, knowing that the
infrastructure is in place for additional cameras in the future. Dr. Hellwig will finalize the number and location of
the cameras and communicate this to Ash Sadek.
11. The entrepreneur retail space concept is up in the air, and the committee will need a decision made by the third party
retail management group if they are interested in running this space or not.
Schedule
1.
Ash Sadek noted the he recommended waiting until all changes that the university requires before the documents are
shared with the cost estimators. The goal is to get these to the cost estimators by August 15th.
2.
Two month period starting in March where there will be noticeable impact on the building site.
3.
Signage design samples from a UWEC professor were presented for discussion.
4.
Etching, film, simple room name and number – University has developed a signage convention that might need to be
followed.
5.
$250,000 allowance for signage.
6.
University Student Center is the name that will appear on the bid documents.
7.
Fixed Furniture and Equipment package (FF&E): Burt, Hill will present a proposal to the University.
8.
The construction web cam will be located on the top of the library.
9.
Naming rights of rooms discussed.
***
The above information is the interpretation of the meeting activities and comments; and should be reviewed by all
attendees. Please comment on any discrepancies and inform the writer as soon as possible of any changes
required. Date issued: October 25, 2010.
BRAY ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, INC.
Ashraf Sadek, PE
cc:
All Present
212 East Washington Avenue | Suite 101 | Madison, Wisconsin 53703 | Phone 608.441.2575 | Fax 608.441.2580
www.brayarch.com