Marsh Lake
Building Committee Meeting #13
December 13, 2004
Marsh Lake Fire
Hall
Present: Lea-Ann Dorval, Blair Corley, Wolf Schall, Lucy
Skuba, Tiff Tasane, Susan Walton, John Streicker, Paul Sparling, Gordon
Sinclair, Mike Frasher
Regrets: Mike Larsen, Donna Larsen
13.0
Call to order:
7:03 pm
13.1
Agenda:
Accepted with addition of discussing showers during Schematic Report
13.2
Discussion re Building Committee group dynamics.
-
Concern expressed about our conduct.
-
Reminder given to meet / engage /interact with each
other respectfully, to listen while other people are talking.
-
Should be no need for people to repeat themselves
on points.
-
Recognition given that we are a diverse group and
we’ve done a lot of good work as a group – often reaching consensus to date.
13.3
Discussion re construction costs.
-
Mike F. presented a two pager on budget scenarios
(attached) to discuss the potential variability of a project cost estimate.
-
Schematic design phase estimate is +- 20%. As the
design development stage progresses, this uncertainty will tighten.
-
Market uncertainties could be + 25% (e.g.
prevailing conditions, inflation, etc.). There are inherent financial risks in
the process. We need to be aware and do our best to ensure the tendering process
follows our timeline.
-
Good to keep these thoughts in mind as we work on
design decisions. Saving money is much easier to do at early stages in the
process – later it becomes more difficult to find large savings.
-
John S. suggested that a version of this 2 pager
accompany the proposed letter to Sport and Rec.
13.4
Discussion re Schematic Design Report
-
Gordon S. submitted final report on schematic
design.
-
Mike F. walked us through the report.
-
Typos noted on p. 17 para 4. should read 2 AHU
units (rather than 3) and para 5. should read AHU-2 (rather than AHU-3).
13.5
Discussion re showers
-
General show of hands around committee showed that
we were interested in having showers in the community centre.
-
Good for hygiene. At the lake there is usefulness
to have access to a shower for some residents.
-
Showers will only be available during open hours of
centre – some concern if this will keep them useful?
-
If our librarian is a YTG employee, is a shower
required?
-
Cleaning issue raised. Possibly coin operated –
could offset some janitorial costs?
-
Is 1 male + 1 female shower enough?
-
Discussed the possibility of doing more with
showers during a fitness room expansion. Should put thought into plumbing stubs
now for that possibility.
-
Discussed the possibility of reworking the library
into the admin space or the meeting room (room in NW corner). Realized we still
need to know more about the rules / regulations of a library and how that might
work.
-
Gordon S. stated that we could come back with
suggestions re showers within 3 weeks with no impact to the timeline.
-
Building Committee reconfirmed, with consensus the
building footprint as submitted (i.e. decisions regarding showers will not alter
the building footprint).
13.6
Action:
John S. and Tiff T. to investigate the rules and regulations re the
library and report to committee.
13.7
Discussion re ceiling height of gym / community
hall / big room
-
Lucy S., John S. and Paul S. reported back on their
investigation of other gyms:
Jack Hulland small gym = 35’ x 55’ x 17’
Jack Hulland big gym = 65’ x 100’ x 22’
Golden Horn gym = 60’ x 70’ x 22.5’ (19.5’ clear)
-
Lucy S. wrote letters to volleyball associations to
get some informed opinion on the matter. One respondent said that a couple extra
feet would make a difference, but that for recreational play people could
probably make do. Also gave the suggestion that we could just let play continue
if a ball hits the ceiling.
-
Mike F. noted that original 24’ came from having
two floors. Current 18’ height was established by trying to maximize height
with stock lumber (e.g. Gordon S. designed special truss system which would
allow for central ducting)
-
Gordon S. gave some revised cost estimates having
investigated further. Starting with 18’ as base, then +2’ = +$40K
construction +10% O&M (approx.), or +6’ = +$80K construction + 30% O&M
(approx).
-
Current 18’ design has a clean finish (i.e. no
surface mount features).
-
Thanks to Lucy S., Paul S., John S. & Gordon S.
for the additional work.
13.8
Decision:
Consensus on gym/hall height of 18’.
13.9
Decision:
Consensus that we recommend the Sinclair and Associates Ltd. Schematic
Design Report Community Recreation Centre Option #7 December 13, 2004 to the
Marsh Lake Community Society Board of Directors.
13.10
Action:
The committee expressed its thanks to Gordon S. for all his work.
13.11
Discussion re Malcolm’s report
-
John S. reported that Malcolm was away at the
moment on personal matters.
-
Tiff T. stated that Malcolm is still hoping to
submit his report soon (this calendar year?).
-
The committee noted that we still have not made any
decisions or recommendations based on Malcolm’s report (for example the
concept of having a bar still has not been debated in committee).
-
The committee recognizes that we could/should
comment on Malcolm’s report, but it will ultimately be a decision for the
Board.
13.12
Discussion re letter to Sport and Rec.
-
Current letter of agreement with Sport and Rec
states that the community centre is “not to exceed $1.5M”
-
Tiff T. suggested submitting a letter to Sport and
Rec that requests that we are designing a community centre “the target of
which is $1.5M”.
13.13
Decision:
Tiff T. to draft letter as per comment above, circulate it to the
committee for information and submit it to Sport & Rec.
13.14
Amendments:
6-Dec-04 minutes (Meeting #12)
-
12.5 remove clause “if/when demand/funding
becomes available” from last point.
-
12.6 remove word substantial from first point.
-
12.6 change phrase “Windows in the gym:
everyone…” to “Windows in the gym: most…” in last point.
-
12.9 change phrase “Rules state…” to
“Gordon S. thought rules state…” in second last point.
13.15
Minutes:
6-Dec-04 minutes accepted as amended
27-Nov-04 minutes tabled
13.16
Adjourned:
9:25 pm
The committee is nearing the conclusion of the schematic design process and has made a number of difficult choices with respect to the building size and complexity during this process. Prior to concluding the schematic design process I would like to revisit the schematic design budget for the benefit of the committee members.
Budgets produced during the schematic design stage are considered to be accurate within a range of approx. 20%. The budget typically is based on projects of similar magnitude and recent construction costs in the industry. The budget also allows for a design contingency to cover items that were not known, or included, within the design at this early stage. It is also common on construction projects to have the estimated costs of construction increase during the design stages. This is attributed to the process of design, which begins with a blank page or drawing and concludes with a very detailed set of drawings and specifications. The detailed drawings and specification provide both the consultants and contractors with specific information on the requirements of the project and in turn, the costs for the work. Therefore the accuracy of the design estimates should increase with the amount of design work completed, although at this early design stage there are still many unknown items that have to be worked out in the design process.
To facilitate the discussion on the estimated project costs I will use a “Unit Rate” cost for comparing various cost scenarios. The unit rate is used in lieu of providing detailed estimates at this stage of design to simplify the estimating process, and is due in part to the limited detailed design information that is available.
Building Area = 700 m2 Unit Cost = $2,000.00/m2 $1,400,000.00
Construction Contingency (Set Amount at $100,000) 100,000.00
Design and Administration Fees @ 10% 140,000.00
Furniture and Equipment (Set Amount at $50,000) 50,000.00
Total Projected Costs 1,690,000.00
Building Area = 700 m2 Unit Cost = $2,400.00/m2 $1,680,000.00
Construction Contingency (Set Amount at $100,000) 100,000.00
Design and Administration Fees @ 10% 168,000.00
Furniture and Equipment (Set Amount at $50,000) 50,000.00
Total Projected Costs 1,998,000.00
Building Area = 700 m2 Unit Cost = $2,500.00/m2 $1,750,000.00
Construction Contingency (Set Amount at $100,000) 100,000.00
Design and Administration Fees @ 10% 175,000.00
Furniture and Equipment (Set Amount at $50,000) 50,000.00
Total Projected Costs 2,075,000.00
Building Area = 700 m2 Unit Cost = $2,400.00/m2x1.25 $2,100,000.00
Construction Contingency (Set Amount at $100,000) 100,000.00
Design and Administration Fees @ 10% 210,000.00
Furniture and Equipment (Set Amount at $50,000) 50,000.00
Total Projected Costs 2,460,000.00
Building Area = 700 m2 Unit Cost = $1,600.00/m2 $1,120,000.00
Construction Contingency (Set Amount at $100,000) 100,000.00
Design and Administration Fees @ 10% 140,000.00
Furniture and Equipment (Set Amount at $50,000) 50,000.00
Total Projected Costs 1,410,000.00
As can be seen by the above budget projections the combination of increases in the costs as the design progresses coupled with market conditions can have a significant impact on the cost of construction. Based on the current conditions being experienced in the Yukon and most other jurisdictions in Canada, it is a reasonable expectation that the project will require careful consideration of design features throughout all stages of the design to increase the chances of delivering this project on budget. The design budget currently established will be reviewed and updated as the design progresses, and the committee will be challenged to make decisions which will maintain the core features and components of the building while keeping the project in balance with the budget.
The above budget projections will continue to be refined as the design progresses. However, as can be seen in the above scenarios, there is considerable risk and challenges ahead, to deliver a facility which meets both the communities needs and the remain within the construction/project budget.