|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
Jim Sales, Commissioner of
Community and Fire Services |
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
Alan Wolfe, P. Eng., Project
Consultant |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
|
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Proposed Tendering of the
Centennial Community Centre Expansion and Indoor Bocce Courts |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT this report entitled “Proposed Tendering of the Centennial Community Centre
Expansion and Indoor Bocce Courts” be received;
AND THAT Indoor Bocce Courts be
included as part of the Centennial Community Centre Expansion project;
AND THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with the Markham Bocce
Association that includes a $400,000 capital contribution and a commitment to
operate the facility in an agreement satisfactory to the CAO, Commissioner of Community and Fire Services, and
the Town Solicitor;
AND THAT Council approve tendering
the Centennial Community Centre Expansion and Indoor Bocce Courts project;
AND
FURTHER THAT an extensive green roof on the swimming pool roof be included as a
separate item in the tender for the Centennial Community Centre Expansion and
that the decision to include the green roof in the project be deferred until
the tender award.
PURPOSE:
The
purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to include the construction
of indoor bocce courts in the Centennial Community Centre Expansion project and
to proceed with the tendering of the project.
BACKGROUND:
On
The
report also approved, in principle, including an 11,045 sf indoor bocce court
with an approved cost estimate of $1,953,600.
The approval is subject to identifying a non – DCA funding source that
includes a significant contribution from the Bocce clubs. Furthermore, the bocce club was required to
enter into an agreement with the Town for the operation of the facility.
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
1)
CENTENNIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE EXPANSION
1.1)
A public meeting was held to review the schematic design with the public
and the user groups on July 8,
2004.
The public meeting was well attended and the design was well received. There were a number of suggestions made at the meeting. Attachment “A” summarizes the suggestions and indicates which suggestions were included in the design. The suggestions that were not included are also indicated, including the reason why they were not acceptable. The suggestions were reviewed with the Building and Parks Construction Committee (BPCC).
A second public information meeting will be
scheduled for mid-April to present the
final design to interested members of the public and user groups.
1.2) A meeting was held with the Town’s
Accessibility Committee on
The project consultant and the Architect met with the Town’s accessibility committee. The committee thoroughly reviewed the design. There were a number of suggestions to improve the accessibility of the project that are summarized in Attachment “B”.
These suggestions have been incorporated into the design where feasible.
In addition, the committee was concerned with the accessibility of the 2nd
floor washrooms and boardroom. These concerns were presented to the BPCC. The
BPCC supported including these improvements within the project. On this basis,
a request for $100,000 was included in the 2005 capital budget for these
accessibility improvements.
1.3)
Energy improvements have been incorporated into the
project.
During the
design process with the BPCC, the Architect was requested to explore improving
the energy efficiency of the building beyond the Town’s current standards.
Through this process it was determined that the Town’s current standards
resulted in improvements that were 9% higher than building code
requirements. It was further determined
that through a further investment of $285,000, the efficiency could be improved
to 70% higher than the building code requirements. These improvements are eligible for a $60,000
Canadian Building Incentive Program (CBIP) grant. On this basis, the BPCC supported proceeding
with the improvements and a report was prepared to Council to approve funding. Council approved the report on
It should be noted that the addition of solar power
was also investigated. However, the financial analysis indicated that the long
payback period did not justify the use of solar power at this time. If solar technology improves and energy costs
increase sufficiently,
consideration should be given to retrofit the facility with solar
power capability.
1.4) The
architect, recreation staff, and the project manager have worked to finalize
the design.
Over the past months, the architect has worked closely with the Town staff to finalize the detailed design of the building. The BPCC has been kept up to date with the design process and has endorsed the current design.
1.5) The
design was presented to the Development Services Committee.
A site plan approval application was submitted on
During the site plan review process, two major issues
developed.
1.5.1) During
the site plan approval process GO Transit indicated an interest in constructing
a parking deck.
In response to the circulation of the site plan
drawings, GO Transit sent the Town a letter indicating that they would be
interested in constructing a parking deck.
As deck parking is consistent with the Town’s parking strategy, the
architect was requested to perform a preliminary site fit study to determine if
it was feasible to consider a parking deck in this location.
The facility fit study indicated that a parking deck could be accommodated in the current GO Transit parking lot. It would be two-levels above the existing grade (approximately 6.6 metres (22 ft) high). It would result in a net increase of 200-250 parking spaces on the Centennial site that would be shared with GO Transit. The parking deck would be located north of the community centre and would incorporate the existing shared GO Transit parking area, the westerly portion of the community centre parking lot and the landscaped berm between the parking lot and the railway. A plan showing the proposed location is included as Attachment “D”.
On this basis, the Town and GO Transit agreed to
further explore the feasibility of constructing a parking deck on the
Centennial site by undertaking a utilization study. The study will determine the utilization of
the proposed parking deck, the impact of the parking deck on traffic operations
and the road infrastructure and the appropriate sharing of the costs of
constructing and operating the facility between the Town and GO Transit. This
study should be complete by the end of June 2005. The results will be presented to Council to
determine if further work should be done on constructing a parking structure.
The site plan will proceed as currently designed
without the parking structure. If it is
decided to proceed with the structure, the site plan will be modified and
resubmitted for a new site plan review process.
1.5.2) The Urban Design section
requested that the parking lot not be extended into the existing landscape
buffers along
As part of the review of the site plan design, the
Urban Design section requested that the parking lot not be extended into the
existing landscape buffers along
These adjustments to the parking lot will result in
some additional cost that will be further discussed in costing section of the
report.
2) Indoor
Bocce Courts
2.1) Staff has negotiated a framework for an
agreement with the
On
Commissioner of
Community and Fire Services, Recreation
Services staff, and Legal staff have negotiated terms of an
agreement with the club. This proposal
includes an increased capital contribution of $400,000, over a 20-year period,
and a commitment to pay for the operating costs of the facility.
A copy of the terms for the framework for an agreement
proposed by the club is included as Attachment “E” of the report.
Recreation
Services staff have also canvassed the City of Vaughan and the Town of Richmond
Hill regarding their arrangements with bocce clubs operating in their
municipalities. They reported that their municipality pay the capital and
operating costs of the courts. The bocce clubs use the facility on a user pay
basis. Given the Markham Bocce Club’s offer to make a significant capital
contribution and pays the full operating costs of the courts, the proposed
arrangement compares very favourably to the arrangements with
On this basis, it is recommended that Council approve proceeding with the indoor bocce courts and accept the Markham Bocce Club’s offer to contribute $400,000, over a period of 20 year period, to the capital cost of the facility and to pay for the operating cost of the courts and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign an agreement with the club satisfactory to the Commissioner of Community and Fire Services and the Town Solicitor.
2.2) The
architect and the Town staff have worked with the Bocce Clubs to design a
facility that meets the Club’s and the Town’s requirements for the courts.
There
were a number of meetings involving the officials of the Markham Bocce Club,
Town staff, and the architect. The
result is a design that meets the Club’s playing and social requirements while
also meeting the Town’s requirements for the operation of the facility.
The
design was reviewed and endorsed by the BPCC.
3) PRETENDER COST ESTIMATE
3.1)
The construction cost estimate has been modified to
reflect the inclusion of the indoor bocce courts, accessibility improvements
and the energy saving enhancements.
|
|
Total Cost |
New Construction |
Bocce Courts |
Renovation |
Energy Saving Enhancements |
Accessibility
Improvements |
|
Construction |
$9,040,000 |
$4,910,000 |
$1,501,000 |
$2,267,000 |
$262,000 |
$100,000 |
|
Site |
$1,052,000 |
$712,000 |
$150,000 |
$190,000 |
|
|
|
Total
Approved Construction Cost Estimate |
$10,092,000 |
$5,622,000 |
$1,651,000 |
$2,457,000 |
$262,000 |
$100,000 |
3.2)
The parking lot
north of the community centre will not be included as part of the base tender,
pending a decision on the GO Transit parking deck.
The construction of a GO
Transit parking deck will necessitate the complete reconstruction of the
parking lot north of the community centre.
For this reason, the reconstruction of the north parking lot should not
proceed until Council decides if the deck will be constructed. As the tender for the community centre
expansion is scheduled to be released in April, there will not be a decision on
the deck prior to the proposed tender release.
In
order not to delay the expansion of the community centre, it is proposed to
exclude
the section of the parking lot north of the community centre from the base
tender.
There are three
decision-making scenarios that may occur during the construction of this
project.
1)
Decision to proceed with the installation of the
parking deck.
Only the work necessary to modify the existing parking lot to suit the new building location will be done as part of this tender. The parking deck will be financed, designed and constructed as separate project.
2)
Decision not to proceed with the installation of the
parking deck.
The parking lot will be constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. It should be noted that additional funding would be required to complete the project under this scenario.
3) No Decision on how to proceed
Only the work necessary to modify the existing parking lot to suit the new building location will be done as part of this tender. Once the decision is made, either the parking structure or the parking lot will be completed as a separate project.
The current construction schedule indicates that this section of the parking lot would be constructed at the end of the project during the summer of 2006, see Attachment “F”. An alternative item for all the work in the parking area north of the community centre will be included in the tender with an option to add this work to the contract until the spring of 2006.
3.3)
The architect has completed a pretender cost estimate for the
project, as described in section 3.1 and 3.2, that is within the approved cost
estimate for the project
The architect, through his cost
consultant, has completed the pretender cost estimate. The estimate indicates that the design,
including the site work described under scenario 1, is approximately 1% higher
than the approved cost estimate. The final cost of the project will be
determined through the competitive tendering process. Given the margin of error
of a cost estimate, the current cost estimate indicates the project is ready to
proceed to tendering.
Alternative price items will be
included in the tender. This will allow for post-tender adjustments to the
project cost if the tender price exceeds the approved construction cost
estimate.
3.4) If the GO Transit
parking structure does not proceed it will be necessary to provide additional
funding to complete the site works to meet current Town standards
If it becomes necessary to construct the parking lot as described under scenario 2 additional funding will be required. The amount of the additional funding is currently estimated at approximately $664,000. The reasons for the additional funding requirement are summarized in Attachment “G”
If the parking deck does not proceed, it will
be necessary to provide additional funding to complete the north portion of the
parking lot in accordance with the approved site plan. If the parking deck proceeds, the cost of
constructing the parking lot will be incorporated into the cost of the
structure.
4)
Installation of a Green Roof on Centennial
Community Centre
During the design of the building, the architect was
requested to investigate the feasibility of installing a green roof on a
portion of Centennial Community Centre roof as part of this project. This installation has been discussed with the
Manager of Environmental Leadership and she supports seriously considering this
option.
The Development Services Committee has also requested
an investigation of the feasibility of including a green roof as part of this
project.
To date, the architect has reviewed the various
options available for a green roof and has examined the locations that would be
suitable for its installation on the community centre.
A green roof is a space created by adding layers of
growing medium and plants on the top of a traditional roofing system. The two types of green roofs are referred to
as intensive and extensive. They are
briefly discussed below.
Intensive Green Roofs
Intensive
green roofs are characterized by their weight, intensive planting and higher
maintenance requirements compared to extensive green roofs. They are typically accessible to the public
to allow views of the “garden-like” treatment.
This type of roof
garden requires significant amounts of soil to be placed on the roof;
significant structural and roof membrane improvements are required. Furthermore, improvements are also required
if the roof is to be made accessible.
These considerations result in higher capital costs. The nature of the
“garden” plantings also has high maintenance costs.
This type of green
roof costs in the range of $30.00–$60.00/sf excluding structural, membrane
modifications, and accessibility improvements.
Therefore, it would be prohibitively expensive for this application.
Extensive Green Roofs
Extensive green
roofs are characterized by their low weight, low capital cost and lower
maintenance requirements. These roofs
generally consist of hardy drought-resistant low growing plants (sedums)
pre-planted in a 75 mm (3 inch) thick growing medium. They are typically not made accessible as the
plantings, although attractive from a distance, are not “garden-like” quality.
The plants and
growing medium are provided in 1.2 m (4 foot) wide bats that are rolled out
onto the new or existing roof. Due to
its lightweight and soil-less nature, this method of providing a green roof
does not require any structural or roof membrane improvements.
The cost for
providing this type of green roof system would be in the range of
$15.00–$20.00/sf; therefore, an extensive green roof would be economically
feasible for use on the Centennial Community Centre.
Selection of Roof Surface
The criteria for
selecting a roof surface on the community centre for the green roof include an
uninterrupted surface that is visible from the ground level. It was determined that the most suitable
location on the Centennial Community Centre would be the swimming pool roof
which is partially visible from the Bullock and McCowan intersection, see
Attachment “H”. The roof surface was
replaced approximately 10 years ago and is in good condition. It is anticipated
that the remaining life span of the roof is at least 10 years. The installation of a green roof should
extend this life span to 20 years. The location on the building was endorsed by
the BPCC.
The architect was
also asked to quantify the benefits of this installation. Unfortunately, due to the limited experience
with the installation of green roofs in our climate, there is not sufficient
data available to provide definitive cost saving achieved through the
installation of green roofs. However, the proponents of green roof
installations claim that they reduce cooling costs in the summer and heating
costs in the winter, improve storm water management by reducing rain water run
off, and increase the lifespan of the roof by 2-3 times. Furthermore, from an over all environmental
perspective, the green roofs help incrementally reduce the urban heat island
effect and clean dust and pollutants from the air.
The estimated cost
for the installation on the roof of the swimming pool, including an irrigation
system, is approximately $175,000.
The Manager of
Environmental Leadership has indicated funding may be available for this
project from the Markham Environmental Sustainability Fund. Environmental Issues Committee manages this
fund. Therefore, this proposal should be
reviewed by the committee prior to proceeding.
So that the
tendering process for this project can continue, it is recommended that an
extensive green roof on the swimming pool roof be included as a separate item
in the tender for the Centennial Community Centre Expansion and that the
decision to include the green roof in the tender be deferred until the tender
award.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Cost
estimates for the construction portion of the Centennial Community Centre
project approved in June, 2004 and in the 2005 Capital budget are as follows
(excluding construction contingency):
[*Note: Funding for Bocce Courts was approved in
principle subject to a
significant contribution from the bocce clubs and/or other sources of funding]
Final
funding required for the construction portion of the project (above) is
dependant upon the tender bids and will be discussed, in detail, at the tender
award stage.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The
Recreation and Culture Services Department, Strategic Services Department,
Finance Department, Legal Department, and the Urban Design Section of the
Planning Department have been consulted in the preparation of this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment
“A” – Meeting Summary from Public Meeting
Attachment
“B” - Meeting Summary from Accessibility Committee Meeting
Attachment
“C” – Response to Committee from the
Attachment
“D” - Proposed Parking Deck Location Drawings
Attachment
“E” -
Attachment
“F” – Proposed Limits of Separate Price Item for the North Parking Lot
Attachment
“G” – Table of Cost Increases for Site Work
Attachment “H”- Proposed Green Roof Location Drawing
|
|
|
|
|
Barb Roth Director of Recreation and Culture Services |
|
Peter Loukes, P. Eng. Director of Operations and Asset Management |
|
Jim Sales Commissioner of Community and Fire Services |
|
|
Q:\Commission Share\Operations and Asset
Management\Reports\2005\C &
U\Facilities\ReporttoGeneralCommityreCentennialCommunityCentreExpansionTender22(Mar.7).doc
