Project Management Team (PMT) Meeting Agenda

Transcription

1 Project Management Team (PMT) Meeting Agenda Meeting 20 Tuesday, June 16, 201 3:30 p.m. Location: Brockton Council Chambers, 100 Scott Street, Walkerton Business Items: 1. Call to Order 2. Acceptance of Agenda 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 4. Adopt Minutes of March 2, 201 Meeting. Business Arising from March 2, 201 Meeting 6. New Business 6.1 Tender Summary Steve Bendo, Stantec Consultants 7. Next Meeting 8. Adjournment Visit to open the listing for this meeting and access the meeting agenda or package documents.

2 Municipality of Brockton Project Management Team (PMT) Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 201 7:30 p.m. - Meeting #19 Location: Walkerton Community Centre 290 Durham St. W. Walkerton Present: Regrets: Municipal Staff Present: Brian Dales Co-Chair Randy Weber Co-Chair Mayor David Inglis Deputy Mayor Dan Gieruszak Councillor Steve Adams Councillor Bill Bell Councillor Dean Leifso Councillor Chris Oberle Councillor Chris Peabody Mary Jane Bushell Dave Barrett Richard Radford, CAO Brandy Patterson, Deputy Clerk 1. Call to Order The Project Management Team meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Co-Chair Brian Dales who welcomed the public in attendance. Randy Weber explained the structure of the committee and outlined the agenda of the meeting and welcomed the public to remain after the meeting to ask questions of committee members. R. Weber then outlined the items of Resolution which was approved by Council on October 1, 2013 and explained that of the six action items that were listed in the resolution the first and second items have been completed and the Committee is currently working on item three. He further stressed that the soccer field complex and the proposed municipal complex are two different projects the Committee has been tasked with completing. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None declared. 3. Approval of Minutes Motion: Moved: R. Weber Seconded: D. Inglis That the minutes of Project Management Team Meeting #18, dated February 19, 201, be accepted as presented. Carried. R:\C - Council, Boards and By-Laws\C06 - Council Committee Minutes\C06PR - Project Management Team (PMT)\201\19 - PMT Minutes - March 2, 201.docx

3 4. Business Arising R. Weber reported that the cost to prepare the tender documents was $3,700.. Walkerton Football Club (FC) Business Plan B. Dales introduced Jeff Roberts, President of the Walkerton Football Club. J. Roberts thanked everyone for attending. J. Roberts began by explaining the challenges the Club has experienced over the past number of years with the facilities and fields it has used including Lobies Park, former Brant Central School and, outlined challenges with the topography, parking, and safety issues. J. Roberts then gave an overview of the circulated Business Plan. R. Weber thanked J. Roberts for his presentation. B. Bell asked why the Club is not called Brockton Soccer, rather than Walkerton Soccer and D. Gieruszak asked if anyone can register for the program. J. Roberts explained that anyone can register to play for Walkerton Soccer and that currently participants come from Hanover and Neustadt as examples. D. Leifso thanked J. Roberts for presenting the plan, and further asked for a more detailed estimate of fundraising goals. S. Adams asked about the previously stated $100,000 goal that the Club had planned to contribute. J. Roberts explained that $6,000 has been earmarked by the Club. R. Weber further highlighted that the Committee is hopeful that forty (40) percent of the cost would be fundraised through private foundations and ten (10) percent raised through private and corporate donations. D. Inglis explained that he feels that the tax payer s commitment needs to be determined and that this is the greatest concern for most people and that Council and the Committee need to determine this. B. Dales outlined the fundraising efforts involved with the $640,000 expansion project for the Cargill Community Centre and that one-third was paid for by the Municipality, one-third through government grants, and one-third through funds that were raised over a two year period. S. Adams asked how the Club will deal with fields for this season and J. Roberts answered that the Club has dealt with the field challenges for this season. C. Oberle asked about how quickly school tournaments could be hosted at the new facility. A school teacher in attendance replied that it would not take long for Walkerton schools to put their names in to host tournaments on the fields. J. Roberts also added that the fields could be used for other activities including snowshoeing, cross country skiing, or outdoor skating in the winter or walking or running courses in summer. C. Oberle asked what Walkerton Soccer would do if Council moved forward at a different location. J. Roberts explained that any other site would not be ideal from the Club s perspective and that many of the challenges and safety issues experienced on the current fields would still be experienced if Council moved forward with a project at another location. He further explained that the Club executive is in support of constructing new fields at the East Ridge Business Park (ERBP) location and that the fields have been designed specifically for the ERBP site and to allow for growth. S. Adams stated that it is irresponsible to suggest that the current fields are unsafe in that coaches and volunteers are still allowing kids to play on the existing fields. Maintenance volunteers and parents R:\C - Council, Boards and By-Laws\C06 - Council Committee Minutes\C06PR - Project Management Team (PMT)\201\19 - PMT Minutes - March 2, 201.docx

4 all spoke to the maintenance and safety issues with the current fields. C. Oberle asked if the naming rights suggestions were based on figures achieved in other communities. J. Roberts said no, it was presented just as an example. 6. Brant Site Visit Review - March 6, 201 R. Weber asked the Committee for comments on the Brant Central site tour. S. Adams explained that he was quite surprised by how the building had deteriorated in just a number of years. D. Gieruszak suggested the costs to replace the roof as well as the heating and cooling systems would be expensive. B. Bell explained that the Brant fields were originally set for 2 fields and that the Walkerton FC uses this space as 4 fields. He further explained that he felt that Brant and Greenock residents would not want to support this project financially and that for that reason he would not support a large project and believes that serviced ERBP lands should be left for business development. J. Roberts, said that they have been using Walkerton District Community School, Lobies Park, and the former Brant Central School fields and that if Council decides to develop Brant as the new site for the soccer facility, the site will not accommodate the current program. J. Roberts further explained that the four fields planned for ERBP will only accommodate current needs. One of the Club s current field maintenance volunteers spoke to ongoing challenges with a sink hole in the Brant fields. J. Roberts was asked how installation of lights would extend field use time. He explained that yes, lights on the field would extend field use time and that the plans include the wiring for the lights but not the lights themselves, which the Club intends to fundraise for. B. Bell asked J. Roberts how the fields in ERBP would be expanded. J. Roberts explained that the expansion could go on adjacent lands. R. Weber showed attendees the ERBP and the location of the proposed soccer fields within the Park. C. Peabody said the land was viewed at Brant Central as a matter of due diligence on Council s part, to determine if the building could be remediated and three fields developed. After touring the building he was disappointed to see the condition of the school building. M. J. Bushell stated that she believes that the ERBP site has been determined as the best site for the fields. D. Inglis echoed this. D. Leifso, agreed that the Brant building was in poor condition and that the building itself does not offer any potential and that in considering the project he wonders what we can afford and what we cannot afford to do. C. Oberle agreed that the former Brant Central School building would likely need to be demolished. He also noted, as a soccer referee, that the Brant fields do need repair and believes that the project comes down to the cost to tax payers and explained his largest concern would be to ensure the tax payers do not fund one hundred percent (100%) of the project. R. Weber explained that the Committee needs to understand that this will be a municipal facility, just like the arena, baseball fields, and day care centre that are each maintained by tax dollars from all of tax payers of Brockton. R:\C - Council, Boards and By-Laws\C06 - Council Committee Minutes\C06PR - Project Management Team (PMT)\201\19 - PMT Minutes - March 2, 201.docx

5 7. Circulation of Tenders Motion Moved by D. Leifso Seconded by: M. J. Bushell That the PMT recommend to Council that the tender for the soccer fields, as prepared by Stantec Consulting, be circulated. Discussion S. Adams stated that because Council is still in discussions regarding the purchase of the Brant property that he feels that the tenders for ERBP site should not be circulated until Council is committed to the ERBP site. D. Gieruszak thanked the soccer volunteers for their thirty year volunteer commitment to the sport and the community. He further noted that he would like to see a recommendation from PMT regarding a fundraising formula and implementation plan. He is confident that the funds will be raised within the community. D. Gieruszak further explained his concerns with the Brant site in that the Municipality will require significant funds to purchase the land and to demolish the building. B. Bell spoke in support of the motion. C. Peabody said that if the former Brant Central school property can be purchased at an affordable price, it could make the site possible, however the demolition makes this a challenge. C. Peabody spoke in favour of the motion and stressed that moving ahead with the circulation of the tender does not commit Council to the project. M. J. Bushell, D. Inglis, and C. Oberle spoke in favour of the motion. It was suggested that the fundraising be staged and that the project be staged accordingly. D. Inglis spoke against this approach to ensure project costs do not escalate due to delays. Alex Baran, a member of the public, asked to speak, as he was involved in the development of the P&H Centre in Hanover. He explained that with the P&H Centre, one-third was funded through federal grants, one-third was funded through provincial grants, one-third was funded by the Town of Hanover, and fifteen percent (1%) of the total project costs were fundraised. He further suggested that any grants be confirmed before the tender is prepared. R. Weber spoke in favour of the motion. Carried. Motion Moved by D. Gieruszak Seconded by C. Oberle That PMT prepare a detailed fundraising formula and a development plan at the same time the recommendation to proceed with circulating the tenders is presented to Council. Carried. It was noted that PMT members would like to attend the April 13, 201 Council meeting when the recommendations are presented to Council. R:\C - Council, Boards and By-Laws\C06 - Council Committee Minutes\C06PR - Project Management Team (PMT)\201\19 - PMT Minutes - March 2, 201.docx

6 8. Demystifying the Municipal Complex Proposal - Question and Answers The floor was opened to the public to ask questions. John Findlay asked what considerations have been made when the Club considers the demographics and school board projected numbers. J. Roberts answered that their Club numbers have been growing. Jim Sloan said he feels Council is missing out if it does not consider the Brant Central School site. J. Roberts replied that the Brant site is not sufficient for the Club s needs. C. Peabody spoke to the demographics of the school age population and noted that the age groups in that demographic are maintaining numbers. 9. Next Meeting The time and date of the next meeting will be determined, 3:30 p.m. is the preferred time. 10. Adjournment Motion: Moved by M. J. Bushell That the Project Management Team adjourns at 9:38 p.m. R:\C - Council, Boards and By-Laws\C06 - Council Committee Minutes\C06PR - Project Management Team (PMT)\201\19 - PMT Minutes - March 2, 201.docx

7 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street, Kitchener ON N2H 6M7 June 1, 201 File: Attention: Mr. Richard Radford, CAO 100 Scott Street Walkerton ON N0G 2V0 Dear Mr. Radford, Reference: Brockton Soccer Complex Request for Tender, Contract No Bid Results Stantec Consulting Ltd. is pleased to report that the Request for Tenders for the Brockton Soccer Facility Contract No closed successfully and four qualified responses were received prior to the deadline. All of the bids were analyzed for mathematical accuracy and confirmed correct. The four respondents and associated tender bid prices (Excluding HST) are provided below. The estimated cost of the project was $1,289, (Excluding HST). Bidder Total (Excluding HST) TDI International Ag Inc. dba Eco Blue Systems $1,4,21.36 SDI Builders 2010 Ltd. $1,0, Gateman-Milloy Inc. $2,346, Bomar Landscaping Inc. $2,771, After closing of the tender, Municipal staff and Stantec determined that a value engineering exercise should be conducted with TDI to explore cost saving opportunities. Stantec contacted TDI on June th, 201 and held a subsequent meeting between Stantec and TDI on June 8 th, 201 to discuss value engineering approaches. TDI provided Stantec a breakdown of opportunities and associated cost implications on June 1 th, 201. Below is a brief summary of approaches and estimated cost implications. Value Engineering Site Works ($68,20 credit) Reduction in bonding due to revised contract price Raise entire site by 300mm and building pad by 200mm Screen 10mm of topsoil for fields and place 10mm from stockpile as opposed to screening entire 300mm depth

8 June 1, 201 Mr. Richard Radford, CAO Page 2 of 3 Reference: Brockton Soccer Complex Request for Tender, Contract No Bid Results Delete sanitary force main and pump, replace with gravity sanitary pipe Granular B for parking lot and asphalt paving bases to be at Municipality s rate Value Engineering Building ($90,000 credit) Maintain existing building size and function Revise roof lines and roof materials Revise structural components, provide wood frame with fire separation Revise interior and exterior finishes Item Total (Excluding HST) Value Engineering Site Works ($68,20.00) Value Engineering Building ($90,000.00) Stipulated Bid Price $1,4,21.36 Value Engineered Stipulated Bid Price $1,297, Stantec has conducted a reference check of three of the referenced that TDI provided in their proposal. All references were asked the same questions and all references indicated that they would work with TDI again if the opportunity was presented. The references are appended to this document. It is our recommendation that the Project Management Team and Council, with technical assistance from Stantec, review the value engineering alternatives and determine the final scope of this construction assignment.

9 June 1, 201 Mr. Richard Radford, CAO Page 3 of 3 Reference: Brockton Soccer Complex Request for Tender, Contract No Bid Results Regards, Stantec Consulting Ltd. Steve Bendo, OALA, CSLA, ISA Sport Group Leader - Canada East Phone: (19) Fax: (19) Steve.Bendo@stantec.com Attachment: Reference Check Evaluation Forms sb v:\01614\active\ \tender\tender_summary_analysis_june12_1.docx

10 Reference Check Evaluation Form Municipality of Brockton Soccer Complex Contractor: Company Name: Project Contact: TDI International Lambton Golf and Country Club Course Renovation Peter Kinch, Golf Course Superintendent Questions PERFORMANCE 1 = Poor = Excellent Did this contractor conform to the contract? How did you find the contractor s quality of workmanship? Did the contractor supplier adhere to the schedule? Were your satisfied with the capabilities of the contractor s site personnel? Were you satisfied with the contractor s warranty service? Did the contractor adhere to Safety Regulations and Policies? Were you satisfied with the contractor s fairness of pricing change orders? Would you use this contractor for this type of project again? NO YES OTHER COMMENTS: sb c:\users\sbendo\desktop\brockton award\ref_check_tdi_lambton.docx

11 Reference Check Evaluation Form Municipality of Brockton Soccer Complex Contractor: Company Name: Project Contact: TDI International Town of Collingwood Trevor Harvey, Project Coordinator Questions PERFORMANCE 1 = Poor = Excellent Did this contractor conform to the contract? How did you find the contractor s quality of workmanship? 4 Did the contractor supplier adhere to the schedule? Were your satisfied with the capabilities of the contractor s site personnel? 4 Were you satisfied with the contractor s warranty service? 4 Did the contractor adhere to Safety Regulations and Policies? Were you satisfied with the contractor s fairness of pricing change orders? 4 Would you use this contractor for this type of project again? NO YES OTHER COMMENTS: sb c:\users\sbendo\desktop\brockton award\ref_check_tdi_collingwood.docx

12 Reference Check Evaluation Form Municipality of Brockton Soccer Complex Contractor: Company Name: Project Contact: TDI International City of Niagara Falls David Antonsen, Landscape Architect Questions PERFORMANCE 1 = Poor = Excellent Did this contractor conform to the contract? How did you find the contractor s quality of workmanship? 3 Did the contractor supplier adhere to the schedule? Were your satisfied with the capabilities of the contractor s site personnel? Were you satisfied with the contractor s warranty service? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Did the contractor adhere to Safety Regulations and Policies? Were you satisfied with the contractor s fairness of pricing change orders? Would you use this contractor for this type of project again? NO YES OTHER COMMENTS: sb c:\users\sbendo\desktop\brockton award\ref_check_tdi_niagara.docx