Minutes
Design Build
Board of Director's Meeting
January 10, 2007
|
Members Present: |
Roy Smith, Acting Chairman |
|
Rodney W. Clay |
|
Tom Winter |
|
Mary Jo Klempa |
|
Glendon P. "Bud" Sprouse |
|
|
| Dept. of Administration: |
Donna L. Lipscomb |
|
|
| Others Present: |
Parry G. Petroplus, President - Petroplus & Associates, Inc. |
|
G. Richard Lane, Jr., AICP - Petroplus & Associates, Inc. |
|
Lloyd W. Miller, AIA - Visions Architects |
|
Amy Clendenin, WV Association of Architects & Engineers |
|
|
| Members Absent: |
Marc A. Monteleone, Chairman |
|
Ronnie E. Spradling |
|
H. Wood "Woody" Thrasher |
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Roy Smith. A silent roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present with Donna Lipscomb being the official designee on behalf of Secretary Ferguson.
Approval of Minutes:
Mary Jo Klempa moved for approval of the minutes of the August 31, 2006, meeting. The motion was seconded by Rodney Clay. All voted in favor and the minutes were approved and adopted.
Old Business:
There being no objection by the board members, the old business was moved to the foot of the agenda to accommodate the guests from Morgantown.
New Business:
« Presentation by the City of Morgantown
G. Richard Lane, Jr., of Petroplus & Associates, Inc., gave a presentation as co-developer on this grant project and on behalf of the City of Morgantown. Mr. Lane introduced Lloyd Miller of Vision Architects, design criteria developer, and Parry G. Petroplus, a managing member of Platinum Properties.
Mr. Lane called the Board’s attention to the visuals which he provided. He gave the Board an outline of their ongoing projects and stated that he was here to discuss the event center also known as The West Virginia Theater. The events center is part of an $80 million dollar project that Platinum Properties initially started which was approved several years ago by the Economic Development Grant Committee. The project included a marina, a hotel, a public theater, and the event center.
Mr. Lane reported that at first it was thought that the event center would be a single purpose building with fixed seating, but after going through the Grant Committee and being awarded $13.9 million dollars, a portion of these dollars were allocated toward the public theater. He stated that currently there is approximately $9 million dollars in place for the public theater and event center piece of the complex. Mr. Lane indicated that as the design process began and the needs of the community were looked at, it was realized that a project of a single purpose building would not work as a public theater. Therefore, the project is now an 80,000 sq, ft. box with enhanced features inside, such as a fixed stage, variable seating, lighting and sound systems, which would support the detailed users. Mr. Lane stated that with the hotel space, this will make the center the second largest conditioned area in the State.
Mr. Lane stated that time lines are in place for those dollars that have been committed. He reported that meetings occurred over the summer with the Committee and the project changes were described and the Committee agreed to allow the project to continue. The design needs to be underway and work needs to be accelerated to be in tandem with construction and design for work by this summer. Mr. Lane explained their dilemma with the major user groups needing to book entertainment a year to two years in advance and any delays could effect this scheduling, which is the core business for this event center. Mr. Lane stated it is critical that close coordination occurs between design and construction to support its users, or this could quickly unravel. Additionally, the rising price of construction steel would likely effect the overall cost of this project, and with the funding in place and commitments to contracts, it is necessary that this project get started.
As to the funding for the project, $9 million dollars of the $13.9 million dollars has been set aside. Infrastructure enhancement for the marina has been considered, and the City has committed to $1 million dollars. $5 million dollars for TIF funding is in place and $5 million dollars is available through a lease from WVU to help fund the final piece. Therefore, there is funding in place for $21 to $22 million dollars.
With the Design Build process, six to nine months can be shaved-off the time line, with construction starting in six (6) months. With the Design Bid Build process, construction is not scheduled to start until 2008. Delivery with Design Build is expected in 2009, but it would be the first quarter of 2010 for Design Bid Build.
Roy Smith noted that WVU is listed on the hand-out and asked if the “private developer” listed on the hand-out was the same category. Mr. Lane stated that at the time this hand-out was created it was unclear how WVU was going to handle the $5 million dollars on their balance sheets. It was not determined at that time whether it was a financial commitment or a lease that could be taken to the bank.
Roy Smith inquired as to who would be the owner of this property. Mr. Lane advised the board that the City Building Commission will be the owner. Mr. Smith also inquired whether taxes would be paid. Mr. Lane stated there will be taxes on some aspects of the project but not on others. Mr. Smith asked if there were private developer funds in the equations. Mr. Lane stated, yes, it is a private developer grant with the City as a conduit, and he referred to the Supreme Court ruling that it had to be a city project with a private developer participation. There will be an operating management agreement from the developer; the City is going to be the conduit to ensure that the funds are handled properly. Likewise with the TIF garage. Once everything is in place, the City will operate and manage it and assume the profit and 100% of the risk. That is how there is an opportunity to put private funds into it and segment it with the FF&E.
Roy Smith inquired if this arrangement is okay with the Economic Development people under the grant award that there actually is no private money. Mr. Lane stated that they have private participation through the garage, and some FF&E dollars.
Rodney Clay asked if the Design Build method is approved, will the different entities start booking the facility based on the Design Build schedule, and vice versa if it was the Design Bid Build schedule. Mr. Lane stated this is correct.
Roy Smith stated that in order to facilitate this request, the Chair would entertain a motion to adopt this project as a Design Build project, and open the floor for discussion on approval. Tom Winter moved to entertain such a motion. Mary Jo Klempa seconded the motion. Roy Smith asked if Mr. Lane was familiar with the Design Build process and Legislative rules that govern how the process goes, the criteria developers, etc. Mr. Lane stated he was not as familiar with the process as Mr. Lloyd Miller, but he understands the process and has been reading-up on the Legislation. Mr. Lane feels confident in his understanding. He further stated that if the Board approves this project, then the City of Morgantown would retain Mr. Miller and his company to help with development and advertisements for criteria, developer, architect, and then go through the entire process with them. They would do the percentage drawings and put that out for bid. Mr. Lane stated it was also his understanding that they would come back before the Board after the Design Builders have been advertised and proposals received to make sure there is compliance with the law. Mr. Miller acknowledged that they are aware that there is also a monthly reporting process.
Roy Smith asked for further questions. Tom Winter asked how TIF (tax increment financing) works. Mr. Smith explained that certain areas that have improvements will allow tax increases to be used to pay bonds that entities can sell, such as the City of Morgantown. So, if a property value raises, the taxable rate would jump up but you can use that money to pay a bond. A county assessor determines the value of the property and that extra money can be paid by developers on bonds, as opposed to paying it to the county.
There being no further questions, Mr. Smith called for a vote of those in favor of granting approval of this project. There being no opposition to said motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Roy Smith stated that the Legislative rules require that the Board be told what the construction date will be, and informed the parties that if said deadlines are not met, then the permission to use the Design Build process would be revoked and an appearance before the Board would be necessary. After some discussion, Mr. Smith informed Mr. Lane that if construction has not started by January, 2008, an appearance before the Board will be mandatory. Mr. Lane acknowledged and agreed.
Old Business:
« Wheeling Skate Park
It was reported by Donna Lipscomb that the City of Wheeling provided a response to the Board’s letter revoking that their design-build approval for not meeting their deadline. They also provided a monthly report explaining the problems they have run into. Mary Jo Klempa moved for a second Board approval so the skate park can move forward with Design Build. Discussion was had among the Board members. It was decided that the Board should receive a start date from the City of Wheeling, in order to renew their approval, and that they should carefully consider their chosen date because consideration may not be so favorable if they have to come back a third time. It is the Board’s understanding that the contract signing and notice to proceed is scheduled for February 21, 2007. Roy Smith suggests to the Board that they give them until June 15, 2007, for construction start-up.
Robert Heron (304) 234-3617) at the City of Wheeling was contacted by telephone by the Board. Roy Smith requested Mr. Heron report as to the status of the Wheeling Skate Park Project. Mr. Heron reported that there are presently three (3) RFPs out and that a pre-submission meeting was occurring at the current time at the construction site. He reported that proposals are required by January 19, 2007.
Roy Smith brought up the time line in place and asked how accurate it is. Mr. Heron stated that his concern was not about the time line, but more about the budget. He further reported that he has discussed the time line issue with the RFP recipients, and believes that this remains accurate.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Heron if the date of February 21, 2007, listed as contract signing and notice to proceed, is interchangeable with the start date. Mr. Heron reported that a start date is identified in the RFPs, and it is a date in March. Mr. Heron was asked to produce that date. Mr. Heron then reported the following dates as stated in the RFP:
| February 21, 2007 |
Execution of Contract |
| February 28, 2007 |
Public Meeting for Design Input |
| March 7, 2007 |
Presentation of Preliminary Design |
| March 14, 2007 |
Second Public Meeting for Design Input |
| March 21, 2007 |
Final Design Submission |
| April 15, 2007 |
Construction to Begin |
Mr. Smith addressed the Board for a motion. Mary Jo Klempa moved to extend the approval to the City of Wheeling for a Design-Build project. There being no questions or comments, a vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Smith informed Mr. Heron that the Board is requesting he commit to another date for Design-Build termination. Therefore, he was told that construction has to be started by June 1, 2007. Mr. Heron agreed to said date, and stated he is hopeful that construction will start sooner than that. Mr. Heron was then reminded of the importance of the monthly report. Mr. Heron agreed to be more diligent with the monthly reports.
Other Business:
« Project Status Project
Ms. Lipscomb reported that she does not have a Project Status Report for this meeting. However, she did advise the Board that the annual report was sent to the Legislative Auditor. Other than the Wheeling Skate Park, she believes that the other projects are completed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
There being no other business to come before the Board and the meeting was adjourned.