Sunday, May 27, 2018
1900 Kanawha Boulevard,
East Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: (304) 558-4331
Fax: (304) 558-2999
Office hours:
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Board of Directors Meeting
May 16, 2002
Members Present:  Marc A. Monteleone, Chairman
                                  Roy Smith
                                  Glendon P. Sprouse
                                  H. Woody Thrasher
                                  Tom Winter
                                  Rodney Clay
                                  Ronald Spradling
Department of
Administration:       Dorothy Yeager, Deputy Secretary
                                 Diane George on behalf of Donna Prunty, Executive Coordinator
Others Present:      Lloyd Miller, N Visions Architects
                                Leslie Smith, Jefferson County Commission
                                Vincent Post, Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning Commission
                                Marlene Colombo, City of Parkersburg, Purchasing Director
                                Joe Lockhart, Mid-Ohio Valley Transit Authority
                                Ann Conageski, City of Parkersburg
                                Fred Rader, Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning Commission
                                Steve Brodsky, City of Parkersburg
                                Ronald Stadler, City of Parkersburg
                                Jim Wallace, Daily Mail
                                Mike Clowser, Contractor’s Association of America

Members Absent:  Mary Jo Thompson
    The meeting was called to order by Chairman Monteleone.  It was determined that a quorum was present.
Approval of Minutes:
    A motion was made by Glendon Sprouse to approve the minutes of the February 20, 2002, meeting and seconded by Roy Smith.  There was no discussion relative to the minutes and they were approved by an unanimous vote.

Old Business:
    Dot Yeager gave a brief update on old business.  She stated that she was the only  representative of the Department of Administration present at the meeting because there was a previous conference for the Department of Environmental Protection building today.  That project is moving along.

    Ms. Yeager also stated that the issue that came up at the last Design Build Board meeting regarding the Huntington Project has been resolved.  Work is proceeding on the project and they are on track on that project as well.

    The board members showed their appreciation to Donna Prunty for the status report she prepared for them and for her efforts to keep them informed.  Chairman Monteleone  requested that Frank Drobot prepare an update on the status of the Department of Environmental Protection project and that it be distributed with the Minutes of the meeting.
New Business:

    Steve Brodsky, the Development Director for the City of Parkersburg, made a presentation regarding a proposed parking garage project.  He stated that in Parkersburg, like most cities in the state, parking is a premium.  The only way for Parkersburg to have any kind of downtown revitalization is to first address parking.  They are fortunate for the hard work of Congressman Mollohan and Senator Byrd for 4.4 Million in grants to the transit authority.  The City is partnering with the transit authority to build an intermodel transportation facility which is a parking garage with a building.  After a lot of soul searching and research they felt that it was best if they used a design build approach for the facility.  The first step was to get an architect and prepare a report for presentation to the board.

    Lloyd Miller of N Visions Architects spoke regarding the project.  A small package was provided to the board members.  The biggest issue they are addressing is the time frame.  The requirements of the Federal Transportation Authority Administration and their funding is that the money be committed by the end of September.  That is a very condensed time frame.  In order to meet that schedule they need to advance the time allowed for design and construction in order to commit the funds and get a contract for that early on.  The time frame is on the second sheet of the handout provided.  They are looking for preparation of the Request for Proposal in May to June with the release of the RFP on June 30th.  This will allow six to eight weeks for design builders to respond to the RFP.  A pre-bid conference would be held in July and the bids would be due in mid August.  They would review the bids and oral presentations  by accepted contractors in August and September and open the class bids and then award a contract by the end of September.  This would meet the criteria of the funding agencies.

    Their response to the three criteria of design build is outlined on the second sheet of the handout.  They are (A) accelerated project design and construction time line and funding of project  by the Federal Transportation Authority and matching funds.  The requirements for funding make it necessary to accelerate this project quite a bit. (B) close coordination of design and construction expertise.  The site is a very fine site.  The one way traffic along the streets and the narrowness of the streets is dictating some gymnastics driving in order to get buses in and out of the site properly without affecting the normal flow of traffic on the six streets.  Also they have some historical properties around the site. All these items, along with the tight site, and the availability of the construction technics to satisfy the needs of the client, requires the designers and the contractors to get together early on in  the project to solve the problems so they can get the project moving quickly and have it completed within the time frame that the owner requires.  (C) early cost containments is a stipulation by the funding agents.  The money must be committed by the end of September so they need to have an early idea of what the costs will be  and make sure the project as designed will meet the funding that is available.

    Mr. Miller indicated that the project did meet the three criteria that allows them to proceed with design build and hopes that the Board will consider that.  Mr. Miller stated that in his package were pictures of the site and the adjacent historical structures around it.  The package also contains some site plans and land use descriptions of the property.  That concluded his presentation but he stated he would be happy to address any questions the Board may have regarding the project.

     A question is asked as to whether they intend to purchase the historical properties and they do not plan to purchase them.  Their design incorporates the locations of those properties.  They will work with the West Virginia State Department of Historic Preservation during the design build process and get the required approvals.
     Mr. Miller was also questioned whether the Mid Ohio Valley Transit Authority was a county agency or how does that work?  He stated that is was like the KRT in Charleston, it is a public agency.  It is actually an independent agency but the board of directors is appointed by the City of Parkersburg and Vienna.  Technically they are a political subdivision of the State authorized by State Statute.

    The Board requested more information about the building itself.  Mr. Miller stated that the parking building would be able to hold four hundred (400) cars.  The first floor which is on the street level will be a bus station.  It will be the main hub where all the outlying lines will come in to transfer people.  There will be parking for about seven (7) buses, a small passenger waiting area and a bus driver’s lounge.  There could be four or five floors of parking about that street level station.

    A question was asked as to whether the parking facility would blend in with the surrounding structures and Mr. Miller stated that it would as that was a requirement of the City and the Transit Authority.

    The Board questioned whether or not they had prepared a list of criteria for the project.  Mr. Miller stated that they had not gotten to that point yet but he would be proposing to the owners a list of criteria for evaluating the design builders.  However, he need to know what their priorities are before he does that.  They have not proceeded until after they get the approval from the Design Build Board.  They need to get approval before they actually go into the development of the  RFP, which would include the evaluation criteria.  It is Mr. Miller’s understanding that the criteria of the Design Build is a guideline and that they can modify it according to the project requirements.  For their project they will be incorporating most of the criteria from Design Build, however, there may be some other objectives that the owner may have that need incorporated into the criteria also.  There may also be some things that are not particularly applicable to this project.   The funding resources also have criteria that they must respond to as well.  If the Board would like to review the criteria before it is put out on the street they would be happy to provide it to the Board.  The Board would like to review that because they approve projects and then they tend to loose control of it and they want to be assured so they can assure the citizens of the state that there is some fairness in the Statute and it is not manipulated for reasons it shouldn’t be.  Mr. Miller stated that he agreed wholeheartedly on that and he will provide a draft to the Board before it is sent out.  Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Miller to send the draft to Donna Prunty and she would distribute it to the Board.
    Roy Smith made a motion to approve the request of the City of Parkersburg to build an intermodel transportation facility.  The motion was seconded by Woody Thrasher.  The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion and give approval for the project.

     Leslie Smith, Jefferson County Administrator, made a presentation regarding a County Office Building with adjacent parking spaces. When Ms. Smith started at Jefferson County eleven years ago there were approximately 80 employees in the courthouse and the annex.  They now have all the buildings on the block now except three.  They have 130 employees.  The biggest being the judiciary.  Two years ago they opened a judicial annex and it was approximately thirty thousand square feet. They have outgrown that building.  They now have a new circuit  judge, they are getting a new magistrate, and there is a constant battle for courtrooms.  This project will be concentrated for judiciary.  They will have two separate courtrooms.

    With the criteria, the most important for them is innovation.  She stated that she could explain the county jail and why it is before the Supreme Court.  That is what is holding them up.  They have had many studies of the county jail.  It has been abandoned since the 1990's.  A prisoner has not been there since 1999.  They have been planning to demolish it and have had several design studies.  They got a contract to demolish it in December of 2000 and then a temporary injunction not to demolish it was done and it has been back and forth in the court system ever since.  The petitioners have reported that it is part of a historic district.  As far as the county is concerned it is not a historic property.  The coal mine 1922 trials were in Jefferson County but there were no prisoners in that jail, they were out on bond.  That is why they are going back and forth.  The innovation they need two proposals, one utilizing the county jail in case they decide to open it up again and one without the jail.  If someone will tell them they can keep the jail without excessive cost they would be happy to do it.  Their time line is critical in that they can not let the bids until they get a decision from the Court.  The renovation would  take 10 thousand square feet of their 5 thousand square footprint away from their building design.  They still need a minimum of 43 thousand square feet and parking for approximately  230 vehicles.

    The cost is very important.  Jefferson County has been very fortunate and overall they have had some form of revenue stream the past three or four years from tax dollars and  video lottery money.  The video lottery money comes from the Charles Town race track. The county government and the municipalities get a percentage of the net terminal income and that is about 2 million dollars per year.  When they first started getting the funds it was the policy of the county that they would only spend it on capital for one-time projects.  They currently have 6 million dollars available for this project.
    The building is not really a part of this except it comes into play because it is the judicial building and they have outgrown and they must move people from the old building into the new one.  The circuit court room that they have will never be touched.  It is huge, it is not functional at all and they can not secure it.  It is in the historic courthouse and they can not touch the courthouse so they must provide functional secure office space and courtrooms elsewhere.

    Projected cost for the structure is 8 million dollars.  The parking would be approximately $10,000.00.  The outline in the back is very contained and there is not much space in the back.   They want to keep the project historically correct. The building that houses some of their judiciary across the street was built in keeping with the architecture and is very impressive and the architect won an award for that building.

    The board members asked questions regarding their handout.  One of the criteria is the accelerated time frame.  When they look at the Design Build schedule they advertise in June, have conference in June, do proposals in July and give the design build award on July 25th.  They then begin construction less than thirty days later.  Looking at their schedule If you go the design build method, you have basically 11 months and they wonder if the design build method will accomplish the process much quicker.   Ms. Smith believes that design build process will quicken the process by one year.  The board stated that it seemed like an awfully short time on the design build process and an awfully long time on the design bid method.  Ms. Smith agreed.  The board stated that this is something the Board needs to look at to see if the proposals have reasonable time frames.  Ms. Smith stated that the design bid build time lines were taken from the needs analysis from years past for the time to complete this project.  The  design build time lines were made from the statute.  She further stated that it was ambitious and it was something that was needed. She believes from the preliminary drawings that they can have that accomplished by that time.   The board had further questions as to the time lines and how they can purchase materials prior to knowing what to purchase.  They also questioned the substantial completion during the bad weather months.  The board stated that they would be skeptical as a contractor.  The board then questioned whether the county had hired a criteria developer.  Ms. Smith stated that they had a special engineer on staff who worked with them on the schedules. One of the county commissioners is also an engineer who has accomplished a lot of the drawings.
    The board further questioned the funding source for the project.  Again, Ms. Smith stated that they had a source of funding in place from the money they get from video lottery.  They currently have 6 million dollars in a building fund to be utilized for this.  The overall project would be 8 to 10 million. The difference would come from allocations from the building commission which they would use to pay off what they borrow from BLT funds.

    The board asked if the design builders would be asked to submit two proposals, one with demolishing the jail and one with renovation of the jail.  Ms. Smith stated that they would be asked to submit two. The Supreme Court will be hearing this but exact time unknown.  The board expressed concern that it would be very difficult for design builders to do proposals with the jail and without a jail with the time frames they have established.  Ms. Smith pointed out that the time lines would change if the Supreme Court had not heard the case by expected date.  A discussion followed regarding the time lines and possible changes that would be required.  The board expressed concern regarding whether it is appropriate to proceed with a design build project and approval by the board prior to a decision being made by the Supreme Court.
    The board stated that the bulk of the projects that have gone through design build are parking facilities.  Observation that one board member had on design build was that it was for those type of facilities that are standard.  They are a very effective method  to deliver.  However, if there is a unique quality about a particular project that has not been a typical project  then it can also be done through the design build method.   The board must always look at methodology and genuinely believe that design build is the best method prior to approval.  The board has questions about that due to the nature of this project.  They also have concerns about  the conventional design-bid build as it seems like an extremely longer period of time than you would expect and under design build it is a shorter period of time than you would expect.

    The board asked whether they planned to wait and see what the Supreme Court does before they actually send out a final request for proposal.  Ms. Smith stated that they do plan to wait on the Supreme Court decision as they will not know what they are allowed to do until the decision from the Court.  The board questioned why they are giving their proposal now as opposed to after the Supreme Court’s decision.  Ms. Smith stated that she understood that they meet quarterly and she wanted to get the approval at their meeting.  The board stated that  it could be nine months before the Supreme Court rules and the urgency to get this project done by method A versus method B doesn’t exist.  The board felt it might be more prudent to contact them when they get their Supreme Court decision and the board could meet within 30 days and they would know what the time frame was.

    The board discussed the fact that they need to develop a precedence on how they are going to evaluate the time line comparison for design bid versus design build methodology for projects.   There should be a fair comparison between the two methods of delivery.  One of the criteria is that they must show why design build is a more time efficient method.
     Mr. Smith made a motion to table the request of Jefferson County and commit to them that if they wish to still go this way after their Supreme Court decision that they will do everything in the board’s power to reconvene another meeting as quickly as possible so that Ms. Smith can give a proposal at that time.  Motion was seconded by Rod Clay.   There was no further discussion and the motion passed by a unanimous vote.

    The board advised Ms. Smith to forward revised time lines to Donna Prunty so that she could distribute them to the board members.  They also advised Ms. Smith to contact Donna as soon as the Supreme Court rendered a decision so she could get a meeting set up as soon as possible.

Other Business:
    There was no other business to come before the board.

    Tom Winter made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Chairman Monteleone.  All voted in favor and there being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned.