You are on page 1of 24

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

January 16, 2012 To: From: Subject: Janice Daniels, Mayor John Szerlag, City Manager Response to your January 7, 2012 Position Paper Entitled Troy Multi-Modal Transit Center

Your above reference position paper, which contains many more topics than the transit center, is filled with inaccuracies and has damaged my reputation. As such, I am compelled to respond.

In paragraph two of your paper you indicate that Troy City Management has been politically onesided in support of the transit project. This statement is false. As City Manager, I do not work for you. As point in fact, I do not work for any individual council member. I work for a governing body; and the only time a governing body can speak is through its resolutions at a City Council meeting. City Management then carries out policy directives in accordance with council resolutions and ordinances, something we have done for the past ten years with regard to the transit center. And if any individual Council member disagrees with what the majority of City Council desires, it must be taken up with them at a Council meeting, and not with me.

Paragraphs three though six pertain primarily to your opinions on transit from a State/National perspective and do not mention the City of Troy, City Management, nor myself. I will therefore not address them.

Statements in paragraph seven are false, misleading, and/or show a lack of knowledge regarding the budgeting process. When a municipality, Troy included, budgets for capital projects, the capital amount includes other revenue sources aside from property taxes. In the case of the transit center, these sources included funding from the Federal Government. Note as City Manager I do not budget money, the City Council budgets money.
1

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


In 2011, the City Capital Projects Fund budgeted $9.7 million for Buildings and Improvements for the City as a whole, not specifically the transit center. Revenues budgeted from State Grant sources, were $9.4 million and the corresponding $9.4 million of expenditures was appropriated for the transit center. Net budgeted cost to City taxpayers was zero. Actual results for 2011 were zero revenues recognized and $101,434 expenditures incurred in the Capital Projects Fund.

In 2010, the Capital Projects Fund budgeted $1.3 million as a Reserve in anticipation of possible matching requirements related to the Federal Funding of the transit center. By definition Reserve is money that is not spent, but rather an assigning of Fund Balance as to be appropriated in future years for a specific project. All appropriations lapse at year end. Actual revenue recognized was $79,897, actual expenditures were $380,601 (net $300,704).

Again, in 2010, $1.3 million was budgeted as a reserve, no money was spent and the reserve lapsed the beginning of 2011 when the City budgeted the Revenues of $9.4 million and expenditures of $9.4 million. The $1.3 million is still in the Capital Project Fund as part of Fund Balance. Much like when a family is saving for vacation, they still have the money until they actually book the trip.

2010 Revenue $79,897, Expenditures $380,601 2011 Revenue $0, Expenditures $101,434 Net City cost of transit center: $402,138

City Management has indicated cost for the transit center in terms of Capital cost. This grant is one of the few that does not require a match from the City. And, estimated Operation and Maintenance (O/M) costs were supplied to City Council in the summer of 2011. Further note that the City does not employ full-time janitorial staff, all janitorial services for the City of Troy have been outsourced to a private contractor.

In paragraph eight your quote from managements November 22, 2011 memo indicates not much of the design work for the bridge has been done and so 36.8 percent of the total budget is anticipated to be most subject to change. Know that this is not what was written; in fact, your comments falsely
2

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


attribute the 36.8 percent number. The 36.8 percent figure is not found anywhere in the report. The accurate estimated bridge cost at that time as a percentage of the total budget was $1,094,000 of $8,485,221 or 12.9 percent.

Also know that there is a difference between a report from the City Manager and a staff report of which I am one of several signatories. A staff report with my signature carries my endorsement; a report to council from me is solely mine.

Your comments contained in paragraph nine are not true. This is because ADA regulations that we are required to comply with are not related or tied in any way to mandated and expensive green designs elements that we will be forced to comply with(this is your quote). The so called green elements and Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is voluntary, not a requirement of the federal grant.

In paragraph ten the statement that there is a conflict between the construction manager at risk (CMR) being responsible for any cost overruns not attributable to scope changes, and the environmental assessment that says the City is responsible for overruns is inaccurate. Both statements apply to the project but under different circumstances. The CMR contract protects the City from cost overages in excess of the CMRs guaranteed maximum price, excluding overruns attributable to scope changes, because the CMR must absorb these overruns. If the City makes scope changes via Council resolution which causes an increase in the federal grant amount, then the city will be responsible for costs that exceed the grant amount.

As a point of reference, Grand Sakwa Development Company constructed Midtown Square and associated condominiums on property zoned industrial. This was permitted because of a consent judgement. One result of the consent judgment was to have Grand Sakwa dedicate 2.4 acres of land exclusively for a Troy Multi-Modal Transit Center. This development company is now suing the City in order to obtain the Transit Center property.

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


In paragraph eleven of your paper you state that you did not see a letter from Grand Sakwas attorney before being handed a copy of it during the December 19, 2011 Council meeting. Please know that the letter you refer to was given to the entire City Council on the day it was received by the City in the Answers to Council Questions packet at the December 5, 2011 City Council meeting. While I cannot verify when any Council member reads the contents of these packets, I can verify when we distribute them. (See Attachment #1)

You go on in this paragraph to state that mail addressed to you was being opened up by City Management without even a request for your consent. Again, know that as a matter of practice, mail addressed to the Mayor, current and former, as well as City Managers and most department heads are opened by clerical staff. The only exception is when the mail is marked personal and confidential. The reason we do this is because some mail is time sensitive, and the person holding the position may not be available to open mail. Another reason is that much correspondence is routine in nature and may be handled by clerical staff. That said, we have honored your request to not open any of your mail and you should know that you are the first Mayor to make such a request. You are also the first elected official that has indicated that you will be recording your meetings and conversations with City Administration.

In paragraphs twelve through fifteen of your paper you delineate concerns about the transit center as perceived by Grand Sakwa Development. Let me first state that as City Manager, I do not take an advocacy position for plaintiffs when the City is a defendant, as in this case. And I will continue this practice until the governing body advises otherwise. However, there are some general indications I can make that will not jeopardize the City of Troy:

1. City management conducted many meetings with Grand Sakwa prior to their initiation of post judgment proceedings. The ability to interact with Grand Sakwa was limited once they filed suit. Prior to the requested hearings by Grand Sakwa, Management and City consultants collaborated with Grand Sakwa relative to design and other related matters.

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


2. The City of Troy strictly adheres to the requirements set forth in the consent judgment between the City of Troy and Grand Sakwa.

3. The courts have been asked to decide whether or not Grand Sakwa has a viable claim. Absent a favorable Court ruling, Grand Sakwa does not have the ability to impose mandates on the City of Troy.

4. Estimated Operation and Maintenance (O/M) costs advanced by the City for the transit center are adequate. In my experience, O/M costs advanced by architects, engineers and public works directors are more accurate than those coming from plaintiffs attorneys. Please refer to the attached letter (Attachment #2) from Mr. Steve Vandette, City Engineer, relative to maintenance costs for the transit center.

5. Mark Miller sent a letter to Grand Sakwa on May 5, 2010. There was a reply on May 12, 2010, which you have referenced. Additional communication occurred, and on July 9, 2010, Grand Sakwa initiated its post judgment proceedings, which terminated any further communication during the pending court matter.

In paragraphs sixteen and seventeen you indicate concerns with a reduced project. These concerns relative to cost and project scope are addressed by an updated report dated January 16, 2012 from HRC, the engineering firm overseeing the transit center project, a copy of which is attached. (Attachment #3)

In paragraph nineteen, although you accurately quote a statement from HRC regarding value engineering, please know that value engineering examinations are an ongoing process throughout project design. It can be performed at any stage of project development with valid results. The reviews are particularly useful for deciding between several preliminary project alternatives, and prior to completing final project design so that functions are preserved and value is optimized.

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


Your paragraph twenty indicates thatbudgets are assumptions that are often developed to fit a particular agenda. You also indicate Why is it that we could not get Manager Szerlag to just lower the budget numbers so that we could have seven day library operations after the taxpayers agreed to a $3 million tax increase upon themselves?

More on point is that budgets reflect a level of service as identified by the Governing Body of the City of Troy. The City Manager is not allowed to modify a budget document once it is approved by the Troy City Council. Like Oakland County, the Troy Governing Body has adopted a three-year budget. We had to restructure the organization; achieve employee concessions; and pioneer best practices so as to meet a declining revenue line without a millage increase. Council also identified the core competencies of Police Protection, Fire Protection, and Infrastructure Maintenance. As a result, the Library was slated for closure; the Recreation Department became self-funded (with the exception of debt service); the Museum is now run by a 501(c)(3); as is the Lloyd A. Stage Nature Center. As you know, the voters approved a dedicated Library millage. However, please know that revenues are forecast to decline further and we have about a 99% accuracy rate with our forecasts. This means that even with the passing of the Library millage, further cuts are on the horizon.

Paragraph twenty of your paper also states thatand are we to forget that the DDA is heading for insolvency simply because management has cancelled all of the scheduled meetings of the DDA since my election?

The above statement goes beyond ludicrous. Because of a drop in taxable value in the DDA, we need to find a solution to have the DDA meet its debt service obligations. But to indicate that the

DDA is heading for insolvency simply because Management canceled meetings since November, 2011 goes beyond the periphery of my imagination to comprehend how you can believe that. In all of 2011, the DDA met four times. One time was to pass the budget, and one was to address the issue of not being able to make debt services payments in Fiscal Year 2014/15 unless a way was found to

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


increase revenues. Please know that City Attorney, Lori Grigg Bluhm; Director of Economic and Community Development, Mark Miller; City Assessor, Nino Licari; Acting Finance Director, Tom Darling and I have met numerous times with bond council and our financial advisor relative to developing options toward a solution. As such, an executive session with City Council is going to be scheduled for January 23, 2012 relative to the DDA. In a related matter, City Attorney Bluhm and I scheduled two meetings with you to discuss the Downtown Development Authority. You canceled the meeting of December 16, 2011 and did not show up at the meeting of January 13, 2012.

Paragraph twenty-four is your summary and I will now respond to each of the points you have delineated: 1. This projects drop dead date has passed. This project will expose Troy to financial risk of missing the completion date; The December 19, 2011 drop dead date for approval of the Architect/Engineering contract was needed to meet the two year time limit required by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) to open the Transit Center by October 1, 2013. Because the project was approved subsequent to December 19, 2011, we can no longer meet this deadline. However, the FRA has indicated that they would consider any reasonable request for an extension, which includes justification and need for the extension. We are aware that the Dearborn project, which is already in the final design phase with their Architect/Engineer, will be submitting such a request. All indications from the FRA and MDOT, who would write the request to the FRA, is that they will approve Dearborns request and that they would approve a request from Troy as well, but there are no guarantees.

2. This project that has already been discussed for well over 10 years and has been voted down. It is wasteful and unnecessary; The project has been supported for over ten years by multiple councils, planning commissions, the Futures Study and new Master Zoning plan.

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


3. This project has had the contingency reserve striped out of it. That is just plain financially irresponsible; The Federal Grant amount will always include a contingency, and the project approved by City Council on January 17, 2012 includes a contingency. The contingency will not be stripped out of the project budget under any circumstances.

4. This project now contains revisions so rushed and forced that NO ONE, not City staff, council or the engineering firm has any true grasp on what it means; City staff and consultants, particularly HRC, have spent thousands of hours planning, refining and working with the Federal Rail Administration, MDOT, Canadian National, City of Birmingham Planning Board, the Troy Planning Commission and a multitude of other public and private entities over the last six years that the project has been active. HRC over the last three years has refined the preliminary plan and helped prepare all of the many components of the Environmental Assessment, which was a prerequisite to Federal Rail approval of the project.

Based on the vast knowledge of the project team, changes and revisions can and have been made and vetted in a relatively short period of time. I congratulate all staff members, Council Members, volunteers and consultants for their expediency and professionalism.

5. This projects cost is an ever shifting ghost - $8mm, $5mm, $6mm, $6.25mm contingency in, contingency out. This is unacceptable; The project scope has evolved considerably since the departure of Birmingham, FRA requirements, CN requirements, and directions from Council. City staff and consultants have responded each time with a modified project scope and cost estimate to meet all Federal and State requirements.

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


6. City staff has continued to provide unreasonable estimate of future maintenance and repair costs; Operation and maintenance costs were estimated based on actual costs incurred at other City facilities. The most recent estimate has been revised to reflect a 400 square foot reduction in building area, replacement of the plaza area with a sidewalk leading directly to the building, elimination of the sidewalk snow melt system, inclusion of water and sanitary sewer services costs and reduction of glass in the bridge and building. The estimate includes mowing and trimming, although landscaping is reduced to grass and trees. The gas and electricity costs are based on a conventional HVAC system, not the more energy efficient geothermal system, and electricity is based on conventional lighting. Portions of the existing parking lot, sidewalks and Doyle Drive will be modified and repaired as part of the project such that all pavement and sidewalk will be in a like new condition upon completion in 2013. Mechanical, electrical and other material elements of the transit center will be warranted for terms that vary with the item.

Capital expenditures for periodic pavement repairs and replacements are not part of the annual operation and maintenance cost estimate, but rather a capital expense that will vary year to year depending on the age and condition of the facility.

The estimated operation and maintenance costs were developed in August, 2011 after FRA approved the new project scope without Birmingham. These costs were noted in agenda item I07, which was the MDOT Capital Contract Agreement for the Transit Center at the council meeting of September 12, 2011. Cost estimates were also provided to City Council at the meetings of November 28, 2011 and January 16, 2012.

City Management will partner with City Council, the Chamber, State of Michigan and Amtrak to assure O/M costs are covered by revenue.

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


7. This project has now been subjected to two council members interfering with staff operations, having met on city business with a vendor, without any authorization or any knowledge of the full council AND neither of which have any engineering background or experience in the matter at hand; This statement is not true. Community and Economic Development Director, Mark Miller attended a meeting with Wade Fleming, Council Member; Dane Slater, Council Member; John Tagle, Chamber Representative, Planning Commission Member and Architect; Tom Strat, Planning Commission Member and Architect; Mike McDonald, HRC; Wally Alix, HRC and Mike Kirk, Neumann Smith. Mr. Miller advised the Council via email (Attachment #4), and information resulting from that meeting was given to all of City Council at the same time.

8. Approval of the engineering contract puts Troy at risk for over $600,000 should the project not proceed; This statement is correct. Should City Council take action to cancel this project, they put City funds at risk for reimbursement of all Federal Grant funds spent to that date.

(Numbering out of order from this point, as provided on position paper) 6. (Should be 9.) City Staff has failed to keep the full council informed on this matter in violation of past policy (what one knows, all know); This is not a true statement. Council Members Slater and Fleming explained in chronological order discussions relative to the transit center; and Mark Miller, Director of Economic and Community Development advised City Council. Information that came to Mark Miller was sent to all City Council members in real time, and this occurred well before City Council took action.

7. (Should be 10.) And lastly, why have you violated councils privacy and opened our private mail. That is reprehensible and unforgivable. A. Mail received at City Hall, a public building, addressed to the Mayor, a public figure, is not private mail unless it is specifically marked private/personal and confidential.

10

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


B. 500 W. Big Beaver Rd. is not the Mayors personal address, therefore, all mail received at 500 W Big Beaver Rd is not the Mayors personal mail.

C. It is commonplace for a Manager/Mayor/Supervisor/Director of an organization, public or private, to expect mail to be opened in his/her absence in order to avoid the interruption of business. Note that in Troy, Mayors typically get their mail twice a month at City Council Meetings unless the Mayor makes a specific stop at the Clerks Office to retrieve it.

D. Opening the Mayors mail has been the standard procedure for decades, without adversity or complaint from any Mayor, dating back to Mayor Jeanne Stine at least.

E. If an article of mail is private, it is advisable that any member of the organization request that the sender not send it to City Hall unless it is marked as Personal/Confidential.

F. Every Department Head, including Manager and City Attorney, expects departmental staff to open mail addressed to them, unless marked confidential, in order to prevent interruption of business/missing deadlines (business operations and meeting deadlines are always the first priority).

G. City Management does not open mail delivered to Council Members because historically, individual Council Members are not sent documents that would interrupt

H. business or cause deadlines to be missed; whereas, the Mayor has routinely been sent such documents.

I. Please note that immediately upon your request, City Staff stopped opening all mail delivered to City Hall that was addressed to you.

11

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER


From the usps website:

1.5 Delivery to Individual at Organization 1.5.1 To Address All mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental organization or to an individual by name or title at the address of the organization is delivered to the organization, as is similarly addressed mail for former officials, employees, contractors, agents, etc. If disagreement arises where any such mail should be delivered, it must be delivered under the order of the organizations president or equivalent official.

My practice has always been, as City Manager, to be available to meet with any individual Council Member by appointment to discuss municipal issues. Information resulting from such meetings is always then distributed to all City Council Members.

John Szerlag, City Manager

C:

City Council Department Directors File

JS/bt\Szerlag\2012\To Mayor Janice Daniels Response to Your January 7, 2012 Position Paper

12

Attachment #1
From: To: Subject: Date: Aileen Bittner John Szerlag Letter from Grand Sakwa - December 5, 2011 Monday, January 23, 2012 12:40:27 PM

I personally verified that the letter from Grand Sakwa, dated December 2, 2011, was laid on the table as part of the item titled City Council Member Questions and Responses - Attachment #6 at the December 5, 2011 Council Meeting.

City of Troy M. Aileen Bittner, CMC | City Clerk | City Clerk's Office | Voice: +1 248 524 3331 | Email: bittnera@troymi.gov | Fax: +1 248 524 1770

Attachment #2
From: To: Subject: Date: Steven J Vandette Beth L Tashnick Transit Center Operation and Maintenance Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:43:38 PM

The estimated operation and maintenance costs were developed in August, 2011 after FRA approved the new project scope without Birmingham. These costs were noted in agenda item I-07, which was the MDOT Capital Contract Agreement for the Transit Center, at the council meeting of September 12, 2011. Cost estimates were also provide to City Council at the meetings of November 28, 2011 and January 16, 2012.

Steven J. Vandette, P.E.

CITY Engineer (248) 524-3383 vandettesj@troymi.gov

Attachment #3
Principals George E. Hubbell Thomas E. Biehl Walter H. Alix Peter T. Roth Michael D. Waring Keith D. McCormack Nancy M.D. Faught Senior Associates Gary J. Tressel Lawrence R. Ancypa Kenneth A. Melchior Randal L. Ford David P. Wilcox Timothy H. Sullivan

C-01

Associates Jonathan E. Booth Michael C. MacDonald Marvin A. Olane William R. Davis Daniel W. Mitchell Jesse B. VanDeCreek Robert F. DeFrain Marshall J. Grazioli Thomas D. LaCross Dennis J. Benoit James F. Burton Jane M. Graham

January 16, 2011 City of Troy 500 W. Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48084 Attn: Re: John Szerlag, City Manager Troy Multi-Modal Transit Facility

Dear Mr. Szerlag: As requested, we have performed a review of the project costs for the Troy Multi-Modal Facility in order to address a number of concerns in regards to the $8,485,212 grant amount and budgetary cost of the project that were expressed at the December 19, 2011 City Council meeting. It is our understanding that the intent of the review is to refine/tighten the cost estimate based on changes to the project scope that have been suggested by the City, the business community and our project team. We understood the goal is to not drastically reduce the project scope such that key elements of the facility are lost or such that the resulting facility becomes unattractive. In addition, the facility must meet the functionality as stipulated in the conditions of the grant funding approval for the project from the Federal Rail Administration. This review was completed by HRC and our project team members Neumann/Smith and Quandel Consultants at no cost to the City to show our commitment to the project and to address potential cost savings that could not be fully studied at the last council meeting. In addition, we have reviewed the project with a local construction management group and they have prepared an independent estimate of the project based on their experience with the construction of similar rail/multi-modal projects. A value engineering exercise for the project was completed, based on this review, and discussions with a construction manager, the preliminary estimated construction cost for the facility has been revised to $4,973,750 for the facility, including contingency. The contingency is necessary to account for unknown construction conditions or agency modifications to rules the facility must follow and it is recommended and a common practice on City projects to retain a project contingency to cover these potential project costs. For a project of this complexity and at this stage of preliminary design, it is recommended that a contingency totaling 15% of the construction cost be retained. Attached is a copy of the revised Summary of the Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate (Revised 01-09-12) which provides costs for the various major components of the facility. Also included in the estimate are costs for the architectural/engineering design services and a budgetary allowance for the construction manager at risk services. The city recently received bids for the construction manager at risk services and staff will be reviewing the submittals and the cost for this service and a recommendation for selection is forthcoming. The total project cost including facility construction, contingency, architectural/engineering design and construction manager at risk services is $6,271,250.

Y:\201105\20110519\Proposal\Corrs\Transit_Center_Estimate_Review_Letter_January_16.docx

555 Hulet Drive, PO Box 824 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48303-0824 Telephone 248 454 6300 Fax 248 454 6312 www.hrc-engr.com

Attachment #3
Mr. John Szerlag January 16, 2012 Page 2 of 2

Also attached is a project outline which provides a summary of the major design elements currently included in the project as proposed and a summary of the project elements that have been modified to achieve the cost reduction of the facility while also maintaining the appearance and functionality of the facility. Although the scope of the project and the cost of the facility have been reduced, we believe, based on interactions with reviewing bodies on similar projects, that the facility will still function as intended by the grant and meet the requirements of the following regulatory agencies: x x x x x Federal Rail Administration Amtrak Michigan Department of Transportation CN Railroad City of Troy

The appearance and functionality of the facility will be as shown in the attached design sketches. The attached preliminary design sketches will be the standard that the facility will be designed to. The facility will be an attractive facility that the City will be proud of and will provide a gateway into the community desired by residents and the business community. The HRC team is proposing to work with city staff to enter into a Contract with the City based on standard MDOT contract language, similar to MDOT contracts approved by the City Council for federally funded major road projects. MDOT will review and approve the consultant selection process used by the City along with the subcontract and derivation of costs. Attached to this letter is the MDOT subcontract with Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., who is the prime consultant for a cost of $648,668.87. It is our opinion that the revised project cost as outlined in this letter has met the goal of reducing project costs without jeopardizing the required functionality of the facility, the grant eligibility of the project, and without significantly affecting the overall form and appearance of the facility. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HUBBELL, ROTH & CLARK, INC.

Walter H. Alix, P.E., P.S. Vice President/Principal MM/mm Attachment

J. Michael Kirk, AIA, LEED AP Principal

Y:\201105\20110519\Proposal\Corrs\Transit_Center_Estimate_Review_Letter_January_16.docx

Attachment #3
TROY INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT HSR201000178 CHICAGO: CHICAGO-TROY

TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT SCOPE The project cost for the original concept considered in the grant award for the final design phase, as described by the HRC design team in the sketches included in the proposal, was $8.485 million. With the intent of reducing the overall project cost without affecting the aesthetics, functionality or durability of the facility and meeting the anticipated review agency requirements, the HRC design team was asked to evaluate the conceptual design elements. The result of this evaluation is a project that is still functional and attractive, with an estimated project cost of $6.271 million. This concept will include the following major design elements: 2,000 square foot building with waiting area, restrooms and utility/storage area Enclosed pedestrian bridge with ventilation Enclosed stairway and elevator to access pedestrian bridge Train platform on east side of tracks with 4 transit-style prefabricated shelters (radiant heating provided) Bus slips on Doyle to accommodate up to 4 SMART buses at one time Sidewalks along Doyle at bus slips, with two bus shelters Sidewalks from Doyle to building entrance Site lighting and amenities, including several bike racks and benches A depiction of the facility is provided in the attached concept sketches showing an aerial view and eyelevel perspective view of the facility as currently proposed.

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO REDUCE PROJECT COSTS The HRC design team has reviewed the original conceptual design elements to ascertain their required need and realistic bid costs. At this stage of project development, estimating actual costs for specific project elements can be a difficult task. We believe the original conceptual design costs were conservative in nature. This review process has resulted in a refinement of the cost estimate, allowing the design team to reduce some costs without actually changing specific design elements. In other cases, changing certain design elements can reduce the proposed costs. The following list of modifications to both estimated costs and design changes are listed to indicate what has been considered: CIVIL & SITE WORK x x Eliminate the electric vehicle charging stations Reevaluation of quantity or expense of certain amenities in landscaping that would not affect the aesthetics, functionality, or durability of the development

January 12, 2012


Y:\201105\20110519\Proposal\Corrs\20120112 Cost Reduc Explanation.docx

Attachment #3
TROY INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT HSR201000178 CHICAGO: CHICAGO-TROY

x x

Modifications to the site layout will simplify the storm water drainage system needs (smaller pipes, fewer structures). Reevaluation of the site layout will reduce the number of pole-mounted lighting fixtures. Further cost savings could be realized with the use of standard metal-halide lighting fixtures in lieu of LED. Lighted bollards were eliminated. Use smaller emergency generator Eliminate complete reconstruction of Doyle Drive using decorative-scored concrete pavement or deep-strength asphalt pavement. Instead, propose to construct the bus slips with deep-strength asphalt and will mill Doyle and install a new asphalt overlay in the project area. Proposed raised crosswalks will be plain concrete to provide a color contrast for pedestrian safety. Eliminate all decorative concrete sidewalk finishes, using a broomed finish instead Eliminate the pedestrian plaza in front of the building, providing a 10 foot wide sidewalk from Doyle to the building entrance Delete heated sidewalks, which were determined to be not cost effective Minimize work in the existing parking lot and eliminate construction of second entrance. Will provide new striping for additional handicap parking spaces and provisions for emergency ingress/egress from the parking lot. Necessary pavement repairs and resurfacing in the parking lot will be completed to restore it to a like-new condition. Replacement of the proposed decorative security fence with 6 high, vinyl-coated chain link fencing (along the railroad right-of-way)

x x

x x x x

BRIDGE/ELEVATORS/STAIRS/PLATFORM/CANOPY WORK x Reevaluation of the site layout will reduce the footprint of the stairway and elevator structures supporting the pedestrian bridge. Furthermore, certain features for the stairs and bridge can be eliminated without a deterioration in functionality including LED lighted handrails (use overhead lighting) and bridge heating (ventilation still required) Reduce platform length to 200 feet use transit-style prefabricated shelters on the platform that are heated Provide minimal heating in elevators only Reduce stair and elevator building heights Use 10 wide bridge Reduce amount of glass on bridge a 4' high horizontal band, remaining skin on bridge would be silver metal siding, like an Amtrak train

x x x x x x

January 12, 2012


Y:\201105\20110519\Proposal\Corrs\20120112 Cost Reduc Explanation.docx

Attachment #3
TROY INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT HSR201000178 CHICAGO: CHICAGO-TROY

TRANSIT CENTER BUILDING x x x x x x x x Reduce size of building to 2,000 square feet (from 2,400) Reduce mech/support part of building to 18' height, waiting room part of building to 16' height Reduce amount of glass in waiting room by adding a more durable 2' high base of masonry Use single width 8" or 12" wide reinforced load bearing ground faced 4" high clay masonry Replace the green roof with a membrane roofing system, which includes the savings in the roof support structure resulting from the reduced design load Replace the geothermal heating and cooling system with a standard natural gas furnace and electric air conditioner Eliminate the harvested rain water re-use system and associated underdrain system Reevaluation of cost estimates of certain amenities in the building that would not affect the aesthetics, functionality, or durability of the development

GENERAL/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES x x Do not pursue LEED certification Mobilization and general conditions are items based on a percentage of construction cost. Reducing the costs of the project as described above will also reduce these costs

January 12, 2012


Y:\201105\20110519\Proposal\Corrs\20120112 Cost Reduc Explanation.docx

TROY INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT HSR2010000178 - CHICAGO: CHICAGO-TROY SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ***REVISED 01-09-12*** SITE UTILITIES DOYLE DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION DOYLE DRIVE BUS SLIPS SITE PAVING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE & STAIRWAYS SITE LANDSCAPING & AMENITIES GENERAL ITEMS $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Attachment #3

310,000 76,000 101,000 255,000 974,000 144,000 140,000

SUBTOTAL CIVIL & SITE WORK $ 2,000,000 TRAIN PLATFORM DEMOLITION TRAIN PLATFORM STRUCTURE TRAIN PLATFORM CANOPY $ $ $ 40,000 220,000 151,000 411,000 898,000 675,000

SUBTOTAL PLATFORM/CANOPY WORK $ TRANSIT CENTER BUILDING ELEVATOR BUILDINGS $ $

SUBTOTAL TRANSIT CENTER BUILDING & ELEVATORS $ 1,573,000 DTE O.H. RELOCATION ATT O.H. RELOCATION SPRINT F.O. RELOCATION $ $ $ 76,000 50,000 75,000 201,000 50,000 90,000 140,000

SUBTOTAL UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS $ CN RAILROAD PERMITTING COSTS CN RAILROAD TEMP. CONSTRUCTION CROSSING $ $

SUBTOTAL CN RAILROAD COSTS $

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 4,325,000 A/E COST (15% Const) $ CM AT RISK (15% Const) $ 648,750 648,750

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION, A/E & CM COST $ 5,622,500 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (15%) $ 648,750

TOTAL PROJECT COST, INCLUDING CONTINGENCY $ 6,271,250

HIGH SPEED RAIL AWARD $ 8,485,212 TOTAL GRANT FUNDING $ 8,485,212 January 9, 2012
Y:\201104\20110498\Design\ProjectData\Civil_Site\CivilEstim010912.xlsxSummary_010912

CITY OF TROY OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Attachment #3

Attachment #3

CITY OF TROY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ENG COT 10-44

Page 48 of 72

COST PROPOSAL FORM


FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM SHALL RESULT IN YOUR PROPOSAL BEING DEEMED NONRESPONSIVE AND REJECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVALUATION. THIS COST PROPOSAL FORM AND ADDITIONAL PRICE-RELATED INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN A SEPARATE, SEALED ENVELOPE WITH YOUR RFP SUBMISSION AND LABELED ACCORDINGLY.

PHASE 1: FINAL DESIGN: STATION, BRIDGE AND PLATFORM IMPROVEMENTS, MULTI-MODAL FACILITIES, SITE WORK & RELATED 379,517.29 NOT TO EXCEED PRICE OF $__________________

PHASE 2 AND 3: BIDDING AND FINAL CONSTRUCTION - SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT (Provide plans, drawings, specs and bid documents; review bid submittals and make recommendation of general contractor; follow & support construction through completion and station operational start-up) 269,151.58 NOT TO EXCEED PRICE OF $__________________

All submitted pricing must be in the format acceptable to and required by MDOT (reference Attachment B and Exhibits).
PRICING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN A SEPARATELY SEALED ENVELOPE Currency: Contract prices are quoted in U.S. funds

Company Name: Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. 1/12/2012

Attachment #4
From: To: Subject: Date: Mark F Miller Beth L Tashnick FW: Value-engineering estimate. Monday, January 23, 2012 12:54:26 PM


From: Mark F Miller Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:27 PM To: 'Schornack, Dennis (GOV)' Cc: John Szerlag; Lori G Bluhm; Aileen Bittner; William J Huotari; Susan A Leirstein; Steven J Vandette; Dane M. Slater (djlkslater@aol.com); Dave Henderson (davehenderson@wideopenwest.com); Doug Tietz (doug@dougtietz.com); Janice Daniels (janicedaniels@janicedaniels.com); Jim Campbell (jcapmbell@futuretool.com); 'Maureen McGinnis'; Wade Fleming (wade.fleming@proforma.com) Subject: RE: Value-engineering estimate.

Denny: RepresentativesofCityCouncilandChamberofCommercehavemetwiththeHRCandNuemann SmithA/Eteam.Itismyunderstandingthatteamvolunteeredtocloselylookattheestimated costofthetransitcenteranddetermineifthecostestimatecouldbereducedandretainthescope oftheproposedtransitcenter.ItalkedwithJohnSzerlag,CityManagerandheaskedmetoemail youandletyouknowthatwewillsendyouacopyofthevalue-engineeringestimatewhenCity Managementisgivenacopy.Further,JohnwantedyoutoknowthatwewillkeeptheMayorand CityCouncilfullyinformed. RegardingtheJanuary9th CityCouncilmeeting;JohnSzerlag,CityManagerhasnointentionof placingthetransitcenterontheCityCouncilAgendadotoatechnicality.Thatbeingsaid, CouncilmanSlaterisconsideringbringingthetransitcenteritembackasaCouncilReferralonthe January9th Councilmeeting. Pleasefeelfreetocalloremailifyouhaveanyquestions. HappyNewYear

Mark F. Miller Director of Economic & Community Development City Manager's Office City of Troy 500 W. Big Beaver Troy MI 48084 248.524.3351 office direct 248.885.1889 wireless

Attachment #4

From: Schornack, Dennis (GOV) [mailto:Schornackd@michigan.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:25 AM To: Mark F Miller Subject: FW: Value-engineering estimate.

Pleaseseetherequestbelow. Kindregards, d
From: Schornack, Dennis (GOV) Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:24 PM To: 'j.szerlag@troymi.gov' Subject: Value-engineering estimate.

DearJohn, IamtheSeniorStrategyAdvisortowhomtransithasbeenassigned.Asyouknow,Governor SnyderstronglysupportsthedevelopmentoftheTroyTransitCenterandhassubmittedaletterto thecitytothiseffect.ThegovernorwasdisappointedbytheinabilityoftheCityCouncilto definitivelydecidethematteroftheA&EcontractitsDecember19meeting.Thedraftminutes fromthatmeetingstatethattheresolutiontorejectthecontractandfederalgrantfailedona2-5 vote,andthattheresolutiontoapprovethecontractandgrantfailedona3-4vote.Therefore,it appearsthatnodefinitiveactionwastakenandthematterremainsbeforethecitycouncilfor dispositionatitsJanuary9meeting. Further,itismyunderstandingthattheproposedA&Efirmhasvolunteeredtoreexaminethe projectanditstotalcostbyapplyingtheprinciplesofvalueengineering.Thisworkisproceeding evenasIwrite,withtheexpectationthatanewandfinaltotalcostnumberwillbeforthcomingby thefirstoftheNewYear.Giventheimportanceofthisprojecttopublictransitthroughoutthe regionandindeed,toareaswellbeyondTroy,Iwoulddeeplyappreciateitifyouwouldforwardthe newestimateandassociateddetailstomeatyourearliestconvenience.Itismyintenttohave MDOTreviewthisworktoensurethattheintegrityoftheprojectremainsintact. Manythanks, DennisSchornack

You might also like