Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/18/2011 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 006, 2011, APPROPRI DATE: January 18, 2011 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY STAFF: Jill Stilwell _ T COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Steve Seefeld First Reading of Ordinance No.006, 2011,Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Lincoln Center Renovation Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ) During the Lincoln Center addition and renovation project, an unanticipated structural issue with the 32 year old performance hall walls was identified. The structural problem is significant and the performance hall walls will require additional structural support. This work must be completed before the facility can be reopened. This Ordinance appropriates an additional$460,000 from prior year reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and the General Fund to implement the additional structural support. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Building on Basics Lincoln Center renovation project began in July 2010. The project is renovating 55,000 sq. ft. and adding approximately 17,000 sq. ft. to the Lincoln Center with a focus on improving the patron experience, performer amenities, and infusing new life into this community treasure. During construction, an unanticipated structural issue was uncovered in the 32-year old performance hall walls. The project structural engineer, Martin and Martin, evaluated and tested the walls, and determined that additional structural support is required (Attachment 1). A second structural engineering firm, JVA, was retained by the City to provide a second opinion, and agreed with Martin and Martin's findings (Attachment 2). Martin and Martin, in consult with JVA, has developed a series of structural columns consisting of steel, concrete, and concrete masonry unit block, that will line the exterior of the existing performance hall walls at specified intervals that will provide the necessary structural reinforcement. The structural work will be completed by the Lincoln Center renovation general contractor, Bryan Construction, and is estimated to cost$460,000. The structural work will run concurrent with the current Lincoln Center renovation, with the reopening anticipated in July 2011. As this work was unanticipated, and the estimate far exceeds the contingency of the project, this Ordinance appropriates money from prior year reserves from the Cultural Services and the General Fund. The reserves remaining in the General Fund and Cultural Services Fund will still meet the City's policy relative to maintaining minimum fund balances. FINANCIAL/ ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance appropriates additional funding forthe Lincoln Center Renovation to complete the additional structural support as follows: Prior Year Reserves (Cultural Services): $150,000 Prior Year Reserves (General Fund): $310,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Lincoln Center renovation and this additional structural work will meet LEED Gold standards. January 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Martin and Martin report 2. JVA report ATTACHMENT 1 MARTIN /MARTIN MEMORANDUM OONBWLTING FNGIN P.P.RG Page 1 of 2 I To: Chris Freeland/Dave Lingle Date: September 28,2010 Aller Lingle Massey Architects From: Garth Scholl P.E. 712 Whalers Way,Suite B-100 Project No.: 21763.S.02 Fort Collins,Colorado Project Title: Lincoln Center Wall Investigation Copy To: Steve Seefeld City of Fort Collins RE: Existing wall investigation results and recommendations At this point in time we have investigated the existing stage walls by using Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR)to scan the following locations: -back interior stage wall at approximately 4'-0" -back exterior stage wall at approximately 4'-0" -stage exterior side walls at approximately 4'41 -back interior stage wall at approximately mid-height,limited by access to approximately 12'in length. Additionally,two areas of the brick wythe portion of the wall at the back of the stage were selectively demolished to observe the vertical reinforcing and grout at the in-wall columns. We observed this selective demolition to better understand how the wall was constructed. At this point we believe that the results of our investigation provide a reasonable representative sample of the existing wall construction. We do not believe additional GPR scans or additional selective demolition will uncover conditions which differ significantly than those which have been found. We believe the investigative portion of the work to be essentially complete. During our investigation we found large voids in a significant percentage(approximately 33a/o)of the reinforced in- wall columns. The voids observed are potentially detrimental to the strength and performance of the wall. The grout surrounding the reinforcing within the brick portion of the wall was poorly consolidated for the full extent that was demolished;the grout appeared to unconsolidated mortar which appeared to have been placed with a trowel. Based on these observations we believe that the construction would not have met inspection requirements at the time the building was constructed and the construction would definitely not meet the special inspection requirements of the current code. Also while at the site we observed a corner of the existing building which had been damaged with the recent construction,some of the brick face shells had been broken off. Based on the existing structural drawings a column should be located at this damaged comer,the column was not in place at the exposed portion of wall. With the above information taken into account along with the height of these exterior walls we have significant concerns related to the structural integrity and load capacity of the walls. Based on a review of the 1973 UBC the wall height to thickness ratio exceeds the typical recommended value and the design would have required special consideration. Additionally the design which appears on the existing structural drawings is not entirely consistent with the wall construction observed. The location of the reinforcing and the cell arrangement within the brick do not match the existing structural drawings. Under the 2006 IBC the height to thickness ratio of the existing wall would only be permitted will,special inspection. Additionally,we believe that the multi-wythe construction would not meet the requirements of the 2006 IBC for the existing wall height to thickness ratio. Revised OR 2010 12499 West Colfax • Lakewood,Colorado 80215 • Telephone:303431-6100 www.martinmarfn.com Civil Department Fax:303-4314028 • Structural Department Fax:303-431-6866 • Marketing Department Fax:303456-9923 i MEMORANDUM Page 2 Based on the results of the investigation,design calculations and discussions with the general contractor who observed reinforcing in ungrouted cells during the demolition of some of the 1977 edition walls we recommend that the remaining walls of similar construction be reinforced. We believe the deficiencies noted above are throughout the 1977 edition and recommend that all of the remaining 1977 edition walls be reinforced. We would offer the following preliminary concepts to strengthen the existing wall. The first concept would be to add a structural steel column spanning between the foundation and roof to the existing wall,the columns would most likely be spaced at eight foot on center between the existing in-wall columns. The steel columns could be cut into the existing wall and surrounded by grout or added to the outside of the wall without cutting into the existing wall. If the column is added to the outside of the wail a portion of the wall would have to be grouted in order to provide a connection between the wall and the new column. A second alternate would be to remove strips of the existing wall back to the interior CMU face shell and add a flush wall 24"wide by IT'deep CMU column at eight feet on center spaced between the existing in-wall columns. Both of these options could be constructed from the exterior portion of the building. We would recommend the owner and design team discuss these two concepts with the contractor. The contractor review would be both for general constmctability,and to see if any additional reinforcing ideas are presented by the contractor. After taking into account any comments from the contractor we will be able to provide a better construction cost estimate. i 0:ten0tsCrM21763_02\WP0& o9-28•10.a= to;:�aazns 12499 West Colfax • P.O.Box 151500 Lakewood,Colorado 80215 • Telephone:303-431-6100 www.martinmarfn.com Civil Department Fax:303-4314028 . Stractnral Department Fax:303-431-6866 • Marketing Department Fax.303-456-9923 ATTACHMENT Incorporated 25 25 Old Town Square Suite 200 Fort Collins,CO B0524 Ph: 970.225.9099 December 9, 2010 Fax:970.225.6923 Toll Free:877.444.1951 Chris Freeland, AIA, LEED AP Web site: Aller-Lingle-Massey Architects www.jvajva.com 712 Whalers Way E-mail: Building B, Suite 100 Info@jvajva.com Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Lincoln Center Wall Investigation JVA Project No. 14455 Dear Chris: This letter is to summarize JVA's preliminary findings regarding the Lincoln Center masonry wall investigation, subsequent strengthening recommendations, and proposed construction costs for repairs. JVA was asked to review the documents provided to us to determine whether the repairs i recommended by Martin/Martin were appropriate and whether the associated costs were appropriate. JVA has reviewed the original building drawings,the contractor's cost summary dated 11/23/10, two memos by Martin/Martin dated 9/28/10 and 10/15/10,and the wall strengthening drawings prepared by Martin/Martin and dated 11/24/10. Additionally, we visited the site on 12/2/10 and 12/9/10 and spoke directly with Garth Scholl at Martin/Martin on 12/9/10. After considering all of these items, we conclude the following: 1) We concur that the exterior walls in question are deficient. Based on our own site observations,there are significant defects in the construction of the masonry walls. These include ungrouted portions of reinforcing bars w thin masonry cavities, poorly consolidated grout, and inadequate cover of reinforcing bars. Ma onry walls of this height require significant reinforcing that is properly grouted into the ml�lasonry cavity to ensure that the reinforcing and masonry act as one unit. At the locations we observed, this was not achieved and we do not believe the walls function as intended nor meet building code requirements. The question has been appropriately raised as to why the walls have not exhibited any signs of distress in more than 30 years since the building was constructed. We believe there are a few factors that might explain this. The highest winds generally come from the west and the north, and the building is largely shielded from westerly winds by the Mulberry Pool and northwest portion of the Lincoln Center. It is possible that the walls in question have not experienced the design wind pressure over much of their life due to being partly shielded by these buildings. Additionally, while many reinforcing locations have been noted to lack grout or have poorly' consolidated grout,there are likely portions of the walls where some bond(albeit weak)between reinforcing and masonry was achieved, and this in combination with being shielded by surrounding buildings may have meant that the wall had enough capacity to remain stable for BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK Lincoln Center Wall Investigation Chris Freeland, 1219110 Page 2 of 3 the toads actually experienced until now. The loads actually experienced,however, are likely much less than those required by code. We must stress that any existing structural capacity that has prevented these walls from structural failure until now cannot be quantified nor relied upon to prevent structural failure in the future. For this reason, we recommend that repairs be made. I 2) We believe the repair recommendations made by Martin/Martin are reasonable and appropriate for the deficiencies observed. Having reviewed the repair drawings provided by Martin/Martin,performed preliminary calculations,and spoken with Garth Scholl about their design methods and intent,we believe the repairs they've recommended are reasonable and would provide structural integrity to the wall.. If further material savings measures are to be explored, we would suggest that the following design assumptions be verified. Note that we do not wish to imply that these items were not accounted for,but only suggest verification. a. Verify wind criteria used is 100 mph velocity(3 second gust), Exposure 13, Occupancy Category III,with adjustment for altitude. b. Verify that a tributary area of wall height by 8'width was used for calculating wind pressure coefficients. The code also permits even less stringent criteria of wall height by a width of 1/3 the wall height if so desired. c. For purpose of wall deflection,verify that 70%of the component and cladding wind pressure is used as allowed by code. 3) We suggest the following alternatives be explored or revisited to determine whether cost savings may be found. a. Consider the use of structural steel in place of concrete and masonry pilasters. We understand from talking with Garth Scholl that this option was considered. However, after reviewing the repair drawings and costs,we believe this option should be explored once more in conjunction with items 3b and 3c below. A single piece of steel could be brought onsite and erected in less time than forming the partial height concrete pilaster, then placing masonry. b. In conjunction with item 3a, consider erecting steel wind-colurmis from the inside of the building wherever possible, so that exterior finishes would not be required around pilasters. c. Consider options that do not involve demolition of brick veneer,but involve bolting through the brick and masonry wall. This might eliminate most of the$80,000 cost associated with saw-cutting the brick. d. Consider spacing pilasters or wind columns at greater spacing, such as 10 feet or 12 feet, to decrease the number of pilasters required. e. Consider using fewer attachments to existing structure. The details require grouting existing walls every 16"to 24"and installing dowels or ties. Increasing this spacing to 32"or 48"may decrease the amount of time and labor required to place grout and dowels. BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK i Lincoln Center Wall Investigation Chris Freeland, 1219110 `J`JtIII Page 3 of 3 4) We suggest the following items from the contractor's cost summary be reviewed: a. The cost of structural work(Divisions 2 through 5) accounts for$377,000 of the $608,963 total cost, or roughly 62%of the total cost. Based on the fact that this work is primarily exterior and structural in nature, and that work is already in progress on site, we'd expect the overall cost to be lower. b. The general conditions cost (Division 1)appears high based on the fact that many items are already onsite. It would appear that roughly 10 weeks is required to perform the additional repair work specified. Is the overall schedule being extended by 10 weeks to warrant 10 weeks of additional costs for items such as water/ice/cups, telephone, fencing, toilets,etc that are already on site? c. The general conditions costs include roughly$52,000 for 5 additional personnel(project manager,superintendent,project engineer,layout helper, and project administrator). Is this personnel in addition to the staff already on site, and would they be devoted solely to the repair work? Would additional time be spent onsite compared to the overall schedule, or would this time be shared with existing activities? d. We suggest that more detailed information be provided about the extent of weather protection required. The cost for this item was Listed-as $28,000. e. The combined cost of$67,606 for finishes,mechanical, and electrical (Divisions 9, 15, and 16)appears high for work that is primarily exterior. If not previously clarified,we suggest that additional information be provided to the City as to the extent of work required under these items to justify their cost. In summary it is our opinion that strengthening of the walls in question is required. While we understand that a number of options were explored and that value-engineering was done as part of the design process for these repairs,we believe that some cost savings might be possible as described in items 2 through 4. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, JVA, INCORPORATED Prepared By: R nald Manske, P.E. Project Manager Reviewed By: Michael cDonald,P.E. Regional Manager BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK ORDINANCE NO. 006, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE CULTURAL SERVICES.FUND AND PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE BUILDING ON BASICS LINCOLN CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed Ordinance No. 092, 2005 approving the `Building on Basics" ("BOB")tax for certain capital projects including the Lincoln Center Renovation Project; and WHEREAS,the total cost of the renovation project was estimated to be $7.3 million,to be paid for with $5.5 million of BOB funding, $621,855 in funding from the Downtown Development Authority, and the remaining amount from other sources; and WHEREAS, during construction of the Lincoln Center Renovation project,which began in July 2010, an unanticipated structural issue was uncovered in the performance hall walls and it has been determined that additional improvements in the form of structural reinforcement will be necessary; and WHEREAS,these improvements will be completed by the general contractor on the project at an estimated cost of$460,000; and WHEREAS, in order to fund the additional improvements, staff has recommended that $150,000 be appropriated from prior year reserves in the Cultural Services Fund and$310,000 from prior year reserves in the General Fund for transfer to the Lincoln Center Renovation Capital Project; and WHEREAS,Article V,Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Cultural Services Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000)to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriated therein for the Building on Basics - Fort Collins Lincoln Center Renovation Project. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($310,000)to be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriated therein for the Building on Basics - Fort Collins Lincoln Center Renovation Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of January, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 1 st day of February, A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1 st day of February, A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk