BC 2007 06 04 Wk. Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 4, 2007 (Work Session) Page 392 3. The GO Bonds would require to be placed on the November 6cn ballot at an estimated cost to the County of $15,000 for the election. Should the Board select to utilize the GO Bonds, the County needs to begin the steps necessary for a GO Bond Referendum to take place in November. The process needs to begin in July and may require the Board to call some special meetings to ensure that all the steps are completed. The debt is currently projected at approximately $60,000,000. In the 5 year plan for schools construction, approximately ' $7, 000, 000 is requested to be added to this issue to begin the phase I projects requested by the Schools (AL Brown High School Wing Addition, AT Allen Replacement, Middle School in Southwest area of the County, Lower Rocky River Elementary School, and an Elementary School in the Odell Area). The $7,000,000, combined with the lottery proceeds and APFO funds for FY 2008, would cover land cost, architect, engineering and site preparation (Middle School in Southwest area) for the projects included in phase I. There was a general discussion on holding a bond referendum, voter turnout and efforts to gain support of Kannapolis voters. UPON MOTION of Commissioner Mynatt, seconded by Vice Chairman Juba and unanimously carried, the Board voted to place the selection of a debt instrument to fund the new high school and land purchase in Kannapolis on the June 16, 2007 Agenda as a New Business item. There was further discussion on including the installment financing due in February 2008 in the debt instrument. Ware Soneall Contract Amendments #10, #11 and #12 John Day, County Manager, reported Contract Amendment #10 deals with changing the wording of the contract to reflect the use of a construction ' manager at risk. He reported the County Attorney had reviewed and signed off on the changes. At the request of the County Manager, Glenn Ware, of Ware Bonsall Architects, reviewed Contract Amendments No. 11 and 12. Design changes associated with Concord's Conditional Use review process attributed to Amendment No. 11, totaling $75,600.00. Mr. Ware also pointed out that Concord would not review the drawings until they were completely finished. Mr. Ware responded to several questions from the Board and a general discussion ensued. In reference to Contract Amendment No. 12 totaling $113,500.00, Mr. Day asked Mr. Ware to report on the number of site visits included in the contract, number of visits used thus far, the anticipated number of visits needed and possible options. Mr. Ware reported the contract allotted 96 site visits, 83 visits have been made thus far with 12 to 13 months of construction remaining. He pointed out the 96 visits was based on a twenty- four month contract. He also reported on the average number of monthly visits made thus far and the need for additional site visits over the next 13 months. Further, he reviewed the following two options: (1) have someone at the construction site fulltime; or (2) to contract with the architectural firm on an hourly basis. He estimated the 13 remaining site visits would be used within the next two to three months and an additional 88 site visits would be required to complete the entire project by August 31, 2006. Mr. Ware responded to further questions from t he Board and a lengthy discussion ensued. Issues discussed included the following: si te visits ' verses meetings with contractors; the County's past decision not to accept Ware Bonsall's proposal to have someone on site fulltime; the type of guidance provided by the architectural firm at site v isits; field conditions; the occasional need for special meetings; etc. UPON MOTION of Commissioner White, seconded by Vice Chairman Juba and unanimously carried, the Board voted to place Ware Bonsall Contract Amendments #10, #11 and #12 on the June 18, 2007 Agenda as New Business items. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) Update