01 16 12 - To Mayor Janice Danies - Response to Your January 7 2012 Position Paper

8/3/2019 01 16 12 - To Mayor Janice Danies - Response to Your January 7 2012 Position Paper

1/24

1

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

January 16, 2012

To: Janice Daniels, Mayor

From: John Szerlag, City Manager

Subject: 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 one-

sided 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.


2/24

2


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


3/24

3


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 greendesigns 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.


4/24

4


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 headsare 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.


5/24

5


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 throughoutproject 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.


6/24

6


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 corecompetencies 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


7/24

7


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.


8/24

8


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 ofBirmingham 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.


9/24

9


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, sidewalksand 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 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 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.


10/24

10


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.


11/24

11


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, withoutadversity 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.


12/24

12


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


13/24

From: Aileen Bittner

To: John Szerlag

Subject: Letter from Grand Sakwa - December 5, 2011

Date: 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. Ailee n Bittner, CMC | City C lerk| City Clerk's Office | Voice: +1 248 524 3331| Email:b [email protected] | Fax: +1 248 524 1770

Attachment #1
mailto:/O=CITY%20OF%20TROY/OU=CITYOFTROY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DICKSONAmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:/O=CITY%20OF%20TROY/OU=CITYOFTROY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DICKSONA


14/24

From: Steven J Vandette

To: Beth L Tashnick

Subject: Transit Center Operation and Maintenance

Date: 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 werenoted inagenda item I-07, which was theMDOT Capital Contract Agreement fortheTransit Center, at the council meeting ofSeptember 12, 2011. Cost estimates werealsoprovideto City Council at the meetings of November 28, 2011 and January 16,2012.

Steven J. Vandette, P.E.CITY Engineer

(248) [email protected]

Attachment #2
mailto:/O=CITY%20OF%20TROY/OU=CITYOFTROY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=VANDETTESJmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:/O=CITY%20OF%20TROY/OU=CITYOFTROY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=VANDETTESJ


15/24

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

555 Hulet Drive, PO Box 824Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48303-0824Telephone 248 454 6300 Fax 248 454 6312

www.hrc-engr.com

Principals AssociatesGeorge E. Hubbell Jonathan E. Booth

Thomas E. Biehl Michael C. MacDonaldWalter H. Alix Marvin A. OlanePeter T. Roth William R. Davis

Michael D. Waring Daniel W. MitchellKeith D. McCormack Jesse B. VanDeCreekNancy M.D. Faught Robert F. DeFrain

Marshall J. GrazioliSenior Associates Thomas D. LaCross

Gary J. Tressel Dennis J. BenoitLawrence R. Ancypa James F. BurtonKenneth A. Melchior Jane M. Graham

Randal L. FordDavid P. Wilcox

Timothy H. Sullivan

January 16, 2011

City of Troy500 W. Big Beaver RoadTroy, Michigan 48084

Attn: John Szerlag, City Manager

Re: 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 orderto 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 thatthe intent of the review is to refine/tighten the cost estimate based on changes to the project scope thathave been suggested by the City, the business community and our project team. We understood the goalis to not drastically reduce the project scope such that key elements of the facility are lost or such that theresulting facility becomes unattractive. In addition, the facility must meet the functionality as stipulatedin 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 costsavings that could not be fully studied at the last council meeting. In addition, we have reviewed theproject with a local construction management group and they have prepared an independent estimate ofthe 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 aconstruction 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 unknownconstruction conditions or agency modifications to rules the facility must follow and it is recommendedand a common practice on City projects to retain a project contingency to cover these potential projectcosts. For a project of this complexity and at this stage of preliminary design, it is recommended that acontingency 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 variousmajor components of the facility. Also included in the estimate are costs for the architectural/engineeringdesign services and a budgetary allowance for the construction manager at risk services. The city recentlyreceived bids for the construction manager at risk services and staff will be reviewing the submittals andthe cost for this service and a recommendation for selection is forthcoming. The total project costincluding facility construction, contingency, architectural/engineering design and construction manager atrisk services is $6,271,250.

C-01Attachment #3


16/24

Mr. John SzerlagJanuary 16, 2012Page 2 of 2

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

Also attached is a project outline which provides a summary of the major design elements currentlyincluded in the project as proposed and a summary of the project elements that have been modified toachieve 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 oninteractions with reviewing bodies on similar projects, that the facility will still function as intended bythe grant and meet the requirements of the following regulatory agencies:

x Federal Rail Administration

x Amtrak

x Michigan Department of Transportation

x CN Railroad

x City of Troy

The appearance and functionality of the facility will be as shown in the attached design sketches. Theattached preliminary design sketches will be the standard that the facility will be designed to. The facilitywill be an attractive facility that the City will be proud of and will provide a gateway into the communitydesired 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 onstandard MDOT contract language, similar to MDOT contracts approved by the City Council forfederally funded major road projects. MDOT will review and approve the consultant selection processused 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 primeconsultant 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 projectcosts without jeopardizing the required functionality of the facility, the grant eligibility of the project, andwithout 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. J. Michael Kirk, AIA, LEED APVice President/Principal Principal

MM/mmAttachment

Attachment #3


17/24

TROY INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY PROJECT

HSR201000178 CHICAGO: CHICAGO-TROY

January 12, 2012Y:\201105\20110519\Proposal\Corrs\20120112 Cost Reduc Explanation.docx

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. Withthe 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 eye-

level 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 Eliminate the electric vehicle charging stations

x Reevaluation of quantity or expense of certain amenities in landscaping that would not affect the

aesthetics, functionality, or durability of the development

Attachment #3


18/24




x Modifications to the site layout will simplify the storm water drainage system needs (smaller pipes,

fewer structures).

x 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.

x Use smaller emergency generator

x 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.

x Eliminate all decorative concrete sidewalk finishes, using a broomed finish instead

x Eliminate the pedestrian plaza in front of the building, providing a 10 foot wide sidewalk from Doyle

to the building entrancex Delete heated sidewalks, which were determined to be not cost effective

x 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.

x Replacement of the proposed decorative security fence with 6 high, vinyl-coated chain link fencing

(along the railroad right-of-way)

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)

x Reduce platform length to 200 feet

x use transit-style prefabricated shelters on the platform that are heated

x Provide minimal heating in elevators only

x Reduce stair and elevator building heights

x Use 10 wide bridge

x Reduce amount of glass on bridge a 4' high horizontal band, remaining skin on bridge would be

silver metal siding, like an Amtrak train

Attachment #3


19/24




TRANSIT CENTER BUILDING

x Reduce size of building to 2,000 square feet (from 2,400)

x

Reduce mech/support part of building to 18' height, waiting room part of building to 16' heightx Reduce amount of glass in waiting room by adding a more durable 2' high base of masonry

x Use single width 8" or 12" wide reinforced load bearing ground faced 4" high clay masonry

x Replace the green roof with a membrane roofing system, which includes the savings in the roof

support structure resulting from the reduced design load

x Replace the geothermal heating and cooling system with a standard natural gas furnace and electric

air conditioner

x Eliminate the harvested rain water re-use system and associated underdrain system

x 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 Do not pursue LEED certification

x 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

Attachment #3


20/24


HSR2010000178 - CHICAGO: CHICAGO-TROY

SUMMARY OF

PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

***REVISED 01-09-12***

January 9, 2012Y:\201104\20110498\Design\ProjectData\Civil_Site\CivilEstim010912.xlsxSummary_010912

CITY OF TROY

OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

SITE UTILITIES 310,000$

DOYLE DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION 76,000$

DOYLE DRIVE BUS SLIPS 101,000$SITE PAVING 255,000$

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE & STAIRWAYS 974,000$

SITE LANDSCAPING & AMENITIES 144,000$

GENERAL ITEMS 140,000$

SUBTOTAL CIVIL & SITE WORK 2,000,000$

TRAIN PLATFORM DEMOLITION 40,000$

TRAIN PLATFORM STRUCTURE 220,000$

TRAIN PLATFORM CANOPY 151,000$

SUBTOTAL PLATFORM/CANOPY WORK 411,000$

TRANSIT CENTER BUILDING 898,000$

ELEVATOR BUILDINGS 675,000$

SUBTOTAL TRANSIT CENTER BUILDING & ELEVATORS 1,573,000$

DTE O.H. RELOCATION 76,000$

ATT O.H. RELOCATION 50,000$

SPRINT F.O. RELOCATION 75,000$

SUBTOTAL UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS 201,000$

CN RAILROAD PERMITTING COSTS 50,000$

CN RAILROAD TEMP. CONSTRUCTION CROSSING 90,000$

SUBTOTAL CN RAILROAD COSTS 140,000$

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 4,325,000$

A/E COST (15% Const) 648,750$

CM AT RISK (15% Const) 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$

Attachment #3


21/24

Attachment #3


22/24

CITY OF TROYREQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ENG COT 10-44 Page 48 of 72

COST PROPOSAL FORM

FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM SHALL RESULT IN YOUR PROPOSAL BEINGDEEMED NONRESPONSIVE AND REJECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER

EVALUATION. THIS COST PROPOSAL FORM AND ADDITIONALPRICE-RELATEDINFORMATION 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

NOT TO EXCEED PRICE OF $__________________

PHASE 2 AND 3: BIDDING AND FINAL CONSTRUCTION - SOLICITATION OFCONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT (Provide plans,drawings, specs and bid documents; review bid submittals and make recommendationof general contractor; follow & support construction through completion and stationoperational start-up)

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:

379,517.29

269,151.58

Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc.

1/12/2012

Attachment #3


23/24

From: Mark F Miller

To: Beth L Tashnick

Subject: FW: Value-engineering estimate.

Date: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:54:26 PM

From: Mark F MillerSent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:27 PMTo: 'Schornack, Dennis (GOV)'Cc: John Szerlag; Lori G Bluhm; Aileen Bittner; William J Huotari; Susan A Leirstein; Steven J Vandette;Dane M. Slater ([email protected]); Dave Henderson ([email protected]); Doug Tietz([email protected]); Janice Daniels ([email protected]); Jim Campbell([email protected]); 'Maureen McGinnis'; Wade Fleming ([email protected])Subject: RE: Value-engineering estimate.

Denny:

Representatives of City Council and Chamber of Commerce have met with the HRC and Nuemann

Smith A/E team. It is my understanding that team volunteered to closely look at the estimated

cost of the transit center and determine if the cost estimate could be reduced and retain the scope

of the proposed transit center. I talked with John Szerlag, City Manager and he asked me to email

you and let you know that we will send you a copy of the value-engineering estimate when City

Management is given a copy. Further, John wanted you to know that we will keep the Mayor and

City Council fully informed.

Regarding the January 9th City Council meeting; John Szerlag, City Manager has no intention of

placing the transit center on the City Council Agenda do to a technicality. That being said,

Councilman Slater is considering bringing the transit center item back as a Council Referral on the

January 9th Council meeting.

Please feel free to call or email if you have any questions.

Happy New Year

Mark F. Miller

Director of Economic &

Community Development

City Manager's OfficeCity of Troy

500 W. Big Beaver

Troy MI 48084

248.524.3351 office direct

248.885.1889 wireless

Attachment #4
mailto:/O=CITY%20OF%20TROY/OU=CITYOFTROY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MILLERMFmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:/O=CITY%20OF%20TROY/OU=CITYOFTROY/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MILLERMF


24/24

From: Schornack, Dennis (GOV) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:25 AMTo: Mark F MillerSubject: FW: Value-engineering estimate.

Please see the request below.

Kind regards,

d

From: Schornack, Dennis (GOV)Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 4:24 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Value-engineering estimate.

Dear John,

I am the Senior Strategy Advisor to whom transit has been assigned. As you know, Governor

Snyder strongly supports the development of the Troy Transit Center and has submitted a letter to

the city to this effect. The governor was disappointed by the inability of the City Council to

definitively decide the matter of the A&E contract its December 19 meeting. The draft minutes

from that meeting state that the resolution to reject the contract and federal grant failed on a 2-5

vote, and that the resolution to approve the contract and grant failed on a 3-4 vote. Therefore, it

appears that no definitive action was taken and the matter remains before the city council for

disposition at its January 9 meeting.

Further, it is my understanding that the proposed A&E firm has volunteered to reexamine the

project and its total cost by applying the principles of value engineering. This work is proceeding

even as I write, with the expectation that a new and final total cost number will be forthcoming by

the first of the New Year. Given the importance of this project to public transit throughout the

region and indeed, to areas well beyond Troy, I would deeply appreciate it if you would forward the

new estimate and associated details to me at your earliest convenience. It is my intent to have

MDOT review this work to ensure that the integrity of the project remains intact.

Many thanks,

Dennis Schornack

Attachment #4
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dave-phillips
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

01 16 12 - To Mayor Janice Danies - Response to Your January 7 2012 Position Paper

Documents