Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Center Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff recommends construction-manager-at-risk and a $5.65 million phase‑3 design contract for 1 City Center
Summary
City presenters and the design team recommended a construction-manager‑at‑risk delivery for the 1 City Center sports and events facility and outlined a phase‑3 design contract fee of $5,650,000; staff said a verbal TDA commitment will help split costs and that a budget amendment and contract will return to council for approval.
City staff and the project design team recommended that the 1 City Center sports-and-events complex move forward under a construction-manager‑at‑risk (CMAR) delivery method and advance a phase‑3 design contract with a fee of $5,650,000.
Jason Galloway, a presenter on the project team, described three delivery options — design‑bid‑build, CMAR and design‑build — and said Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes governs the procurement choices. He summarized the tradeoffs: design‑bid‑build gives the owner more control but is slower and places more budget risk on the owner; design‑build is fastest but transfers control to the design‑builder; and CMAR offers early contractor input, competitively bid divisions and a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) that helps transfer some risk away from the city.
Tessa Romanowski, the project architect, said early contractor involvement improves constructability and budget control. "It is very important to have all of that coordinated, to a very high level, and the sooner, the better," she said, describing mid‑phase cost checks and contract language that define contingencies and the owner’s non‑negotiables.
Staff explained what phase 3 covers — final geotechnical studies, design development (about 60 percent complete) and full construction documents for each discipline — and listed permitting needs that will include building and environmental (wetlands) reviews. The fee for this phase was stated as $5,650,000; staff told the council the figure was reasonable against industry standards.
Council members and contractors in the discussion emphasized long‑term operating costs and constructability tradeoffs, urging attention to systems such as HVAC and options for resilience (for example, generator capacity and sheltering ability). Contractor Bob Warren, introduced as a contractor representative, said CMAR is a strong compromise for this complex building because it reduces change‑order risk and brings construction experience into the design phase.
Staff said they had obtained a verbal commitment from the TDA (Tourism Development Authority) to split phase‑3 costs as they had with earlier phases, and that staff will return with a formal contract and a budget amendment for council action. The council signaled consensus to pursue CMAR guidance rather than requiring an immediate formal vote.
