Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Makerspace topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to seek termination option after maker‑space design fails to meet assembly code
Summary
City staff told the council that the contractor for a planned 10,000–11,000 sq ft MakerSpace did not price or account for required assembly‑space code upgrades, producing an estimated $500,000 change‑order; several council members directed staff to prepare a termination and return with costs and next steps at the next council meeting.
City staff told the Johns Creek City Council at its retreat that the design‑build contractor for the planned MakerSpace in 2026 did not understand or include the building code requirements tied to ‘assembly’ occupancy, and that adding the items now flagged by community development would cost roughly $500,000.
Chris (staff) said the RFP, Q&A and contract all used the word “assembly” and that the project team had highlighted that requirement multiple times. He said the contractor has done geotechnical and preliminary layouts but “they haven't priced all the changes, but the round number we have at this time is $500,000.” The staff presentation made two options explicit: issue a change order to the current contractor to add the required code scope, or terminate the contract and complete design with an on‑call architecture firm and then re‑bid construction.
Several council members questioned how the contractor could miss an explicit contractual requirement and argued that the city should not reward poor vendor performance. One council member said: “I don't want to pay him for not doing his homework and understanding the contract properly,” and another argued that rebidding under a design‑bid‑build approach would give clearer cost certainty. After discussion, staff said they heard strong direction to bring a termination item to the next regular council meeting and to return with options to either rebid under design‑bid‑build using on‑call architects or to proceed with a clarified change order and associated cost estimate.
Staff said work completed so far—geotechnical, surveys and early layouts—are reusable by a new design team, and that termination would require council action at a public meeting. Staff also noted potential legal remedies and termination clauses in the existing contract but recommended discussing litigation or contract details in executive session. The council did not vote to terminate in the retreat; the recorded direction was to prepare the termination amendment and follow‑up materials for the next meeting so council can decide formally.
The next steps staff committed to are: return to the council with an item that either (a) seeks authority to terminate the design‑build contract and engage an on‑call architect to complete bid‑ready documents, or (b) requests a change order and an updated construction cost estimate from the current contractor. Staff will also provide an estimated total cost to complete the project under each path and an assessment of reuse of the work already completed.
If council proceeds with termination, staff said they will determine the amount owed to the contractor for work completed to date and then solicit competing quotes for completion of design documents before deciding whether to put the project back out to bid.
