Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears $4.4M in early savings, narrows value‑engineering options
Summary
Construction manager reported the project is tracking about $4.4 million under the September hard‑cost estimate; the committee directed staff to investigate specific value‑engineering items (sidewalk materials, hydroseed, bleachers, canopy alternatives) and asked for more cost and safety detail before final decisions.
After traffic, Keith Kelly of Harvey Construction presented a value‑engineering update and early bid results. He said targeted early bid packages (site work, geothermal, steel, concrete) produced roughly $2.5 million in savings so far and that the project currently tracks about $4,400,000 under the earlier hard construction estimate of $141,301,003.60, placing the current hard‑cost estimate near $136,867,231.
Kelly asked the committee to indicate which preliminary value‑engineering options should be investigated further. The group treated most items as "investigate" (yes), rejected one major alternate and held others pending numbers and stakeholder input. Key outcomes and discussion points included:
- Roof and solar: The committee decided to retain a standing‑seam metal roof (better for solar array attachment and longer lifespan) despite prior discussion of an asphalt alternative.
- Geothermal and slab pours: Designers and the contractor debated whether to place a separate topping slab to isolate geothermal costs for credits. Contractors warned separate pours complicate construction and might reduce tax credits; the committee asked for cost estimates and performance data before changing the approach.
- Sidewalks and radiant snow‑melt: Committee members supported concrete sidewalks with embedded radiant snow‑melt in key locations (front entry and service areas) to reduce winter maintenance, salt usage and slip‑and‑fall risk. The committee asked facilities and maintenance staff for life‑cycle and maintenance comparisons between asphalt and concrete.
- Hydroseed vs. sod for athletic fields: The committee agreed to investigate hydroseed (lower upfront cost) but flagged potential impacts to athletic seasons and maintenance (fertilizer/pesticide use and time to establish). Staff will consult athletic directors and the landscape architect on expected usable dates.
- Bleachers and interior alternates: The committee discussed removing optional retractable bleachers (a $44,000 deduct) but decided to retain infrastructure and consider deferring purchase or seeking donations rather than eliminating the seating option.
- Canopy and vegetated roofs: Deleting the large entrance canopy could save roughly a quarter‑million dollars, but members asked for alternatives such as small bus shelters and confirmation from the project’s solar consultant that canopy deletion would not block PV opportunities.
Kelly closed by summarizing the tentative savings shown on the board (about $4.36 million with additional pending items) and the design team agreed to return with specific cost figures and any irreversible decisions flagged before the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) phase.
Next steps: HMFH and the construction manager will provide specific cost impacts, confirm which changes would be irreversible, and bring refined options back to the committee prior to GMP and final construction decisions.
