Agenda - 11-11-2002-5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

al Further tliscussion has prompted us to suggest an alternative approach that functions as a stantl-alone process for County projects but creates a design standard overlay to the existing school consumpion stantlartls. The process is outlined es follows: Agmup similar to[he school construction stendaNS Committee woultl be onvenetl to review infrastmcture items common to all buidings (HVAC, plumbing, finishes, wintlow glass, etc). This group woultl also inGUtle a thiM party consultant to atltl a valueengineedng component tc the tlevelopment of the standartls (accure[e cost projections, life cycle wsf analysis, etc.) Functional stantlaNS would be tleveloped {or each of these components. Examples of the functional standaNs migh(be: The rooting standaN for buildings will be metal (unless prohibitetl as may be the case in historic tlisbcts); or A specific energy efficiency level (Btu consumption per square foot) moat be achievetl by the HVAC system proposeQ or To avoitl future maintenance complications, systems, such as waterlgas service or wiring raceways, shall not be embeddetl in the concrete floor slab unless code restrictions prohibR overheatl installations. • Upon completion, the resulting standaMS woultl be taken by the committee members to their respective governing boaNS for comment. • Ultimately,(he eoartl of Commissioners woultl atlopl the standard by whichthey would funtl capital projects. • Stantlartls woultl be provitletl to any firm retained by the County or iha Schools to tlesign a facility. The firm would be expectetl to design in compliance with the tlesign guidelines. Upon mmpletton ota facility tlesign, the tlesigner woultl provitle certifica[ionb the School antl the County [hat the tlesign guidelines hatl been met or cite areas where deviations were mantlatetl bye regulatory body. The County Engineering staff would review the bitl/constmpion tlocuments antl the certifications end rentler en opinion on the sufficiency of compliance documentation. In regaN to school pmleQS, H a School Board determines [ha[ exceetling a stantlaN is critical to the viability of a given progrem, then the School Boats may submit a proposal [o pay for atltlitional costa from other pay-as-you-go funds available to the School, e.g. recurring capital. Funtling: Recommantlations for footling of capital pmjects remain as entloreetl by the Board in June 1999. The concept is as follows: • Whilethe eoaN will continuebapprove the projects in the County's ten-year CIP, approval of specific project components will occur after costs have been flnnly es[eblishetl by biQ a wn[racq or other highly reliable cos[ tletermining means for each wmponen[of projec[develppment. Essentially, the appropriation would be equivalent tc the amount of money reatly to be spent br a particular project component function (planning, efts tlevelopment, conatmclian, etc.) Capital Policy revisions to reflect iMS are imminent.