Agenda - 12-13-1999 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 • A specific energy efficiency level (Btu consumption persquare foot) must be achieved by the HVAC system proposed; or • To avoid future maintenance complications, systems, such as water%gas service or wiring raceways, shall not be embedded in the concrete floor slab unless code restrictions prohibit overhead installations. • Upon completion, the resulting standards would be taken by the committee members to their. respective governing boards for comment. • Ultimately, the Board of Commissioners would adopt the standard by which they would fund capital projects. • Standards would be provided to any firm retained by the County or the Schools to design a facility. The firm would be expected to design in compliance with the design guidelines.. . • -Upon completion of a facility design, the designer would provide certiflcation to the School and . the County that the design guidelines had been met or cite areas where deviations were mandated by a regulatory .body. The County Engineering staff would .review the bid/construction documents and the certifications and render an opinion on the sufficiency of compliance documentation. • In regard to school projects, if a School Board determines that exceeding a standard is critical to the viability of a given program, then the School Board may submit a proposal to pay for additional costs from other pay-as-you-go funds available to the School, e.g. recurring capital. Funding: Recommendations for funding of capital projects remain as endorsed. by the Board in June 1999. The concept is as follows: • While the Board will continue to approve the projects in the County's ten-year CIP, approval of specific project components will occur after costs have been firmly established by bid, a contract, or other highly reliable cost determining .means for each component of project development. Essentially, the appropriation. would be equivalent to the amount of money ready to be spent for a particular project component function (planning, site development, construction, etc.) • Capital Policy revisions to reflect this are imminent. As noted in the June action, this process will involve additional steps as the Board is called upon to take action at various milestones in the project, rather than allocating a lump sum for each project when the CIP is approved. However, this means of,appropriating for capital projects appears to provide the County considerably more flexibility in resource management. Since appropriations would be made by project component and would be based on more accurate cost data, any surplus from the total project would remain available for appropriation to future CIP projects. Benefrts: • We believe this approach promotes greater consistency in systems and does a better job of analyzing systems before they are specified for use in a building. Major time and cost commitments occur one time. As future refinements of the standards become necessary, they should be manageable and could possibly be accomplished through collaboration of School and County staff. • This approach provides consistent guidelines for designers retained by the County and Schools for facility design. Clearly articulated expectations on the front end of a project are likely to yield a more acceptable result. Possibly the greatest benefit to implementing. cost efficient facilities initiatives is our enhanced ability to project accurate construction costs. As previously indicated, our accurate projection of costs for the CIP will become essential with the adoption of SAPFO. This becomes apparent when one understands that SAPFO is driven by a complex inter-relationship involving growth-generated demand forschool capacity, capacity of existing school facilities, projected school constructioNcapacity, construction