HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin-33-96REPORT' 02
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: COUNCIL MEETING File # Poq_c) _
Date: NOVEMBER 25, 1996 Res. #
By -Law #
Report #: A n 4TN J3,%Ie #:
Subject: OLDER ADULTS CENTRE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following:
1. THAT Report ADMIN -33-96 be received;
2. THAT the Municipality terminate all further negotiations with Vanstone Mills Inc. for the
construction of an Older Adults Centre;
3. THAT Council reaffirm its commitment to use $1.3M obtained from Martin Road Holdings
Limited and West Bowmanville Developments. Ltd. for the purposes of an Older Adults
Centre in the Bowmanville area; and
4. THAT Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer and appropriate staff to investigate
alternative sites for an Older Adults Centre and report back to Council.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
1.1 The Municipality of Clarington invited proposals for the construction of an Older Adult
Centre in the Bowmanville area last Fall. Staff presented Report ADMIN -34-95,
(Attachment #1) on December 4, 1995, which recommended negotiations with Vanstone
Mills Inc. and to report back to Council.
PAPER RECYCLED
1.2 Staff met with representatives from Vanstone Mills Inc. and the Older Adults Committee
to finalize floor details which was accomplished in early the spring of 1996 and reported to
Council under Report ADMIN. 23-96 dated July 8 1996 (Attachment #2).
1.3 The conceptual site plan was then circulated to respective Departments and Agencies for
their review and comments. These concerns were forwarded to Vanstone Mills Inc. in
August. Some of those concerns have been addressed while others remain outstanding.
1.4 Two major issues outstanding at this time is the design of the internal roadway from Scugog
Street as well as a main drop-off zone in front of the building on Scugog Street at the
intersection of Church Street. We have attached a sketch of the proposed driveway and
drop-off zone prepared by the Clarington Public Works Department. (Attachment #3).
1.5 The design of the interior roadway from Scugog Street to the Seniors building parking area,
which is below the grade of Scugog Street, has been a major problem, given the steepness
of the grade and the fact that the entrance will be shared with commercial development to
the south of the Seniors' building.
1.6 After numerous meetings with our Public Works Department, Vanstone Mills Inc. has not
satisfied the Municipality that the severe grade of the entrance will not be a safety problem
for the Seniors. Given the limited size of the site this problem seems to be insurmountable.
1.7 The drop-off area for the Seniors' building is designed to be on the west side of Scugog
Street directly opposite the Church Street/Scugog Street intersection.
Considering the existing traffic volumes at this intersection, combined with the additional
traffic movement to be associated -with both the proposed drop-off area and entrance to the
development, staff is of the opinion that this would create an unsafe situation for the seniors
using the facility.
1.8 Upon completion of the entire site, development there will be limited access from King
Street, leaving Scugog Street driveway as the primary entrance to the site.
1.9 This issue was not clearly understood by the representatives of the Older Adult Committee
at the time of their selection process.
r
4 With the information on hand, representatives of the Older Adult Centre are in full
agreement with staff that the traffic flow problems represent an unsafe condition for the
seniors using the facility.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 As the issue of design and access of the interior roadway leading south from Scugog Street
cannot be addressed in a safe manner, and as the construction of a drop-off bay on the front
of the building at Scugog Street will be less than adequate, it is recommended that the
Municipality terminate all further negotiations with Vanstone Mill Inc. for the construction
of an Older Adult Centre on their site located at King Street and Scugog Street in
Bowmanville.
This recommendation has been discussed with the representatives from the Older Adult
Committee who agree with same.
2.2 It is further recommended that Council should reaffirm its commitment to use the $1.3M
obtained from Martin Road Holdings Limited and West Bowmanville Developments Ltd. for
the purpose of a Older Adult Centre in the Bowmanville area, and staff should be directed
to investigate alternative sites and report back to Council.
Respectfully submitted,
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
att.
ATTACHMENT #1 TO
REPORT ADMIN. 33-96
DN: ADULT.REP THE.CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #
Date: Monday, December 4, 1995 Res. #
Report #: AnMIN q4-QF;FiIe #: By-law #
Subject:
PROPOSAL CALL FOR OLDER ADULT CENTRE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended' that. the' General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the. following:
1. THAT Report ADMIN 34-95 be received;
2. THAT the selection committee * b°e authorized to negotiate an agreement with
Vanstone Mill Inc. and to report back to Council.
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 Council has earlier authorized the Chief Administrative Officer to -proceed -to
discuss with various property Owners as to their interests in building an Older
Adult Centre for the Municipality. As a result, discussions were held with
representatives of Vanstone Mills Inc., Windleigh Development- Inc. ano Jourdan
(1100719 Ontario Limited) . - All three co m p.an i es expressed an interest and all
requested the opportunity to bid on the project.
1.2 As a result, a proposal call document was drawn up by staff and all threeP arties
were invited to bid on the proposed Older Adult Centre.
I I n 4
REPORT NO.: ADMIN 34-95 PAGE 2
1.3 The proposal call document is drawn up based on a "turn -key" project, ie. cash
for key and describes the objectives and requirements of the Municipality for the
Older Adult Centre. It provides the terms of reference under which the parties
were to prepare their submissions.
2. THE SUBMISSIONS:
2.1 All three parties submitted proposals. Copies of the proposal call document and
the three (3) submissions will be distributed to Members of Council under
separate cover.
3. THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE:
3.1 The Chief Administrative Officer has struck an adhoc Committee to evaluate the
proposals. Members of the committee are: Chief Administrative Officer, Director
of Planning and Development, Director of Community Services, and Facility
Manager. Representing the Older Adult Committee are Don Welsh and Annabel
Sissons.
4. THE EVALUATION:
4.1 The Evaluation Committee first met to determine the evaluation criteria and to
agree on a process that follows.
4.2 Eight criteria were considered pertinent and were ranked in the following order of
importance: cost, location, access, expansion potential, parking, building design,
site aesthetics and ownership. Numerical weighting factors were then assigned
to each criteria.
4.3 Next, each committee member was asked to assess the three proposals based
on the agreed to criteria and weights. The scores from each member were then
added to determine the total scores for each of the three proposals presented as
follows:
...3
REPORT NO.: ADMIN 34-95
OLDER ADULT CENTRE
PROPOSAL EVALUATION
COMPOSITE SCORES
PAGE 3
CRITERIA I JOURDAN I VANSTONE I WINDLEIGH
COST
176
200
56
LOCATION
168
119
133
PARKING
75
90
70
ACCESS
115
50
105
EXPANSION
75
115
85
BUILDING DESIGN
60
57
36
SITE AESTHETICS
14
46
30
LAND OWNERSHIP
8
24
22
II TOTAL I 691 I 701 I 537 II
4.4 As part of the evaluation process, each party was given the opportunity to present
their proposals to the Committee as well as to answer questions.
5. STAFF C O M M E NTS :
5.1 Unlike atendering process where bidders were asked to bid on aspecific project
or product, and where the lowest bid price usually represents the most important
and often the only criterion for selection, evaluation of submissions to the
t,
proposal call is somewhat different as other criteria are just as important as cost.
This therefore necessitated the ranking and weighting of various criteria as
described in Section 4.
5.2 In any event, the bid price (exclusive of G.S.T.) from the three (3) parties are as
follows: Jourdan $173001000.
Vanston a Mill $112951328.
Windleigh Developments $1,729,080.
,,A
iinI-
REPORT NO.: ADMIN 34-95 PAGE 4
5.3 As a result of the evaluation and the resultant point scores, the Committee
unanimously recommend the Vanstone Mill proposal be given favourable
consideration.
5.4 Prior to committing to the Vanstone Mill proposal, it is imperative that the
Municipality can successfully negotiate an agreement with Vanstone Mill Inc..
Said agreement is necessary to address all details pertaining to the delivery of the
project.
5.5 Upon reaching an agreement, staff will bring forth a report for Council's
consideration and approval.
5.6 The Evaluation Committee is aware that Council has tabled Report CS -31-95
which deals with the renovation of the old Firehall/Court House building. We
suggest that this report should remain tabled until such time an agreement is
reached with Vanstone Mill Inc. and duly approved by Council.
Respectfully submitted,
,,...r
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative Officer
WHS*FW*jip
November. 29, 1995
1
0
f
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
X
REPORT
Meeting: COUNCIL
g File #
Date: SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Res. #
Report #: CS-31-95 File #: By-Law #
Subject: OLDER ADULT CENTREIFORMER FIRE HALL R.ENO`4'ATIONS
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following.
1. THAT Report No. CS -31-95 be received;
2. THAT the revised project budget be established at $757,955.00;
3. THAT staff report back identifying a specific source for funding at such time when project
tenders have been received; and
4. ` THAT the Clarington Older Adult Association be advised of Council's decision.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
1.1 On July 10, 1995 staff was informed by the project architect that the new elevator shaft could
not be accommodated within the existing structure. The explanation given was the existing
plumbing system and heating, ventilation and air conditioning duct work system for the
second floor passes through the proposed elevator shaft.
1.2- The cost of modif ring the existing duct work would exceed the cost allowed for this portion
of the project therefore, the Architect recommended relocating the elevator shaft to the
exterior of the building.
1.3 Staff was further advised that the increased cost of an exterior elevator shaft would be offset
by the following:
o Plumbing and mechanical savings;
O Renovations to the second floor would be less extensive;
o Modifications to the roof structure to provide elevators headroom clearance would
be eliminated; and
o Excavation cost would be reduced for an exterior shaft and pit.
• •/2
REPORT CS -31-95 - 2 - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
1.4 On August 3, 1995 staff was again contacted by the project architect and informed that an
increase to the budget is required due to the following.-
Need
ollowing:Need to move elevator shaft to the exterior;
O Increases in the construction industry; and
o Additional savings in the design could not be found.
2.0 COST ANALYSIS:
2.1 Since that time staff referred the project to an independent cost consultant to verify the
estimated project costs and confirm the amount of additional funds required to complete the
project.
2.2 Results of that undertaking have confirmed that the project will require a construction
budget of $688,400.00 (estimated).
3.0 PROJECT BUDGET;
3.1 The original budget for this project was estimated at $350,000.00 which was the amount
submitted when the Municipality made application for the Canada/Ontario Infrastructure
program.
3.2 On April 3, 1995 Council approved an increase of $239,995.00 to establish the project budget
at $589,995.00 as recommended by the project architect.
3.3 As a result, the current revised estimate for the project is as follows:
Construction Costs (Including Contingency)
$688,000.00
Preliminary Studies - Soils Investigation
$ 15500.00
- Legal Survey
$ 11225.00
- Hazardous Substance
$ 1,330.00
Hydro
$ 91350.00
Architect/Engineering Fees
$51,800.00
TOTAL
753,205.00
G.S.T.
$ 4,564.00
GRAND TOTAL
$757,769.00
CURRENT BUDGET
$589,955.00
ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIRED
$1675814.00
3.4 Through discussions with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Treasurer, alternative
sources of funding could be accessed for the additional funds to supplement this project.
3.5 Should Council approve the revised budget, staff will report back identifying a recommended
source of financing at such time that a recommendation to award the tender is
made.
../3
1 i n Q
f
` REPORT CS -31-95
.Respectfully submitted,
Josth P. Caruana, Director
Co munity Services Department
JPC:sa
- 3 - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
Reviewed by,
W. H. tockwell, f
Chief Administrative Officer
j
ATTACHMENT #2 TO
REPORT ADMIN. 33-96
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN
REPORT
Moeting: COUNCIL
Date: JMY 8 1996
Report #: ADMIN .23 - 90ile #:
File #
Res. #
By -Law #
Subject:
OLDER ADULTS CENTRE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following:
1. THAT Report ADMIN. 23 - 96 be received for information.
10
BACKGROUND:
At the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting held on June 17th
1996, Report ADMIN. 15 - 96 was received for information. At that time, staff
reported that the Older Adults Centre Committee have approved in principle the
floor plan layout as presented by Vanstone Mills Inc.
The next step was to prepare an Agreement to incorporate the turnkey project
between the Municipality and the Developer. The Municipality's solicitor is in
the -process of drafting an Agreement which, unfortunately, will not be- available
for acceptance at the Council meeting of July 8th 1996.
The Municipality is still waiting for drainage and grading plans from Vanstone
Mills Inc., in order that the Public Works Department can review and make
appropriate comments. It is the understanding of staff that this is forthcoming -
and which incorporates conditions by the Ministry of Natural Resources and CLOCA.
Since timing is crucial to the commencement of the project and to avoid winter
construction costs, it is important to deal with the Agreement once the Solicitor
has it prepared.
Staff is expecting the Agreement shortly and will inform the Clerk when itis
available, in the event that Council may be called for any reason during the
summer recess.
Respectf ly submitted, Reviewed by,
AV I
F is va tockwell,
Property Manager of Administrative Officer
FH:nof
TRECYCLED PAPIER
PAPER
JI�V RECYCLE
THIS LSP111NILf) ON flfCYCLEDPAPEA
ATTACHMENT -#3 TO
REPORT ADMIN. 33-96
u L�o
ROAD c..Dt'bV5iv l It -4 6L -
bTLca P-0
�Pobe�
co nnMv N rrY
Cta: ivTR�
b4
I �gv�L.t�ltittj
L- G
QR'YLICINL�
1 _J
—
� Cxt�-r1NL�. I
TOI FfLDM.�
I.VNC..,f-S�: �
\ A TTAn I Ir-\ I I A A IM\ %/A A Ir,-rPlA I mi Ain