The Common Council met 05/18/2022. Nearly an hour of the meeting was taken up by a presentation on the library project which Mayor Woodford wanted to do to bring the new council members up to speed on the project and make sure that all the alderpersons had a sense of where things were with the project and what was going to be happening over the next few months as they moved into the next phases of the project.
[The thing that stood out the most to me was that staying within budget was a problem and they already had to cut one noticeable design feature in an effort to stay within budget. I did not come away from this presentation feeling in any way confident that the city was going to stay firm in its commitment to not increase the amount taxpayers have to fork out for this project.]
Library Director Colleen Rortvedt started out by reviewing the roles and responsibilities of the Library Board and the Friends of the Appleton Public Library.
The Library Board of Trustees is a statutorily appointed role, and Library Board members are approved by the Common Council. They’re the governing body of the library and are appointed to oversee the day-to-day policy setting of the library and establish the library’s vision and mission. Within the context of the library project, their role is to help plan the program and activities within the library and make sure that the building was going to meet the library’s needs. They were not, however, in charge of approving building contract bids, which was, instead, the job of the Common Council.
The Friends of Appleton Public Library is an independent 501c3 organization that was the result of the merger of an organization that was originally formed in the 1970s with a foundation that was created in the 1990s. Their role was to support the library such as providing grants. They are not the Board of Trustees, however, which Director Rortvedt wanted to make clear. She said the Friends were excited about the prospect of a capital campaign and had been hard at work on that.
She went on to review a timeline of the library project from 2008 to the present.
- 2008: Library Building and Services Study – That was the first study that did, and it prompted them to reject building library branches because most people were willing to travel about 15 minutes to get to their library and because building branches would create operational redundancies. The study also included a recommendation to expand public meeting spaces as well as provide after-hours access.
- 2009: Library Program Design Study – Moving forward from their 2008 study, they created a conceptual design for a new facility and a design for an expansion of the current facility. That study recommended building a new facility and a generic concept for a new facility was put out.
- 2011: City Facilities Master Plan – Unconnected to the library project, the city worked on creating a facilities master plan. This was the first attempt by the city to have a comprehensive facilities master plan.
- 2012-2013 Community-based planning defining mission, mission and strategic plan – The library received a lot of community feedback questioning what the purpose of a library was and what it’s mission and vision were. Some people wondered if libraries were even necessary given the proliferation of digital resources. As a result, the library did some long-term planning.
- 2013: Washington Square Master Planning Study – Separate from what the library was doing, the Washington Square area of the city [that’s the section just north of College Avenue near the library and transit center] also conducted a master planning study.
- 2014-2015: Library Needs Assessment, Site Selection and Prefunding Schematic Design – After they completed an update to the library’s strategic plan, a library project was put back on the Capital Improvement Projects plan at which point they did a library needs assessment, a site selection, and a pre-funding schematic design. This involved what was referred to as the “bluff site”, but ultimately the Common Council voted to not purchase that site or move forward with a project there.
- 2015: Downtown Parking Study – This study was not specifically related to the library, but it was still very relevant to the library.
- 2016: Update to City’s Comprehensive Plan – This also was not specific to the library, but the library is a prominent part of the city’s comprehensive plan.
- 2016: Downtown Mobility Study – This, again, was not specific to the library, but traffic flow downtown has been a challenge.
- 2018: Request For Proposal Process for Mixed-Use Library – This plan also was unsuccessful and did not move forward.
- 2020: Library Project Planning Resumes On Current Site – Mayor Woodford was elected and asked the library to focus developing on the current site. He did not dictate that the project would be a renovation, but he did ask that they be good stewards of their current assets.
- 2021: Hired SOM for Architectural Design and Engineering – They found an architectural firm that is focused on re-use as a priority. They looked at the building in a way that no one else had ever looked at it. They saw its strengths and its assets and through they could design a building that could meet the library’s needs by using the current structure.
She handed things off to Director of Parks Recreation, and Facilities Dean Gazza who went over the finances of the project, their approach to estimating, and cashflow.
The city appropriated $26.4 million for the project. They knew that other funding would be necessary, so the appropriated an additional $2 million of ARPA funds. Additionally, the Friends of the Library is working to raise an additional $12 million through private donations. All of that created a total budget of $40,4 million.
He also showed how the projected the funds would be allocated, noting that those estimates could change because they still have to get bids on things.
- PROFESSIONAL FEES ($3,817,289) – Those fees were for the project’s architect and engineers which was SOM and the consultants SOM was subcontracting with
- CLIENT APPOINTED CONSULTANTS ($406,665) – The city had a number of things they needed consultants to do including a geotechnical study, various surveys, new material testing, environmental testing, and they will eventually have to pay for the commissioning of the building once it is constructed.
- TEMPORARY LIBRARY COSTS ($552,000) – These were costs incurred getting the temporary library location suitable for housing a library.
- UTILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ($367,500) – This included WE Energies hook-ups and similar utility related things.
- FURNITURE, FIXTURES, AND EQUIPMENT ($2,500,000) – He didn’t go into detail on this other than to note the allocation amount.
- CONSTRUCTION COSTS ($32,756,546) – Again, there wasn’t really any detail to give for the hard construction costs other than the amount.
Having given the budget he said, “As I get into the presentation, I’ll demonstrate some of the challenges that we’re facing with that budget.”
He threw up a slide showing some of the expenditures to date.
- SOM would be with the city through the end of the project which would actually go beyond the point when the new library was opened because they would still have a punch list to go through and make sure that warranties were followed up on.
- Boldt is the project’s construction management company. They also will be with the city until the end.
- Westwood is the company handling geo-technical, surveys, and environmental issues.
- Advanced Asbestos was the company that took care of asbestos remediation so the site was ready for construction.
- Regarding the Electrical Switchgear item listed on the slide, Director Gazza said that there were certain components that had long lead times. For this item, the lead time was 60 weeks which was over a year. In order to have that component available in time for the project they needed to get it order, and the ordering of that item was something the Council was going to vote on later that evening.
- The temporary library lease was something that the city would pay monthly until they were moved back into their renovated space. Mayor Woodford pointed out that the temporary library lease costs were covered by the library’s operational budget so those costs were not being credited or deducted from the project’s total budget.
- The library moving services were only half paid at this point and the second half would be paid once it was time to move back into the newly updated library.
Director Gazza told the Council that they were starting to get some cost estimates back. They were fighting inflation and also dealing with other factors in the world that affect the project. Back in 2009 the project had been estimated to cost $32,129,774. Using the CPI inflation calculator from the US Bureau of Statistics, Director Gazza estimated that inflation went up 36% since that point which resulted in a total overall price adjusted for inflation of $43,696,492.
However, when he dived deeper into the construction cost index and at how much just construction costs had increased, they had gone up by 18.3% nationally just in the last 12 months. He went on to say, “The one thing I would like to stress at this point is, as we know, inflation in costs never go down. They generally will plateau—if anything we’re lucky if they do—or they will go up.”
They were hearing about price increases. For example, the switch gear the Council would be voting on that evening, was going to go up in price by 10-15% on June 1, which was why they were pushing forward with it that evening.
When they checked with local construction companies to find out what others were doing, they were told everyone was pushing forward with their projects because they knew the costs were only going to continue going up. So, they were continuing to move forward with the library project and try to manage that inflation. He felt they were doing a good job of that.
Because prices of things don’t rise equally, he showed the rise in costs for various specific construction materials. Lumber had risen by 140%, and even things like reinforcing materials was at 20-30%.
There were a number of things they were doing to try to make sure they had a successful project without jeopardizing quality.
- The Architect and Construction Manager are contracted to both provide estimates after each phase of design to give the best opportunity to obtain bids within budget. SOM, the architect, is responsible for maintaining a budget and designing a project within a budget. The city then would send things out for bidding and have one general contractor bid on the project. But instead of having SOM manage cost estimates all alone, the city hired Boldt as the construction manager. The benefit of having a construction manager is that they will act as the general contract during construction but they’re brought on prior to construction so they can be part of the team and intricately involved in constructability reviews. Additionally, they know the vendors and a lot of the suppliers so they’re able to report back to SOM about what is happening, especially in regards to increases.
SOM was asked to do a budget and then Boldt was also asked to do a budget, then they come together and reconcile those two budgets and figure out numbers that they are both comfortable with before they move forward. - Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineers hired to review drawings and to provide estimates including recommendations to improve design and reduce cost. They hired some local engineers to do some constructability reviews and some estimates.
- Value engineering exercises to identify opportunities for saving without jeopardizing function or quality. Inflation requires difficult decisions to reach goals.
Value engineering didn’t mean lowering the quality or lessening the scope of the project. For example, they had to decide whether to use aluminum of copper feeder wires. After looking at it, they determined they could use aluminum which saved $25-35,000. There were many other similar choices such as choosing between cast iron or PVC for the underground plumbing, determining lighting fixture styles, floor types, level of finishes, etc.
He went over the difference in the bid process with a General Contractor as compared to a Construction Manager like Appleton had for this project.
With a general contractor they would get one all encompassing bid. With a construction manager they create a bid for every single discipline with the project, and that allows them to be more competitive. They might end up with a total of 40 bids for various aspects of the project. Hopefully, for each area, three to four contractors would provide bids and then the city could go with the lowest responsible bidder. Director Gazza noted that they did this with the Exhibition Center also.
It creates more competitiveness and if the overall project comes in overbudget it gives them the opportunity to try to figure out where it went overbudget and they can possibly reassess that area and send it out for a rebid to get a better number.
Director Gazza then passed things off to a representative of SOM who provided a high-level overview of their design for the library.
I’m not going to recap this because there was a lot of overlap between this and the presentation that was given in March. But I have included screenshots of the slides he presented.
Essentially, the current building was only 40 years old and was structurally sound so they wanted to keep it but add a lot more daylight and access to nature. He talked about the amount of work SOM has done and the number of feedback sessions they have held both internally with city staff and also with the Appleton community at large. They wanted to create a building that would serve the community for generations to come.
He also talked about the possibility of using a geothermal system instead of a traditional temperature control system. Geothermal cost more than a traditional system, however, so it was something they had to balance against the budget.
He handed things back to Director Gazza who reviewed the timeline for the project. A lot of steps had already been taken. They expected construction bidding to take place in June and that they would bring those to the common Council for approval on July 20th. Construction would start in August and they anticipated project completion near the end of 2023. They were working hard to keep the end date to mid-to-late fall, but with the 60-week lead time on the switchgear, they might end up going past that.
Director Gazza said he had gotten some questions about planning and permitting, so he gave an overview of that. The project is subject to a lot of review, mostly state and local, but there are even some national codes that they have to meet. The project already had a site plan review and erosion control review. A stormwater review will go through the Department of Public Works. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources will do the soil management plan and was, in fact, reviewing a plan for the site right now. The City Plan Commission will receive an update on the project. All the drawings will go to the state for a plan review where they will check for code compliance, ADA compliance, etc. Then the contractor will come to Appleton and get a building permit and they can start construction. Along with the construction permit they will get a plumbing permit.
Thus ended the presentation. Director Gazza opened things up for questions.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) said that at one time he had seen a picture of a terrace or garden on the second floor of the building, but that seemed to be missing from this presentation. Was that terrace no longer part of the plan?
Director Gazza said that, much as they would have loved to keep it, the terrace had been removed due to budget issues.
Alderperson Siebers asked if that could be installed down the road at some point.
It sounded like Director Gazza said that it could be. He said one of the factors in deciding what to cut was whether by cutting something that thing could never be put back in.
Alderperson Siebers asked if the $40.4 million currently budgeted was going to cover everything or if there was a good change costs would go higher.
Director Gazza responded, “Right now I can tell you that, just based on the current estimates coming back, we’re trending higher, and so that’s where we’re going through these exercises right now to continue looking at value engineering, talk to all the vendor/suppliers, talk to the contractors, and look for opportunities. But we do anticipate there will be some decisions that’ll still have to be made to get it within budget.”
Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) asked if there was a way, when they were putting out bids for landscaping, if they could specify that the landscaping needed to utilize native flora. He also wanted to know what the carbon footprint of the project was. He said he was very supportive of the inclusion of geothermal.
The SOM representative said that the landscape contractor did not determine what plants to use. SOM worked with a landscape designer which would have the plant selection before construction started. They did intend to use local plants which would require less watering and less energy to keep looking healthy.
Regarding the carbon footprint, he said it was very complicated to calculate an exact number. They did have sustainable engineers evaluating every aspect of the building and they had a LEED scorecard if they wanted to pursue LEED certification. It cost money to become officially LEED certified. The project was trending on a very high end LEED target, so it would be a sustainable building even without the actual certification. [Yes, please. Unless the city gets tangible money that outweighs the cost of the certification, lets just skip the useless vanity certification and rest comfortable knowing that our building is sustainable even if the LEED people didn’t get paid to pat us on the back.]
The SOM representative also said that because they were using an existing building, it was already the most sustainable building they could build. From a carbon footprint standpoint, it was going to be much lower than any other project besides another renovation project.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) appreciated all of the steps they were taking to keep costs down. She thought they were taking care of taxpayers by making sure they had the best tools to keep project costs down.
Alderperson Del Toro asked if there were any plans for solar.
Director Gazza answered that that WE Energies had a program that they had recently brought through the Common Council that would place a full solar array on the top of the library. [This was approved back in March, so Alderperson Del Toro was not yet on the Council.]
Mayor Woodford added that it was the Solar Now program with WE Energies. The great aspect about it was that the installation of the solar array wouldn’t come out of the budget for the library project. Instead, WE Energies through Solar Now would carry the capital cost and the maintenance cost of the solar array.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) asked out of curiosity what was going to happen to the large number of non-native plants that were currently in the library’s atrium.
Director Rortvedt answered that the atrium had originally be designed and intended for non-native species. Over the years people donated plants and the atrium became filled with a real hodgepodge of species. It became an impossible environment to allow all of the different plants to be healthy. Many people in the community had expressed interest in having a cutting or transplanting them or finding a new home for them, so the library got them assessed by local master gardeners and the city’s employee who specializes in plants. They found infestations of mites and scales so the assessors recommended that the library not move forward with rehoming the plants.
None of the Council members had any further comments or questions. Mayor Woodford finished up the presentation by praising the incredible team of people who have been working on the project.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=937641&GUID=CA7260FB-60F6-4BC6-ADFA-D4D98C93E204
Be the first to reply