OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Miramar City Commission Special Meeting on H.D. Perry Park Improvements – September 14, 2022

City CommissionWednesday, September 14, 2022
BodyMiramar, Florida
SessionCity Commission
DateWednesday, September 14, 2022
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:54

Good afternoon.

0:56

Calling the Miramar City Commission workshop to order.

1:00

This meeting is being streamed live at Miramar FL.gov slash commission meeting and televised on Comcast Channel 78 and ATU verse channel ninety-nine for City of Miramar subscribers.

1:14

The meeting of the Miramar City Commission workshop is now called to order.

1:19

The purpose of this meeting is this to discuss the following.

1:38

Commissioner Barnes.

1:39

Commissioner Chambers.

1:52

One housekeeping item for the commission on your laptops on the dais.

2:08

So that feature is functioning, so um let's use those so I can keep order of um for those members who may want to speak or have a question during the dialogue.

2:19

At this time, I'll turn it over to City Manager Dr.

2:21

Virgin.

2:22

Thank you, Mr.

2:23

Mayor, Vice Mayor Commissioners.

2:25

Um this item was brought to the commission a few um meetings ago, and um the commissioner requested a workshop to further um flesh out some details.

2:36

Um we the staff has um prepared a presentation and um we'll deliver such presentation and during or after the presentation I'm sure we'll be able to have a discussion around um this item.

2:50

So without much further ado, I would request that staff proceed Ms.

2:55

Liz and Mr.

2:57

Dara Johnson are the presentatives of this item.

3:00

Thank you.

3:04

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioner, City Manager, City Attorney, Liz Valera, Chief CIP officer.

3:12

New title.

3:14

Um, thank you for having us here today.

3:16

As a manager said, we were asked to host uh a workshop on the HD Perry Middle School project.

3:24

And when this item was last brought before you there were some questions and there was some request for additional information.

3:30

We hope that today's presentation will provide answers to your questions and provide you with the data that you need to make a decision going forward.

4:02

The how and that's the construction manager at risk, which is the delivery method that we're proposing for this program for this project.

4:12

The why we're gonna provide you with pros and cons with regards to this method, and we're also gonna provide you with the options that are available.

4:22

Who and procurement will give you a a better presentation on this item, but it's the recommendation to award to D.

4:32

Stevenson Construction Inc.

4:35

And what it will be to discuss how we intend to proceed with awarding the RFQ 210601.

4:43

At this time, I'd like to transfer um or ask Daryl Johnson to come up.

4:48

He's our support services administrator.

4:55

Thank you, Miss Valera.

4:57

Good afternoon.

5:00

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Members of the Dais, Darrell Johnson, Division Director, Support Services.

5:08

We'll start with the win.

5:10

This is a brief timeline.

5:11

I'll just uh do a few inserts from this timeline.

5:16

September 25th, 2019, a $2.1 million budget was allocated for the for the project as part of the historic Miramar Innovation in Technology Village.

5:29

April 21st, 2020, a recreational license agreement was executed between city and school board with this project.

5:42

I'm going to skip down and go down to November 9th, 2021.

5:48

D.

5:48

Stevenson submitted a guaranteed maximum price proposal in the amount of $5,946,668 for the entire project.

6:01

At that time, the city had requested that D.

6:04

Stevenson and the architect provide a phasing plan for this particular project because the guaranteed maximum price exceeded the uh the original $2.1 million budget.

6:18

I'm gonna go to the next slide.

6:22

This is the phasing plan that was uh that was generated.

6:26

The scope of work.

6:28

Phase one will include as follows project mobilization and demobilization, six H six-acre site preparation work, installation of electrical underground conduit, installation of underground plumbing, which is which will be the water, drainage, sewer, storm water, dry wells, etc.

6:53

Insulation of six feet of lime rock for base of track and walkways, installation of irrigation system throughout the six-acre site, and also grade dress and install SOD across the entire site.

7:12

Phase two would incorporate construction of the restroom store and storage building, install installation of a running track, hard scape, site lighting, and amenities.

7:26

Phase three would include table tennis, playground with the shade structure, and also new tennis court, proposed new tennis courts.

7:39

Now I'm gonna transition to the how.

7:43

Just a brief and brief.

7:45

In general, there are three types of project delivery methods.

7:50

One type is design bill, which the city uh used this delivery methods for the across the street for the uh the state-of-the-art police headquarters.

8:00

Two is a design bid bill, which 90 percent 80 to 90 percent of the projects that my department brings to the city is usually the uh design bid bill.

8:12

Three, which is the construction manager at risk, which we are proposing before you today.

8:19

A brief definition of the uh construction management at risk delivery method will entail a commitment by the construction manager to deliver the project within a guaranteed maximum price.

8:34

These would include contractor is brought in during the planning, design, and drawing phases, sometimes referred to as pre-construction services, acknowledged as the sole point of responsibility over the project's delivery, serves as the general contractor during construction, typically used when projects have a clear scope of work.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing██████████████████18%
Parks and Recreation█████████████████17%
Public Schools████████████12%
Capital Improvement Projects████████████12%
Procurement Management██████████10%
Public Engagement████████8%
Public Works████████8%
Procedural█████5%
Infrastructure and Engineering█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

Miramar City Commission Special Meeting – H.D. Perry Park Improvements Workshop

This special meeting was held on September 14, 2022, at 4:00 PM in the Commission Chambers to workshop the H.D. Perry Park Improvements project. The agenda consisted of a single discussion item. The workshop lasted approximately two hours, concluding around 6:05 PM. The project, originally budgeted at $2.1 million in 2019, now has a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $5.9 million from D. Stevenson Construction Inc., the top-ranked firm in an RFQ process for construction manager at risk (CMAR) delivery. The park is a key enabling project to relocate recreational uses from Wellman Field to allow for affordable housing development. Commissioners raised concerns about cost escalation, procurement transparency, piecemealing, and the overall master plan for the area.

Discussion Items

  • Project Overview and Timeline: Staff (Liz Valera, Chief CIP Officer; Daryl Johnson, Support Services Director; Alicia Yoom, Procurement Director) presented the project history. A $2.1 million budget was allocated in September 2019 as part of the Miramar Innovation and Technology Village (MITV). A recreational license agreement with the school board was executed in April 2020. In November 2021, D. Stevenson submitted a GMP of $5,946,668. Because that exceeded the budget, a phasing plan was developed: Phase I ($2.1 million) – site prep, underground utilities, grading, and sod; Phase II (estimated at $3.2 million) – restroom/storage building, running track, hardscape, lighting; Phase III – table tennis, playground, and tennis courts.
  • Delivery Method – Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR): Staff explained that CMAR guarantees a maximum price, brings the contractor in early for pre-construction services (constructability review, value engineering), and is an open-book process. The city has used CMAR for the Public Safety Complex ($8.5M GMP) and Miramar Regional Park Amphitheater ($5.78M GMP). Pre-construction services for this project cost $56,767. Pros include reduced risk, cost control, and time savings; cons include potential ambiguity before GMP and liability for scope changes.
  • Cost Escalation Context: Daryl Johnson presented a chart showing construction cost increases – 14.1% average year-over-year since 2019. He cited Hollywood’s police headquarters budget rising from $50M to nearly $65M during design. He noted that construction prices continue to rise and that the original $2.1M estimate was reasonable in 2019.
  • Commissioner Concerns and Positions:
    • Vice Mayor Yvette Colbourne expressed that the commission was not informed early enough about the project’s true scale and cost. She questioned the procurement process and wanted to see the full master plan, not piecemeal phases. She noted that Phase I alone ($2.1M) would only yield a green field without restrooms, which she considered inadequate. She suggested testing the market with a conventional bid due to the tripling of costs.
    • Commissioner Maxwell B. Chambers echoed concerns about not being notified earlier. He strongly opposed phasing without knowing total cost. He stated the project cost has more than doubled (from $2.1M to $5.9M) and that the commission needs a clear, complete number before deciding. He proposed eliminating the tennis courts from the project to save money and time, keeping the existing courts at the Youth Enrichment Center (YEC). He wanted a complete park – field, track, restrooms – delivered turnkey.
    • Commissioner Alexandra P. Davis asked why the commission wasn’t informed earlier about D. Stevenson’s involvement, comparing it to the Siemens energy efficiency project. She raised concerns about the new school board members (five new members) who may not support the project. She suggested using $2.1 million from the MITV fund (which must be spent quickly to avoid IRS penalties) to help fund the park. She emphasized that affordable housing is the priority and that the technology village may need to be delayed.
    • Mayor Wayne M. Messam advocated for the park, stating the community expects a state-of-the-art facility as originally envisioned. He argued that construction cost increases are a reality due to COVID and inflation (citing home value increases of ~40% since 2019). He stressed that the park is a necessary enabling project for affordable housing and that the commission must have the political will to fund it. He noted that the CMAR process is open book and transparent. He supported starting with Phase I to get infrastructure in place while seeking additional funding in future budgets.
  • Additional Discussion:
    • Staff clarified that the school board’s approval for the project was already granted, but an extension and phasing plan will be presented to the new board. Deputy City Manager Kelvin Baker confirmed that the park’s completion is required before the affordable housing project can proceed.
    • Commissioner Chambers reiterated that moving the tennis courts is tied to the technology village, which he believes should be located elsewhere for better accessibility. He stressed that residents do not want to lose their current fields without a fully completed replacement.
    • Vice Mayor Colbourne and Commissioner Davis supported using MITV funds for the park, with Vice Mayor noting that $2.2M is available for the park and $5M for the innovation hub; reprogramming $2.1M from the hub could fill the gap.
    • The affordable housing developer estimated total project cost at $15–16 million (up from $10–12 million), but the city is leasing the land, so construction costs are borne by the developer.

Key Outcomes

  • No formal vote was taken, as this was a workshop. However, the commission provided clear direction to staff:
    • Staff to return with revised estimates for a complete park (field, track, restroom/storage building) without the tennis courts, including a new total cost and timeline.
    • Consider using a different contractor or delivery method if cost savings can be achieved (Commissioner Chambers suggested possibly a new contractor).
    • Explore reprogramming $2.1 million from the MITV innovation hub fund (Fund 391) to supplement the park budget, pending approval of the FY 2023-2027 CIP.
    • Engage with new school board members to ensure continued support for the project.
    • Bring back a comprehensive master plan for the area (park, affordable housing, technology village) so the board can see the full picture.
  • The workshop adjourned at approximately 6:05 PM, and the commission proceeded to a scheduled budget workshop.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon. Calling the Miramar City Commission workshop to order. This meeting is being streamed live at Miramar FL.gov slash commission meeting and televised on Comcast Channel 78 and ATU verse channel ninety-nine for City of Miramar subscribers. The meeting of the Miramar City Commission workshop is now called to order. The purpose of this meeting is this to discuss the following. Commissioner Barnes. Commissioner Chambers. One housekeeping item for the commission on your laptops on the dais. So that feature is functioning, so um let's use those so I can keep order of um for those members who may want to speak or have a question during the dialogue. At this time, I'll turn it over to City Manager Dr. Virgin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor Commissioners. Um this item was brought to the commission a few um meetings ago, and um the commissioner requested a workshop to further um flesh out some details. Um we the staff has um prepared a presentation and um we'll deliver such presentation and during or after the presentation I'm sure we'll be able to have a discussion around um this item. So without much further ado, I would request that staff proceed Ms. Liz and Mr. Dara Johnson are the presentatives of this item. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioner, City Manager, City Attorney, Liz Valera, Chief CIP officer. New title. Um, thank you for having us here today. As a manager said, we were asked to host uh a workshop on the HD Perry Middle School project. And when this item was last brought before you there were some questions and there was some request for additional information. We hope that today's presentation will provide answers to your questions and provide you with the data that you need to make a decision going forward. The how and that's the construction manager at risk, which is the delivery method that we're proposing for this program for this project. The why we're gonna provide you with pros and cons with regards to this method, and we're also gonna provide you with the options that are available. Who and procurement will give you a a better presentation on this item, but it's the recommendation to award to D. Stevenson Construction Inc. And what it will be to discuss how we intend to proceed with awarding the RFQ 210601. At this time, I'd like to transfer um or ask Daryl Johnson to come up. He's our support services administrator. Thank you, Miss Valera. Good afternoon. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Members of the Dais, Darrell Johnson, Division Director, Support Services. We'll start with the win. This is a brief timeline. I'll just uh do a few inserts from this timeline. September 25th, 2019, a $2.1 million budget was allocated for the for the project as part of the historic Miramar Innovation in Technology Village. April 21st, 2020, a recreational license agreement was executed between city and school board with this project. I'm going to skip down and go down to November 9th, 2021. D. Stevenson submitted a guaranteed maximum price proposal in the amount of $5,946,668 for the entire project. At that time, the city had requested that D. Stevenson and the architect provide a phasing plan for this particular project because the guaranteed maximum price exceeded the uh the original $2.1 million budget. I'm gonna go to the next slide. This is the phasing plan that was uh that was generated. The scope of work. Phase one will include as follows project mobilization and demobilization, six H six-acre site preparation work, installation of electrical underground conduit, installation of underground plumbing, which is which will be the water, drainage, sewer, storm water, dry wells, etc. Insulation of six feet of lime rock for base of track and walkways, installation of irrigation system throughout the six-acre site, and also grade dress and install SOD across the entire site.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com