“Value engineering” has reduced some of the more expensive dimensions of the renovation project, cutting the bid from $14.6 million to $10.3 million. The bond projects had assumed a cost of no more than $11 million.
Burlington’s city council has agreed to raise the curtain on a proposed expansion of the Paramount Theater, which recently found itself whiling away in the wings after its construction costs proved much steeper than the city expected.
The council revived its plans for the theater’s expansion this week after city staff members managed to whittle down its estimated cost from $14.6 million to $10.3 million – which is well within the $11 million that this project is due to receive from a $47 million bond package that the city’s voters approved in November.
In the meantime, a proposed superstructure for the city’s Maynard Aquatic Center remains dead in the water – at least for the moment – as city staff members reassess the design for this project to fit the $6 million budget from the same bond package. Although staff members managed to knock about $2.4 million from a $12 million estimate they received earlier this spring, they’ve informed the council that it will require a complete rethink to enclose the pool within the available funds.
The council gave the all-clear to the theater’s expansion on Tuesday when it voted 4-to-0 to accept a modified bid from the Christman Company to proceed with the work. At the same time, its members voted 4-to-0 to reject a bid from BAR Construction for the aquatic center’s superstructure – a move that mayor Jim Butler said would enable the staff to take this bond-subsidized project back to the drawing board.
As for the city’s project at the Maynard Aquatic Center:
“We’re going to do what we said we were going to do. We’re going to put a cover over it . . . and keep it under budget.”
– Burlington mayor Jim Butler
“We’re going to do what we said we were going to do,” Butler declared after that evening’s vote. “We’re going to put a cover over it…and keep it under budget.”
The council unanimously confirmed these contrasting decisions after more than a month of handwringing, touched off in mid April by unexpectedly high bids for both the theater and the aquatic center’s new housing.
Before contractors submitted these bids, Burlington’s administrators had planned to issue $17 million in bonds for the two ventures on April 29, along with another $16.5 million for various street and sidewalk upgrades that voters approved in a separate bond referendum last fall.
These proposed bond issues were to have been the city’s first bite at a combined $68.5 million in bonds that the local electorate approved in November. This sum included $21.5 million for street and sidewalk repairs, which passed by a comfortable margin in last year’s general election, and another $47 million for three recreation-related projects that squeaked through as a separate item on the same ballot.
Among the projects contained in these two bond packages were a couple of ventures that were far from shovel-ready when voters went to polls. One of these longer-term proposals is a $30 million “sportsplex” that appeared in the larger, recreation-related bond package and which the council eventually plans to develop on an as yet-unidentified site in West Burlington.
The other project, which was part of the smaller bond package, comprises $5 million in streetscaping the city intends to begin within Burlington’s downtown development district following a state-funded upgrade of the district’s underground utilities.
In contrast to these two, long-term endeavors, the rest of the bond-subsidized projects were ostensibly ready to bid out once voters approved them. The council consequently scheduled a bond sale for April 29 to raise the $33.5 million for these ventures, while city staff members began to solicit bids from interested contractors.
City officials have previously stated that the contractors selected for the street and sidewalk repairs will work their way through an infrastructure to-do list until they exhaust the $16.5 million earmarked for the upgrades. In the meantime, city staff members had architectural estimates for the aquatic center and theater that suggested these projects could be completed within their respective $6 million and $11 million ceilings.
The city’s best laid plans nevertheless went awry when the actual bids for these projects came in a few weeks ahead of the bond sale in April – and well over the projections at that.
Theater details
According to city officials, staff members received nine submissions for the theater’s expansion – with the Christman Company putting in the low bid of $14.6 million – or $3.6 million more than the city had budgeted for this project. Meanwhile, BAR Construction of Greensboro turned in the more cost effective of the two bids for the aquatic center’s new housing – whose price tag of $12 million was nevertheless twice the project’s ceiling, which had been based on a consultant’s estimate from 2022.
[Story continues below photo.]
In light of these untenable bids, the council adjusted the original plans for the bond sale in April to include only the $16.5 million for street and sidewalk repairs. According to Burlington’s city manager, Craig Honeycutt, the removal of the two recreation-related endeavors from the bond sale gave staff members some breathing room to explore ways to salvage these projects.
“Value Engineering” of paramount theater project saved $4.3 million
“We’re keeping the lobby expansion, the new second floor, the roof top event space, the improved backstage and stage-right access, the indoor crossover and the enhanced lighting and sound within the theater [while eliminating performance lighting, new theater seating, a pit platform, and acoustical panels inside the theater].”
– Burlington city manager Craig Honeycutt
“Since then,” the city manager recalled during a city council meeting on Tuesday, “our team has worked closely with our architects and the low bidders to value engineer both projects.”
Honeycutt announced that this “value engineering” did the trick in the case of the Paramount Theater’s expansion, whose estimated cost has been tamped down to about $10.3 million. He recalled that city staff members agreed to forgo items like performance lighting, new theater seating, a pit platform, and acoustical panels inside the theater in order to focus on structural improvements and expanded uses that had originally endeared this project to the council.
“We’re keeping the lobby expansion, the new second floor, the roof top event space, the improved backstage and stage-right access, the indoor crossover and the enhanced lighting and sound within the theater,” Honeycutt informed the council, “and with an $11 million bond, we can move forward with the project.”
But “value engineering” hasn’t saved enough on pool enclosure; bid was $12 million, twice the bond-approved amount of $6 million
Honeycutt wasn’t able to report as auspicious an outcome for the aquatic center’s proposed superstructure. He conceded that city staff members had worked with BAR Construction to reduce this project to the bare bones but couldn’t get the proposed cost estimate any lower than $9.6 million.
“It really became clear,” he added, “that the permanent 75-year masonry structure we originally considered building is really not feasible within the $6 million that we have set aside from the bonds.”
The city manager said that the original vision for the pool’s superstructure was effectively done in by factors such as the high cost of materials, the proposed installation of a crane to erect the new building, the measures needed to protect the pool during construction, and the conversion of an existing stormwater conduit into a sewer line.
Honeycutt added, however, that the city may still be able to erect a new building to enclose the pool if it simply scales back its ambitions.
“We believe that we can construct a year-round, temperature-controlled enclosure that better aligns with the life expectancy of the 30-year-old pool,” he insisted, “and we believe we can do it within our $6 million budget.”
The city manager’s recommendation resonated with Burlington’s mayor pro tem Harold Owen, who argued that the city may have been setting its sights too high when it proposed to use high-end masonry with a 75 year lifespan to enclose a pool whose own lifespan probably maxes out at 35 to 40 years.
“A new facility for a middle aged pool is probably not the way to go about it,” he added. “I believe that this change is appropriate in that it will give the community an indoor facility that can be used throughout the year, and the life expectancy of the structure matches the life expectancy of the pool. I think it is the best way we can invest the public money at this time.”
Honeycutt went on to insist that, regardless of what kind of enclosure the city ultimately designs for the pool, this project should include the installation of a new HVAC and chloramine removal systems. He stressed that these measures will prevent the metallic corrosion that had doomed the pool’s previous housing and led to its demolition for safety reasons more than a year ago.
At the city manager’s behest, the council voted 4-to-0 to reject BAR Construction’s bid for the aquatic center’s superstructure to allow staff to rejigger the plans for this project. This vote followed another 4-to-0 decision in favor of a revised bid of $10.3 million from the Christman Company for the Paramount Theater’s expansion. Excluded from both votes due an excused absence on Tuesday was city councilman Ronnie Wall.
