It looks like the money already slated in the new courthouse budget will be used to restore the old courthouse to house the State Attorney's office. Legislature has given the go ahead.
http://ondemand.wjct.org/audio/news/mar12km.mp3
Wait, which "old" courthouse are we talking about? I thought the SAO was going to be setup in the historic federal courthouse next to the new one.
Are they doing anything with the riverfront courthouse yet?
I believe they are referring to the building next to the new courthouse.
Will there be other occupants in the building? Or are they doing it Jacksonville style? (Occupying the first floor only while the 2nd floor up remains empty)
Quote from: urbaknight on March 20, 2013, 04:04:31 PM
Will there be other occupants in the building? Or are they doing it Jacksonville style? (Occupying the first floor only while the 2nd floor up remains empty)
The entire building will be for the State Attorney. Mayor Brown's office really screwed up on this one IMO, he had a CM who had a GMP in budget and then he decided to can the CM and rebid the project after getting a new architect. All of the new bids came in over budget because they increased the scope and they had to value engineer the project to get it back into budget. One of the VE items they were looking at was to eliminate the work on the 5th floor which was originally in the project.
Here is an update from the Daily Record. I thought I remembered reading that the original courthouse budget that incorporated the renovation of the old building was already over budget. Anyone remember that or have updated figures?
Quotehttp://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=540173
Work is slated to start on the building this week by The Morganti Group.
Monday, August 5, 10:39 AM EDT
by David Chapman, Staff Writer
The City has authorized The Morganti Group Inc. to commence work today on the renovation of the former federal courthouse.
The building at 311 W. Monroe St. will house the State Attorney's Office and is adjacent to the Duval County Courthouse at 501 W. Adams St.
A letter dated July 31 from Tom Goldsbury, City Planning and Development engineer manager, to Stephen Sines, Morganti senior project manager, indicated the company is to commence work within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice to proceed, listed as today.
"The project shall be substantially complete no later than 480 calendar days from the date of the notice to proceed," the letter states.
The contract substantial completion date is Nov. 28, 2014, and the contract expiration date is March 28, 2015.
Goldsbury, in an email Friday, said the permit has not yet been issued but should be sometime this week.
He said the construction fence will start to be installed today and that Morganti already has taken over trailers from Turner Construction Co., which built the new courthouse.
Danbury, Conn.-based Morganti was awarded the contract after being the low bidder for the project at just under $31 million. The company has a Southeast regional office in West Palm Beach.
As reported in June, the City awarded a $26 million contract to Morganti to complete the renovation. The difference in the bid and the contract came after the company and City engineers modified plans and arrived at a price of just under $26 million.
City Council passed legislation to appropriate just more than $26 million to encumber funds and require the build-out for the state attorney's office.
The renovation is part of the Better Jacksonville Plan's Unified Courthouse Project that had a $350 million budget.
Elkins Constructors Inc. was originally contracted to perform the work for just under $28 million, but the City terminated the agreement in April 2012.
The contract was then rebid.
dchapman@baileypub.com
(904) 356-2466
yes Diane....that's at least the stated reason COJ dumped Elkins and put it back out to bid...the laughable (sad) part is that all the rebids came in higher than the Elkins contract...the winning team got down to $26 million by changing the scope of the project.
So we're getting less for $26 million than we would have got by just leaving Elkins alone?
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 05, 2013, 05:23:23 PM
yes Diane....that's at least the stated reason COJ dumped Elkins and put it back out to bid...the laughable (sad) part is that all the rebids came in higher than the Elkins contract...the winning team got down to $26 million by changing the scope of the project.
This is what I thought tufsu1. I don't think the public can even begin to understand how we lose money in this city when it's loss is consistently so convoluted. :(
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 13, 2013, 12:25:02 PM
It looks like the money already slated in the new courthouse budget will be used to restore the old courthouse to house the State Attorney's office. Legislature has given the go ahead.
http://ondemand.wjct.org/audio/news/mar12km.mp3
CC at one time an enclosed Pedestrian Bridge was to be built between both buildings? Did that get approved also?
You know that has been on and off the table several times. Angela Corey has been pushing hard for that bridge. Not sure of the current status though.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 05, 2013, 07:51:30 PM
You know that has been on and off the table several times. Angela Corey has been pushing hard for that bridge. Not sure of the current status though.
Thanks I guess time will tell. ;)
And then I think she wanted to close Pearl Street if she couldn't have the bridge.
I believe the bridge is included....design changes significantly reduced the cost
Quote from: thelakelander on August 05, 2013, 05:30:15 PM
So we're getting less for $26 million than we would have got by just leaving Elkins alone?
Yes, the last round of changes I saw had them deleting all the work on the top (I believe 5th) floor where the old historic courtroom was located. The $28 million price from Elkins had all of the floors being completed.
The drawings that the city sent out for rebid increased the scope from the drawings Elkins based their GMP on hence the $31 million price tag.
The city still has to pay Elkins for all of the work they have done until the contract was canceled by the city.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 05, 2013, 08:37:37 PM
I believe the bridge is included....design changes significantly reduced the cost
Remember when the Main Library wanted a bridge but the Mayor at the time or city council said NO! Because they felt the stores on the first floor of the Public parking garage would be passed by? Has any businesses gone into this parking garage at all?