Testing
PSFA Funding in Jeopardy - Special Session Alert
Dekker/Perich/Sabatini
During the 2010 Regular Session of the NM Legislature, three separate bills (SB208, SB255, and HB268) were introduced, all of which attempted to shift public school capital outlay spending dollars to the general fund. The net effect of each of these was a diversion of approximately $100M per year. The two bills introduced on the Senate side died in Committee, but the one bill on the House side, HB268 appeared in the wee hours of the morning of the final day and passed the House at 3:00 am. on the final day.
As we approach the Special Session the budget details are being worked out privately behind closed doors. It is likely the FY11 Budget for the State of NM will be presented as a fait accompli with very little if any opportunity to comment or influence the elements of the budget. As such the NM Chapter of the American Institute of Architects is urging members of the design and construction industries to reach out to your elected state representatives to communicate our concern with the diversion of public school capital outlay funds to the general operating fund. While we cannot be certain this will again be attempted the fact that it was introduced three separate times and passed the House is cause for concern that it will happen again as part of the ongoing state budget process. We believe this approach unfairly hits industries (design and construction) that have experienced the highest percentage of job losses during this recession and will result in more job losses for those industries. Below are some talking points for you to use as you reach out.
Overview of HB268, SB208 and SB255, all of which divert public school capital outlay funds to operating funds:
- HB268 appeared on the surface to simply allocate a portion of the Severance Tax Bonds (ST and Supplemental Severance Tax Bonds (SST to the General Fund, but those funds are being diverted from the portion of STB and SSTB that have historically been used for public school capital outlay. The net result is a reduction of up to $100M in FY11 from public school capital outlay money.
- SB208 and SB 255 were similar and proposed to divert oil and gas revenues for a three year period from the Severance Tax Bond (ST fund to the public school fund (operations), while directly - and negatively impacting public school capital outlay award capacity to fund construction projects already committed to by the PSCOC.
- SB208: In the first year (FY11), 87% of funding for PSCOC standards-based public school capital outlay programs would be diverted. For three years, a combined $340 million would have been transferred from school capital outlay to school operations
- SB255: It was projected that 100% of funding for PSCOC standards-based public school capital outlay programs would have been diverted. For three years, a combined $640.5 million was to be transferred from the severance tax bonding fund to fund school operations. Also impacted SB-9, and reduced the bond fund to such an extent it would violate the coverage covenants required by previous bond issuances.
Impacts of HB268, SB208, and SB255 and similar bills that would divert public school capital outlay funds to general operating funds:
- The design professional and construction sector in New Mexico is already suffering a profound downturn with employment falling over 17% since November 2008. Nationally, the sector unemployment rate has climbed to 22.7%. According to Albuquerque Public Schools, nearly 63% of all construction work in Bernalillo County is school related. In more distant rural areas of the state, this ratio is much higher. A decrease of funding of the magnitude envisioned in this bill could devastate commercial construction employment in New Mexico
- A loss of $110 million in state funding and postponement of $110 million district matching funds could push commercial construction unemployment from approximately 20% to over 45%, for the next three years - a loss of approximately 2,100 direct construction jobs per year.
- Breaks the implicit promise of State matching funds for local public school districts, which districts relied on when passing recent local school bonds. It is worth noting that in the February 2010 school bond season, local communities passed over 95 percent of their school bonds across New Mexico. Will result in school districts being unable to complete the volume of work promised to voters at time of bond election. Samples of the lost State match percentages are as follows:
School District FY10 State Match
Albuquerque Public Schools 54%
Gallup McKinley County Schools 84%
Las Cruces Public Schools 67%
Gadsden Independent School District 90%
Roswell Independent School District 72%
Grants Cibola County Schools 81%
- May put the state out of compliance with the Zuni Lawsuit special master agreement, and may generate court action against the state re the underlying equity issues.
- Charter Schools would suffer with loss of lease assistance even with newly allocated SB9 or HB33, for up to three years
- With 2X public school capital outlay multiplier (indirect state AND local funding impacts), halts approximately $170M per year of construction for one to three years.
- Approximately 1,700 indirect construction jobs lost per year for one to three years.
- Would reverse six years of significant progress in the overall condition of New Mexico school facilities. To maintain the current average combined public school facilities condition index of 36 percent will require state public school capital outlay investment of about $125 million per year over the next five years. At lower funding levels, degradation exceeds renovation/repair and school facilities decline.
- Could halt or reduce Public School Facilities Authority (PSFA) operations
- Bond rating for the state might be reduced per a perception that the legislature has “raided the cookie jar” for the public school capital outlay dedicated funding stream, which may lower state bond rating and raise bond interest rates across the New Mexico public sector, including municipalities.
- While HB268, SB208 and SB255 would all divert funds from capital outlay for one to three years, because of the current condition of the construction industry and enormous percentage of projects that school construction represents in this sector, industry capacity could be greatly reduced causing a lack of capacity to re-start projects after the halt. If PSFA operations could not be funded, thereby requiring a rebuilding of statewide capital delivery mechanism (previously the PSFA), lack of capital delivery and oversight may take a few years to rebuild.
Click here for List of Key Senators to contact
CSI Albuquerque / USGBC NM Joint Luncheon / Technical Seminar
LEED REQUIREMENTS IN
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
A Luncheon and
Technical Seminar sponsored by the
Presented by Greg Markling, FCSI, AIA, NCARB, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
with an introduction by Howard Kaplan, USGBC, AIA, LEED AP
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010
Luncheon Buffet begins at 11:30 AM (please arrive by 11:15)
Technical Seminar begins at 1:15 PM
Courtyard by Marriott – 5151 Journal Center Blvd. NE
Luncheon Presentation – The lunch presentation will begin with a brief look
at the structure of construction documents for green buildings and then focus
on incorporating LEED requirements into a project’s technical specifications. A large part of this presentation will
address the specification sections in Division 1 General Requirements, the
division of the specifications that spells out the procedural requirements and administration
provisions for the execution of the work.
The speaker will show where LEED requirements such as construction waste
management, indoor air quality, and overall VOC restrictions are typically
found in these sections. This program
will provide a 1 Hour HSW/SD AIA Continuing Education Learning Unit.
Technical Seminar - The Technical Seminar will address LEED requirements in all Contract
Documents associated with a project with the focus on technical specifications. The presentation will include LEED references
in Agreements, Contracts, General Conditions, and detailed specifications and
how each of these references addresses the responsibilities of the team members
to deliver a LEED certified project. The
speaker will show how the requirements are incorporated into individual
sections of the specifications to ensure that owners, contractors, and
subcontractors are made aware their portion of the LEED related work. There will be a look at the more difficult
areas of documenting LEED requirements and how to make LEED certification more
attainable by writing better LEED related specifications. This program will provide 2 Hours of HSW/SD
AIA Continuing Education Learning Units.
About the presenters:
Greg Markling,
FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA, LEED AP is a partner with MOA Architecture in
Howard Kaplan,
USGBC, AIA, LEED AP, is a senior architect with Wilson and Company in
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010
Luncheon
Program 11:30-1:00 PM This seminar qualifies for 1 hour of HSW/SD
Continuing Education Units accredited by AIA.
Luncheon Buffet is included.
Technical Seminar 1:15 – 3:00 PM This seminar qualifies for 2 hours of HSW/SD Continuing Education Units accredited by AIA. Light refreshments will be served.
Luncheon and Seminar will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott – 5151 Journal Center Blvd. NE
Registration Fees: LUNCHEON
$20 TECHNICAL SEMINAR $40
Essential Partners
I read a good article as initially presented and commented on by Vivian Volz (thanks Vivian if you're still following our chapter blog!) that was relaying information brought about by the CSI Specifier Practice Group. One of the concepts that was conveyed was that: "product representatives can become essential partners to specifiers. Product reps can provide information to specifiers that's clear, concise, correct, and ready to pass on to designers. When a product rep makes a specifier's job easier, everybody wins." The following is my response to Vivian's blog entry found in entirely at, http://www.buildingproductmarketing.com/2010/02/understanding-specifier.html#comment-form:
"Essential Partners". That's a great way of putting it. As a product representative, I would like to offer that the door swings both ways in a partnership. I say this with a negative experience in mind that I had with a specifier recently, but not to supersede all of the positive experiences that I've had working with great specifiers and hopefully vice versa. Although there were a few other tripping hazards in dealing with the specific specifier I'm referring to, the biggest upset came from the start.
I offered one of my products as a substitute to the basis of design in time, and honoring the general requirements, specifications, and drawings where my product would play a role. I submitted (by email) my products information in many forms including a generic CSI 3 part formatted specification that could be manipulated to meet the design intent as needed. After a few days, I had not heard back, and upon making the phone call to check on the status of my request, the specifier claimed to have not received it. Having never worked with this specifier and after a brief conversation about myself and the potential role that my product could play as a substitute, I offered to resend my product information. The specifier said that wouldn’t be necessary as he was familiar with my product; this threw up a red flag in my mind, but I let it go thinking maybe his experience and knowledge played a bigger role here. It was an experience that gives the word “assume” a bad connotation.
The project bid, my product bid, and my product price was the chosen by the awarded contractor having seen my product’s information in the addendum that followed my conversation with the specifier. I’m sure you can imagine where the story goes from here without too much detail. Simply put, my submittals were marked up severely and asked for changes that I couldn’t offer, and now the architect, owner, and GC are scrambling to negotiate the pricing considerations where my product fits into the whole building envelope as I am most likely no longer involved with the project. Per the request of the GC (who I have a great relationship with), I am also in the process of resubmitting one of my other product offerings as a potential substitute to help everyone – which is what all of our roles are about; essential partnerships that respect that the door swings both ways and that when a specifier makes a product representative’s job easier (as well as the other way around), everybody wins.
There is No Better Time
fashion let’s all resolve to make 2010 a year of personal achievement in the SW Region. There
is no better way and no better time than now to REGISTER, SIT FOR and PASS the CDT Exam —-
or, if you’ve already done that —- then muster the initiative to take and pass one of the
Certification Exams (CCS, CCCA or CCPR) offered by the Construction Specifications Institute.
Passing one of these exams is guaranteed to boost your personal sense of accomplishment, give
you a leg up on the competition and improve the community of construction professionals in
our cities and our region. The biggest obstacle to pursuing the CDT or a CSI Certification is
you. If you don’t register TODAY then you risk missing the limited opportunities to sit for the
exams.
The annual Spring National Exam period is March 29 through April 3, 2010. During this period
the exams are given at your local Prometric Testing Center. In order to sit for an exam during
that week you MUST be registered by January 29 (for the early bird exam fees) with final
registration occurring on February 26, 2010.
For the most complete information on CSI CDT and Certification exams go to www.csinet.org
and click on the left hand CERTIFICATION menu bar. You’ll see extensive information on all the
CSI exams with support information on how to study and prepare for taking your exam of
choice.
Your local CSI Chapter and member colleagues are your primary source for preparing for the
exams. Watch for member announcements of upcoming CDT Training workshops, study
sessions and self study guides.
Education and Certification are among the primary missions of the Construction Specifications
Institute and Certification can be an important step in your career ladder! Take responsibility
for your future. There is no better time – SIGN UP TODAY – in order to sit for and pass a CSI
exam in March!!
Submitted by
David Vaughan, CSI, CCPR
Albuquerque Chapter CSI Past President
SW Region Certification Chair
The chapter needs your help!
Over the next couple of months, you may be receiving a couple of chapter surveys. Although we are all guilty of hitting the delete button when it comes to mass emails, the The CSI Albuquerque Chapter Board of Directors highly encourages you to take a few minutes to respond to the few questions on each survey. Your input is part of what makes every meeting and event the chapter holds a success!
There are also a variety of committees that
could use your help now and as we move closer to holding the 2011 CSI Southwest
Regional Conference in Albuquerque! If you are interested in helping with this
event's planning committee, the upcoming February chapter Bowling event, or any
other committee (Arrangements, Technical, or Marketing), please contact me at
505.934.0345 or stirlingmorris@pellasw.com or any other board member; all of our
contact information can be found at the chapter website, www.csiabq.org.
Stirling Morris, CSI, CDT
President Elect
CSI Albuquerque
Preserving History - New Roofing System Helps Historic New Mexico Building
After serving primarily as an unoccupied storage facility for nearly 15 years, the historic Lister Building in Lovington, New Mexico, began its road to renovation with a new roofing system specified to replace an aged, badly damaged, and leaking built-up roofing (BUR) system.
Identify Building Needs
Built in 1931 by I.W. Lister, the two-story building is owned today by the Lea County Museum. Constructed with a unique slip-form concrete method of the early 20th century, the building’s exterior features a decorative façade that includes parapet walls ranging from three feet high along the back and sides to more than seven feet high in the front. Over the years, the existing 7,000-sq.ft. roof was repaired and patched several times. Multiple layers of built-up roofing materials formed a rigid and heavy covering over a wood-plank deck.
Additionally, two peaked, triangular-shaped saddles had been constructed on the rooftop to help move water toward scuppers. Both 130’-long structures, which were covered with shingles, are about ten feet wide at the building’s rear and narrow to a point at the front. Combined, they represent about 30% of the roof surface. Reroofing the local landmark presented several challenges:
• Remote location – Lovington is a small town located about 300 miles southeast of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and 200 miles southwest of Amarillo, Texas, making the coordination of materials, equipment, and installation crews difficult.
• Limited access – The building is adjacent to a movie theater and sits directly across the street from the county courthouse. Proximity to these public facilities and surrounding areas created concerns about fumes, odors, and smoke.
• Tight quarters – Improving drainage around the two unusual rooftop saddles was further complicated by three skylights set between them on the relatively small roof.
According to Vickie Crenshaw, president of Crenshaw Consulting Group in Hobbs, New Mexico, reroofing the Lister Building was a challenging, yet rewarding project because the goal was to design a long-term maintainable roof system while improving drainage and addressing the aging parapet walls without modifying the building’s exterior architecture.
Due to the poor condition of the old BUR system, a complete tear-off was required. Seeking a balance of high performance and cost effectiveness, a two-ply, cold-applied Firestone SBS modified bitumen system was specified. The total system offers the sustainable, maintainable, and reliable protection needed on the nearly 80-year-old building.
“A cold-applied SBS system was a great fit for this project because fumes, odors, and smoke from a traditional built-up roofing system application would have affected the nearby public facilities and activities held in the area,” Crenshaw said. “Plus, using a kettle to pump hot asphalt up two stories with another facility adjacent to the Lister Building would have been a difficult process.”
Tear-off and Replace
Amarillo, Texas-based Construction Services, a Tecta America Company, handled all aspects of the complete tear-off and roof replacement project. After removing the existing system down to the wood deck, Construction Services nailed a Firestone MB base sheet over the deck to establish a good installation surface.
Next, a layer of 2.5” Firestone ISO 95+(TM) polyiso was mechanically fastened to the deck. Where needed, tapered insulation was used to add slope and ensure positive drainage. Using multi-purpose cold adhesive, Construction Services then adhered a half-inch-thick, high-density polyiso cover board to the insulation, followed by a Firestone SBS modified bitumen base sheet and a white, granule-surfaced Firestone SBS FR cap sheet.
According to Tracy Honea, project manager/estimator for Construction Services, keeping the roof surface clean and not letting the adhesive get too cold or too warm is among the biggest challenges encountered when working with cold adhesives. “It is not a big problem; you just have to be aware of it,” he explained. “We installed the cold-applied system over a two and a half week period and the adhesive cured out very well.”
To avoid potential slippage of the membrane on the two peaked roofs at the center of the building, Construction Services saddled an entire roll of SBS modified bitumen over each ridge to ensure both sides had the same amount of material. Since the rooftop can be seen from a nearby building, this procedure ensured no sheet ended at either ridge, making it a more visually appealing roof surface.
Cold-applied systems use asphalt more efficiently. There has also been an increase in the FM and UL approvals with cold-applied systems in recent years.
Coming Together
To assist the Lea County Museum in making this project a reality, Firestone Building Products donated all roofing materials and provided specification direction and on-site technical support; Construction Services supplied the new skylights and roof hatch; and Steve Gendron, principal of Albuquerque-based Upland Corporation, Firestone representatives for New Mexico and Vickie Crenshaw donated much of their time and expertise.
“Restoring the Lister Building was an urgent need for the Lovington community, and it would not have been possible without the outstanding support of everyone involved,” Harris said. “Working together, the team showed a great commitment to southeastern New Mexico and helped preserve a piece of our history. Best of all, the roof is performing great and we couldn’t be happier.”
US National CAD Standard Revison Cycle
If you think the NCS needs to be modified, now is your time to change it the ballot submission period is now open. The ballot submission period is the method by which the changes to the NCS are proposed, debated and ultimately voted upon to amend the current version of the NCS. Each proposed amendment must be documented on an NCS ballot form. Three forms have been developed to submit a proposed change to the NCS:
· a CAD Layers Ballot Form,
· a UDS Symbols Ballot Form, and
· a general Multiple Components Ballot Form for amendments other than layers or symbols amendments.
The forms must be submitted through the balloting module of the portal. Ballot forms are located on the balloting tab of the collaboration portal.
To gain access to the member portal go the NCS website at www.buildingsmartalliance.org/index.php/ncs/ and click on the “Member Portal Login” link.
We invite you take a tour of the new collaboration site by clicking on the “Take a Tour” video located on the portal landing page. The portal overview and the NCS balloting overview videos describe how to navigate, use, and submit a ballot to amend the current version of the NCS.
The ballot submission period will run through February 6, 2010.
NM Tri-Labs Project Presentation
Dear CSI Albuquerque Members and Friends,
This month’s president’s message highlights a change in our December 14th luncheon program. Our planned presenter had a conflict and will not be able to attend. We are fortunate to announce that the new December program will showcase the New Mexico Tri-Lab Building currently completing construction in Albuquerque. The presentation will be given by representatives of Jaynes Corporation General Contractors who are building the project.
The NM Tri-Labs project is truly a great and unique example of home-grown innovation in local construction delivery. As a case study, it is instructive in many ways. First of all, the building type itself is amazingly complex and an enormous amount of attention to detail in the planning and design stage was obviously demanded from the architects, Studio Southwest Architects, Inc. The presentation by Jaynes will briefly explain the qualifications-based process used to select the contractor and will go into detail on the creative tools and systems that are being used to administer the construction. This will be a good opportunity for our members to hear about such things as BIM, electronic submittals, creative tools used for quality assurance in the field, employment of special consultants by the contractor, and commissioning – just to name a few. The local nature of this project lends special educational value to this program since we hear about many new means and methods of constructing a project, but have few opportunities to hear from local companies who are actually exploring them. BIM is a great example of a national trend in design and construction technology that for many reasons, has not reached its full potential in New Mexico. Here we have a case study that shows the value of BIM, which, even in its limited use on the project, illustrates some cost and time saving benefits. It also makes us think of taking the next logical step to more extensive implementation. As more design firms become comfortable with and knowledgeable about incorporating BIM produced by parties usually not part of the design team (subcontractors), the full potential of the technology will be approached. As we know in New Mexico, it takes a while to absorb and decide how to utilize new things happening elsewhere in the U.S. whole-hog. No one wants to be a ‘guinea pig,’ and most often, for good reason. But here we have some local folks dipping their toe in the water of innovation and they seem to like it. I assume they also consider the experience to be profitable to the bottom line for most everyone involved. Come to the December 14th luncheon presentation and be well-prepared to ask questions. Did I also mention that they are striving to achieve LEED Silver?
See you there,
Andre Larroque, CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA, NCARB
To Tweet or Not to Tweet / A Tale of Two Thoughts
And with an uncanny stroke of eeriness a day later, I had the exact same experience during a CSI webinar for the Product Representation Practice Group. The main hot topic of discussion was how to evolve manufacturers’ websites to the design professionals’ needs. And I didn’t say it, but I was thinking it the whole time: why? If you were to ask me to support switching over (100%) to electronic design manuals in architectural libraries, for electronic submittals in lieu of antiquated, file-hogging hard copies, and doing take-offs completely online, I would be first in line; heck, I would camp out two nights before just to be the first in line. But that’s not the answer. That is to say, this switch will never be done effectively 100%, and it will never be perfect or even close to perfect.
Design professionals need the human touch. They need that product representative – not just to puke out product information or pass along a three part CSI formatted specification for any given product, but to give their assessment for any given project in the construction process. Notice: I didn’t say “sales” representative. If you want a sales representative, go to Lowe’s. Because believe it or not, most of your “product” representatives know more about their product line(s) than you will ever want to know. If you want a project to be a success, don’t turn away any product representative that shows up at your office. You will never find anyone more in touch with the human condition than a person that wants to talk to you, face to face.
In my opinion, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. This is my blog, and it doesn’t make me right. But it doesn’t make me wrong . . .
