151209 SMU Outback Quad Redev Pkg-EmailSpreads (1)

ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY
OUTBACK RESIDENCE QUAD REDEVELOPMENT PACKAGE
December 9, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION
02 Narrative
03 Campus & Outback Site Orientation
04 Existing Site Plan
05 Goals & Objectives | Student Survey Results
06 Relationship to Campus Services
07 Utility Infrastructure
08 Infrastructure: Campus Map & Narrative
09 Parking: Narrative (continued) & Parking by Space Type
10 Parking Audit: Chart by Time of Day
11 Parking Audit: Chart by Time of Day (continued)
& Relationship to Campus Infrastructure Food Service
SITE REDEVELOPMENT
12 Phases 1: Plans- Redevelopment and Complete
18 Phases 4A: Plans- Redevelopment and Complete
20 Phases 4B: Plans- Redevelopment and Complete
22 Common Amenities: Narrative, Plans,
& Concept Imagery
27 Site Plan Redevelopment Complete
28 Perspective Views Redevelopment Complete
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1
30 Narrative
31 Program Chart: Space Tabulation- Preliminary Phase 1
32 Concept Plan & 3D View: Level 1
34 Concept Plan & 3D View: Levels 2-4 Typical Residential
36 Concept Plan & 3D View: Level 1 Enlarged Public Space
38 Concept Plan & 3D View: Levels 2-4
Enlarged Public Space
40 Concept Plan & 3D View: Unit Type
42 Building Massing & Character Views- w/o Shaded Entry
44 Building Massing & Character Views- with Shaded Entry
46 Building Elevation & Exterior Materials Imagery
47 Specification Narrative Summary- Refer to Appendix
FINANCIAL PLAN & ANALYSIS
48 Total Project Cost Estimate & Room Rate Narrative
49 Room Rate Analysis & Scenario- Summary Chart
50 Projected Room Rate Structure: 2015-2020
51 Projected Room Rate Structure: 2021-2027
52 Project Assumptions
53 Project Summary
54 Model E Financing Chart
55 Model E Financing Narrative
56 CHG-SP2018 moved in Chart
57 Project Schedule- Narrative
58 Project Schedule- Phase 1
59 Project Schedule- Overall Outback Redevelopment
60 Acknowledgements
61 Back Cover & Consultant Contact Information
APPENDIX
62 Outline Specification Narrative- Architectural
73 Outline Specification Narrative- MEP

ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY - OUTBACK RESIDENCES
Development Package
December 9, 2015
32
Development Package
December 9, 2015
BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION
NARRATIVE CAMPUS & OUTBACK SITE ORIENTATION
ST. MARY’S UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
OUTBACK RESIDENCES
Introduction and Background
As recommended in the July 27, 2015 Strategic Housing Plan submitted by Pegasus Group, St. Mary’s University has proceeded
to develop a plan to replace, upgrade and diversify its on-campus student housing inventory. Pegasus Group and Elness,
Swenson, Graham (ESG) were retained to complete a phased Redevelopment Plan of the Outback area of the campus as well as
a pre-design study for the Phase 1 new student housing facility.
The Redevelopment Plan created through this process will guide each phase of work by outlining the physical development
parameters available to support the evolving campus living expectations of current and future students. The plan allows St.
Mary’s to identify the target student cohort group(s) to be served by each new facility and design the facility to meet those
specific needs while also creating common amenities between the buildings to serve all students living on campus. The phased
Redevelopment Plan has been created so it can be implemented in a manner that eliminates any loss of current or future bed
count during construction. The Redevelopment Plan requires St. Mary’s to assess the perceived future success of the new
student housing and the desire of new additional students to live on campus prior to commencing any phase of development.
It is critical to ensure that the construction of new student housing and increasing the supply of on-campus beds will result
in new additional students actually living on campus without significant increase to the overall vacancy rate. This phased
approach to the redevelopment of the Outback will allow the institution to pause at the end of each phase and determine
when they want to proceed onto the next phase. At the conclusion of each phase, the institution should assess the plan that
was created and update it for future phases of the redevelopment.
Complimentary to this Redevelopment Plan, St. Mary’s has also developed a plan to renovate, update and refresh other existing
student housing buildings on campus to ensure that they serve the institution and students well going into the future.
The predesign study for the Phase 1 building defines the capital project, in context of the overall Redevelopment Plan prior to
initiating design work. The study outlines the common understanding of all stakeholders as to the physical and programmatic
requirements, and establishes the preliminary scope for the project. This information is supplemented with images from a high
level masterplan perspective, a conceptual (order of magnitude) cost estimate and business analysis.
Portions of this study will become the basis for the development of a Request for Proposal for Design-Build Services for the
Phase 1 project. The goal is to have that new facility in place in time for students to move into it in August of 2017.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
54
Development Package
December 9, 2015
EXISTING OUTBACK SITE GOALS & OBJECTIVES
INCLUDING STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS
Goals and Objectives
The primary target market of the Phase 1 housing project are Juniors and Seniors. As identified in the Strategic Housing Plan,
a significant drop in students living on campus occurs between the second (sophomore) and third (junior) year. A goal of the
Phase 1 housing project is to create an on-campus student housing product that is similar in nature to what many Juniors are
moving off campus to live in. Simply described, this is a suite with private bedrooms, dedicated bathrooms, a living room and
kitchenette. This will help achieve the goal of modernizing and diversifying the on-campus student housing inventory.
A secondary target market may be sophomore students and the ability of such a facility to not only keep them living on campus
but even more basically keep them in school at St. Mary’s. The second goal of this facility and the entire redevelopment
of the Outback area is to aid in the recruitment and retention of students. This redevelopment will allow the institution to
demonstrate to students an on-campus life style they can experience at St. Mary’s through their undergraduate years. This life
style can be characterized by a student housing system that provides for facilities that resident students progress through with
increased privacy, amenities and freedoms as they matriculate through their academic careers. This on-campus life style is
further promoted by providing common amenities that will help make St. Mary’s the place to be from a student life perspective.
These amenities could include a pool, sport courts, grill stations/picnic areas, an amphitheater, etc.
Another goal of this project is to reduce the deferred maintenance on existing on-campus student housing facilities. This will be
achieved by razing two existing facilities after the new Phase 1 facility is completed and occupied. A similar approach of build
and teardown is planned in subsequent phases. The strategy of an institution building itself out of deferred maintenance is a
common approach in Higher Education.
A fourth goal is to design and build a facility that is financially viable within the revenue and expense constraints of the
Residential Life Department and the on-campus student housing system acting as a self-supporting business entity within the
structure of St. Mary’s University.
It is the objective of the phased redevelopment plan that it be planned and implemented in such a manner that there is no loss
of any current (or future) bed count during construction. Additionally, the redevelopment of the Outback is planned to occur
without the loss of parking spaces that currently border the site.
The redevelopment plan must be flexible and prepared to address the ever changing landscape of Higher Education. This would
include being able to address such matters as:
• enrollment planning and future projections
• the evolving wants, needs and desires of students – from both the recruitment and retention perspectives
• competition from other local institutions
• competition from private housing development
Ultimately the goal of the phased redevelopment of the Outback and the renovation of other existing student housing facilities
is to create an on-campus student housing system that provides a progression of betterments that excites the students and
encourages them to stay at St. Mary’s and to live on campus. It is important to realize that when St. Mary’s is recruiting
potential students that they are promoting not only the virtues of their Marianist background and academic programs, but
they are also promoting the place where students will live and grow into adulthood and not just student housing. St. Mary’s
projection of this life style can be as important in the student’s decision making process of what college/university they will
attend as any other factor. The ability for the institution to be able to support first year students as they transition from being
dependents living at home to their first year of being independent young adults living on campus; while at the same time
providing an environment of growth and respect for seniors who are looking forward to graduation and starting their chosen
career is part of the formula for institutional success.
These goals and objectives are supported by the results of a survey of students who lived on campus Spring Semester 2015
and are enrolled at St. Mary’s for the 2015 Fall Semester but are now living off campus. A few points of interest from this
information:
• 74% of these students that are now living off campus lived on campus for at least two years.
• 77% indicated that their residence hall experience was great or at least met their expectations
• 77% of these students moved into apartments with the balance moving into single family homes.
• 81% of these students now live more than five miles away from campus
• There is a very equal split of these students living by themselves or having 1, 2 or 3 roommates
• 85% of these students now have their own private bedroom
• There is generally equal split between having their own private bathroom
and having to share a bathroom with their roommate(s).
• The primary reasons these students liked living on campus was convenience –
to classes, to friends, to activities/events, etc.
• Some of the comments provided as to what was not good about living on campus included:
o Shared bedrooms
o Community bathrooms and shared adjoining bathrooms
o 3 roommates per room
o Mandatory meal plan and meal plan options
o Price wasn’t worth it (old building, insufficient amenities)
o The circumstances which upper class men had to live in was unsatisfying
• Some comments regarding what could be done to improve the on-campus living experience:
o New updated dorms for the 21st century
o Meal plan where you pay only for the days you use it
o Cafeteria open earlier on weekend
o Maximum of two roommates per room
o Provide a kitchen where students can cook
• Other recent surveys residential students have also indicated their desire for amenities including: pool in closer
proximity to the residence hall, additional gathering and meeting spaces, kitchens, and outdoor sport courts.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
76
Development Package
December 9, 2015
00 Existing Site Plan
RELATIONSHIP TO CAMPUS SERVICES UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Utility Infrastructure:
Preliminary high-level investigation and discussion has lead the
team to conclude that to ensure continuity of current operation that
connecting to the existing campus central utility system for electricity
and chilled water services will be very challenging with the Phase 1
student housing project being located in the northwest corner of the
site. Further investigation and design needs to determine how best to
utilize the existing central utility system in subsequent phases of the
Outback Redevelopment. The team has concluded that for the Phase
1 building the Design-Builder will be asked to work with the campus
Facilities staff and the local electrical utility to have a new electrical
service provided off of NW 36th Street to serve Phase 1 and possibly
other future phases of construction. Additionally rather than tie into
the central chilled water system, the air conditioning of the new facility
will be provided with an air-cooled chiller. The tele/data infrastructure
that serves the Outback currently radiates out to the other buildings
from a Main Point of Presence (MPOP) located in John Donohoo Hall.
It has been determined that a new fiber will run from Charles Francis
to the new Residence Hall via the current underground conduit system
is the preferred approach. This will allow for a new MPOP to be
developed in the new Residence Hall to serve the redevelopment of this
area and allow the existing system to be removed through the phased
redevelopment plan.
The utility infrastructure identified on pages 6 and 7 are diagrammatic in
nature and may not accurately represent existing underground locations.
The actual location of the underground utility system for the entire
Outback area must be documented in the near future in association with
the Phase 1 Design-Build Team to allow for the appropriate planning and
placement of potential site amenities (clubhouse/community building,
pools, sport courts, amphitheater, etc.).
Relationship to Campus Services:
The redevelopment of the Outback must be thoughtfully planned and
executed to minimize the disruption that such a physical development
can create. Consideration must be given to the campus as a whole, to
the students that reside in that area during the academic year and also
to the campus services that provide support. Three important services
to focus on are utility infrastructure, parking and food service.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
98
Development Package
December 9, 2015
PARKING
CAMPUS MAP & NARRATIVE
PARKING
SPACES BY TYPE CHART
Parking Analysis:
The primary question or concern is, “Will the campus have sufficient
parking if more students are living on campus?” A campus map
identifying all parking lots as well as a chart showing the number of
spaces per lot and current usage designation are provided on this and
the adjoining page. A survey of parking usage was completed by the
Campus Police Department between August 26 and September 8, 2015.
On pages 10 – 11 are the actual count of vacant spaces at 9:30am,
2:30pm and Midnight of those days.
So as not to be influenced by the fact that the School of Business
currently does not teach classes on Friday, the analysis of available
parking spaces during the day on Mondays through Thursdays shows
a range of 722 – 809 available parking spaces. Also, the number of
available student parking spaces at midnight during this time period was
619.
This suggests that based upon the current undergraduate enrollment
of approximately 2,250 students with a goal of increasing that to
approximately 2,500, there is sufficient existing parking on campus to
support more students in total and more students living on campus.
If students currently living off campus move back onto campus that
is simply the transfer of a student vehicle from a commuter student
category to a resident category, requiring the same number of parking
spaces. The required number of parking spaces can also be controlled
by policy. For example, a policy could be put in place that either does
not allow first year students to have a car on campus or that first
year students would have the last choice of where student parking
credentials are assigned. 171 resident freshmen have credentials to
park on campus for the Fall 2015 semester.
Parking Strategy:
The larger strategic issue to address is where
resident students park on campus. Currently,
students are provided credentials to park in a lot
as close as possible to their residence hall. When
the Outback is fully redeveloped there would be
approximately 1,400 students living “south of the
moat”. At present, there are 578 spaces in the
Outback area in parking lots M, N, O, Q and R.
There are another 333 spaces near the Outback
in parking lots G, H and W. 8% of the Fall 2015
semester resident students have on-campus parking
credentials. Of the 634 resident students with
parking credentials, 171 or 27% are freshmen, 118
or 19% are sophomores, 153 or 24% are juniors,
172 or 27% are seniors and 20 or 3% are graduate
students. In the future, if more juniors and seniors
are living on campus, the overall percentage of
resident students requesting parking credentials
is likely to increase as that group of students are
more likely to have a car than first and second year
students.
Many campuses assign student parking based upon
class rank, with seniors getting the first choice of
parking, then juniors, sophomores and finally first
year students. Creating an area where first and
second year resident students park in Lots C and D,
for example, may also influence whether they bring
a car to campus or not.
Based on our work with other institutions in
other parts of the country, this would typically be
sufficient information to seek a variance from the
local authorities having jurisdiction as to the need to
add additional parking for the additional beds being
built on campus; at least for Phase 1. Future parking
studies will need to be made prior to the start of
subsequent phases of construction that results
in additional students living on campus to gauge
whether sufficient parking exists.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
1110
Development Package
December 9, 2015
PARKING AUDIT CHART
AM/PM SPACES AVAILABLE
PARKING AUDIT CHART (CONT’D)
& FOOD SERVICE
Food Service:
The completion of the Phase 1 facility will result in the addition of 116 students living on campus and presumably onto the Meal Plan system. Campus Food Service believes they generally have
capacity within their current facilities to serve these students. The only limiting factor is the existing back of house storage. Additional storage may be needed and should be reviewed and addressed
prior to the opening of the Phase 1 facility in August 2017.
Recognizing that students living in the Phase 1 facility will have kitchenettes and some level of food preparation available to them in their living space, St. Mary’s may want to consider creating a
special meal plan for these students.
As future phases of this redevelopment occur food service must be reevaluated. Bringing some types of food service to the Outback and having it centrally located in the Community Center/
Clubhouse will help provide the convenience students desire as well as expanding the options available to them.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
1312
Development Package
December 9, 2015
SITE DEVELOPMENTSITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN PHASE #1
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN PHASE #1
COMPLETE
LEIES
CREMER
ADELE
FLORES
DONOHOO
FREDERICK
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
234-Bed Building
Site Amenity- Pool
Pedestrian Link
Amenity
Transformer
Mechanical Unit
Entry
Open Recreation
LEIES
CREMER
DONOHOO
FREDERICK
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
Demolish Existing Halls
PHASE #1 Building
Redevelopment Plan Phase 1:
The Redevelopment Plan guides each phase of work. Each phase of work starts with the design process for the facilities to be constructed during that phase. Reassessment of the
Redevelopment Plan between phases as well as developing a predesign plan for the upcoming phase is critical to keeping the overall process proceeding in the desired time frame. The
team believes that the following phased plan will result in the least disruption to the campus and allow for a planned expansion of the utility infrastructure to serve this area of campus.
Phase 1 would design and construct in the northwest quadrant of the Outback (north of Leies and west of John Donohoo) a new student residence facility. Phase 1 would include 118
beds to replace those existing in Adele and Flores. 116 additional beds would be added to create a four story 234 bed residence facility. Phase 1 would conclude with the demolition of
Adele and Flores Halls. The design capacity of on-campus student housing would now be 1,505 (1,389 + 116).

Development Package
December 9, 2015
1514
Development Package
December 9, 2015
LEIES
CREMER
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
LEIES
CREMER
DONOHOO
FREDERICK
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
PLAN PHASE #2
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN PHASE #2
COMPLETE
Entry
Open Recreation
Site Amenity- Clubhouse
234-Bed Building
Phase #1
Complete
PHASE #2 BuildingDemolish Existing
Halls
For diagrammatic and planning purposes only the 234 beds planned for Phase 1 will be replicated in future phases. The future actual program and design may vary based upon the
needs of the institution and the timing of the redevelopment phase. This will be part of the review and reassessment of the Redevelopment Plan between phases as well as developing a
predesign plan for the upcoming phase. The site for Phase 2 is generally the area of the former Adele and Flores buildings. Phase 2 would be the design and construction of a facility that
will replace the 110 beds that currently exist in John Donohoo and Anthony Frederick Halls. 124 additional beds would be added to create a four story 234 bed residence facility. Phase 2
would conclude with the demolition of John Donohoo and Anthony Frederick Halls. The design capacity of on-campus student housing would now be 1,629 (1,505 + 124). The conclusion
of Phase 2 represents the addition of 240 new beds on campus, plus the conversion of 228 beds to more contemporary student housing.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
1716
Development Package
December 9, 2015
LEIES
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
LEIES
CREMER
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
PLAN PHASE #3
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN PHASE #3
COMPLETE
Entry
Demolish Existing Hall
Phase #3 Building
234-Bed Building
Open Recreation
Phase #2 Complete
The site for Phase 3 is generally the area of the former John Donohoo and Anthony Frederick buildings. Phase 3 would be the design and construction of a facility that
will accommodate the 90 beds that currently exist in Cremer Hall, as well as 144 additional new beds. Phase 3 would conclude with the demolition of Cremer. The design
capacity of on-campus student housing would now be 1,773 (1,629 + 144). At the end of Phase 3, 388 new beds will have been added to campus, plus the conversion of
318 beds to more contemporary student housing. The redevelopment of the Outback to this point would bring the on-campus designed housing capacity to 71% of an
undergraduate population of 2,500.
Site Amenity - Sport Courts

Development Package
December 9, 2015
1918
Development Package
December 9, 2015
LEIES
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
PLAN PHASE #4A
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN PHASE #4A
COMPLETE
Build Cluster/
Townhouse
Residences
Demolish
Existing Hall
Leies
OUR LADY OFLOURDES
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
Phase #4
Cluster/Townhouse
Residences Complete
Site Amenity
Phase #3 Complete
Redevelopment Phase 4A:
Phase 4 is split into two parts, with 234 total beds planned to be constructed during this split phase. Phase 4 contemplates the addition of a new style of student housing to the campus
– Senior Townhomes. This would provide the opportunity for St. Mary’s to provide more independent living to prepare students for the responsibilities they’ll likely have after graduation
as they start their professional careers. Phase 4A is generally the area of the former Cremer building. Phase 4A would be the design and construction of a facility that will accommodate
the 80 beds that currently exist in Leies Hall, as well as 37 additional new beds. Phase 4A would conclude with the demolition of Leies. The design capacity of on-campus student housing
would now be 1,810 (1,773 + 37).

Development Package
December 9, 2015
2120
Development Package
December 9, 2015
OUR LADY OF LOURDES
PLAN PHASE #4B
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN PHASE #4B
COMPLETE
Build Cluster/
Townhouse
Residences
Phase #4B
Cluster/Townhouse Residences
CompleteDemolish Existing Hall
Phase #4A
Complete
Redevelopment Phase 4B:
Phase 4B is generally the area of the former Leies building. Phase 4B would be the design and construction of a facility that will accommodate the 104 beds that currently exist in Lourdes
Hall, as well as 13 additional new beds. Phase 4B would conclude with the demolition of Lourdes. The design capacity of on-campus student housing would now be 1,823 (1,810 + 13).
At the end of Phase 4, 434 new beds will have been added to campus, plus the conversion of 502 beds to more contemporary student housing. The final redevelopment of the Outback
results in an on-campus designed housing capacity of 73% of an undergraduate population of 2,500.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
2322
Development Package
December 9, 2015
COMMON AMENITIES
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
NARRATIVE
Site Development and Site Amenities:
In addition to creating new student housing facilities, the redevelopment of the Outback should also include recreating the site or the outdoor area between
the buildings with amenities that are desired by and would be available to be used by all students that live on campus. These outdoor elements complete the
on-campus student living environment.
While these elements should be planned with the end condition in mind, an important concept of the phased redevelopment plan for the Outback is the
approach that each phase of development must include and pay for some site amenities. The development of amenities could also be planned to be added
to the site between the phases of construction of the student housing facilities.
The amenities shown on the following pages include an additional pedestrian bridge across the aqueduct, a community building or clubhouse, a pool, sport
courts, an amphitheater and grill stations/outdoor eating areas. Additionally, a comprehensive landscaping program should be implemented to compliment
the building and site amenities. The landscaping by itself can also create site amenities or destinations for less structured activates than identified in the list
above. Areas to sit and read, for friends to meet, to toss a football around, etc. are all important elements of the complete redevelopment of the Outback.
BRIDGE
PEDESTRIAN PATH

Development Package
December 9, 2015
2524
Development Package
December 9, 2015
COMMON AMENITIES
POOL & COMMUNITY BUILDING
COMMON AMENITIES
ACTIVITIES / VOLLEYBALL
POOL POOL/SHOWER
BUILDING
CLUB HOUSE/
RECREATION BUILDING

Development Package
December 9, 2015
2726
Development Package
December 9, 2015
SITE & BUILDING PLAN - COMPLETECOMMON AMENITIES
THEATER
FOUNDERS
DOUGHERTY
PHASE 1
RESIDENCE HALL
PHASE 3RESIDENCE HALL
PHASE 2
RESIDENCE HALL
PHASE 4A
Cluster/Townhomes
PHASE4B
Cluster/Townhom
es

Development Package
December 9, 2015
2928
Development Package
December 9, 2015
BUILDING MASSING & CHARACTER
VIEW WEST
VIEW EAST
PHASE 4B PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 4A
PHASE 4 AMENITY:
THEATER
PHASE TBD AMENITY:
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE &
PEDESTRIAN PATH
PHASE 3 AMENITY:
SPORT COURTS
PHASE 2 AMENITY:
CLUBHOUSE
PHASE 1 AMENITY:
POOL & SHOWER PAVILLION
PHASE 1
PHASE 3
PHASE TBD AMENITY:
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE &
PEDESTRIAN PATH
PHASE 3 AMENITY:
SPORT COURTS
PHASE 1 AMENITY:
POOL &
SHOWER PAVILLION
PHASE 4B
PHASE 2
PHASE 4A
PHASE 4 AMENITY:
THEATER
PHASE 2 AMENITY:
CLUBHOUSE

Development Package
December 9, 2015
3130
Development Package
December 9, 2015
BUILDING DEVELOPMENTBUILDING DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM & SPACE REQUIREMENTS
PRELIMINARY PHASE 1
PHASE 1 NARRATIVE SUMMARY
SEE APPENDIX
Phase 1 Building Concept Program and Plan
The Phase 1 building as depicted is a 92,900 gross square foot (GSF)
building resulting in 88,495 net square feet (NSF) of space for the 234
student beds identified.
This results in metrics of:
• 397 GSF/Bed
• 378 NSF/Bed
The preliminary program identified on page 31 is the basis for the
concept plan and will need to be verified by the design team of record.
A four bedroom suite is depicted as 1,100 square feet (275 square feet
per bed), which includes a living room, kitchenette and two bathrooms.
The bedrooms are shown as 106 square feet.
The building massing and character, along with the building elevation
and exterior materials, provides a visual representation of the facility at
this pre-design stage.
The amenities that will be explored with the Phase 1 Design-Build Team
will be:
• Pool with shade structure and support facility
• Roof top solar panels to provide solar power to heat the pool or
a solar hot water system for the building
• Grill station(s) with shade structure and eating area
• Building entry trellis

Development Package
December 9, 2015
3332
Development Package
December 9, 2015
CONCEPT PLAN
LEVEL 1
CONCEPT VIEW
LEVEL 1
COLOR KEY
QUAD ENTRY
CIRCULATION
CIRCULATION VERTICAL
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE (LIVING)
SHOWER / RESTROOM
ADMINISTRATION
SERVICE / STORAGE
LAUNDRY
CLUB/GAME
ROOM
ENTRY PATIO W/ SHADE
AMENITY STRUCTURE ABOVE
ENTRY/ ARRIVAL PATH
FRONT DESK
WORK ROOM
OFFICE
UNISEX TOILET
MAILBOXES
ELEVATORS
CENTRAL STAIR
CONF/STUDY
VESTIBULE
PARKING
QUAD / COMMONS
PATIO
STORAGE &
MECHANICAL
MAIN ELECTRICAL
WATER/BOILER
STAIR
STAIR
ENTRY FROM
PARKING
IT MDF
TRASH/RECYCLE CENTRAL

Development Package
December 9, 2015
3534
Development Package
December 9, 2015
CONCEPT PLAN
LEVELS 2-4 RESIDENTIAL
CONCEPT VIEW
LEVELS 2-4 RESIDENTIAL
COLOR KEY
QUAD ENTRY
CIRCULATION
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE (LIVING)
SHOWER / RESTROOM
ADMINISTRATION
SERVICE / STORAGE
4-BED SUITE UNIT
51’-2”W x 22’-2”D
1100 SF
275 SF/BED
LAUNDRY &
TRASH/RECYCLING
LOUNGE /
COMMUNITY SPACE
ELEVATOR LOBBY
CENTRAL STAIR
CONF/STUDY
PARKING
QUAD / COMMONS
STORAGE &
MECHANICAL
STAIRSTAIR
IT CLOSET

Development Package
December 9, 2015
3736
Development Package
December 9, 2015
CONCEPT ENLARGED VIEWS
LEVEL 1 PUBLIC SPACE & ENTRY
OPPOSITE VIEW
LOBBY LIVING ROOM
VIEW
LOBBY RECEPTION
CONCEPT ENLARGED PLAN
LEVEL 1 PUBLIC SPACE & ENTRY
COLOR KEY
QUAD ENTRY
CIRCULATION
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE (LIVING)
SHOWER / RESTROOM
ADMINISTRATION
SERVICE / STORAGE
RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR
(SECURITY POINT)
PARKING
ENTRY PATIO
CLUB/GAME ROOM
613 SF
QUAD / COMMONS
ENTRY PATIO W/ AMENITY SHADE
STRUCTURE ABOVE ENTRY PATIO
ENTRY/ ARRIVAL PATH
ENTRY/ ARRIVAL PATH
KITCHEN
200 SF
CONF/STUDY
200 SF
FRONT DESK
101 SF
WORK ROOM/ MAIL
194 SF
OFFICE
96 SF
UNISEX TOILET
79 SF
MAIL BOXES
ELEVATOR LOBBY
CENTRAL STAIR
CONF/STUDY
81 SF
(SECURITY POINT)
VESTIBULE
PLANTING / GREEN
SHADING
WINDOW SHADING
VESTIBULE
ENTRY ROOF / SHADING
CUSTODIAL
21 SF
IT DATA MDF
143 SF

Development Package
December 9, 2015
3938
Development Package
December 9, 2015
CONCEPT ENLARGED VIEW
LEVELS 2-4 PUBLIC SPACE
CONCEPT ENLARGED PLAN
LEVELS 2-4 PUBLIC SPACE
COLOR KEY
QUAD ENTRY
CIRCULATION
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE (LIVING)
SHOWER / RESTROOM
ADMINISTRATION
SERVICE / STORAGE
PARKING VIEW
QUAD / COMMONS VIEW
STUDY / “LANDING PAD”
59 SF
STUDY / “LANDING PAD”
58 SF
ELEVATOR LOBBY
CONF/STUDY
81 SF
LOUNGE
390 SF
LOUNGE / ACTIVE
538 SF
IT / COMMUNICATIONS
36 SF
CENTRAL STAIR

Development Package
December 9, 2015
4140
Development Package
December 9, 2015
UNIT TYPE - ENLARGED PLAN UNIT TYPE - ENLARGED VIEW
COLOR KEY
QUAD ENTRY
CIRCULATION
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE (LIVING)
SHOWER / RESTROOM
ADMINISTRATION
SERVICE / STORAGE
CLOSET
UNIT MECHANICAL
SINK / WET ROOM
TOILET / SHOWER
KITCHENETTE
+ SINK
+ MICROWAVE
+ REFRIGERATOR
SINGLE BED ROOM
106 SF
MOVABLE
4-SEAT ISLAND
SEATING
FOR 4
TV
DESK & CHAIR
LONG, TWIN
BED FRAME
DRESSER
48” CLOSET
WARDROBE
OR BUILT-IN
LIVING ROOM
4-BED SUITE UNIT
1100 SF
CORRIDOR
ACCESS TO
MECHANICAL
5’-6”
5’-7”
3’-0”
9”
2’-4”

Development Package
December 9, 2015
4342
Development Package
December 9, 2015
(WITHOUT SHADED ENTRY)
(WITHOUT SHADED ENTRY)

Development Package
December 9, 2015
4544
Development Package
December 9, 2015
WITH SHADED ENTRY
WITH SHADED ENTRY

Development Package
December 9, 2015
4746
Development Package
December 9, 2015
BUILDING ELEVATION
& EXTERIOR MATERIALS
SPECIFICATION NARRATIVE
Predesign Specification Narrative
An outline specification narrative was established by Elness
Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. to assist with the development of
the project cost estimate and to guide the Design-Build Team with the
Phase 1 project. The specification narrative, dated November 30, 2015,
can be found starting on page 62.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
4948
Development Package
December 9, 2015
FINANCIAL PLAN & ANALYSISFINANCIAL PLAN & ANALYSIS
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE ROOM RATE ANALYSIS & SCENARIO
SUMMARY CHART & NARRATIVE
Category D-B Team or Owner Estimated Cost Estimated Cost per Bed (234)
Construction Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
Preconstruction Services - constructability analysis, schedule
establishment, cost estimating, etc. D-B Team 117,000$ 125,000$ 500$ 534$
Construction - Sitework, Footings/Foundations, Structure,
Exterior Skin, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Framing,
Drywall, Flooring, Finishes, Permit, Construction
Administration, Insurance, etc. D-B Team 15,827,000$ 16,897,000$ 67,637$ 72,209$
Demolition of Existing Buildings D-B Team 400,000$ 400,000$ 1,709$ 1,709$
Subtotal - Construction 16,344,000$ 17,422,000$ 69,846$ 74,453$
Design & Engineering Fees
Architectural, Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical,
Interior Design, Code Consultant, Exterior Envelope
Consultant, Landscaping, etc.
D-B Team
985,000$ 1,051,000$ 4,209$ 4,491$
Design Team Reimbursable Expenses D-B Team 35,000$ 40,000$ 150$ 171$
Subtotal - Design & Engineering 1,020,000$ 1,091,000$ 4,359$ 4,662$
Testing & Environmental
Soils Testing – Borings St. Mary's 20,000$ 20,000$ 85$ 85$
Hazardous Material Testing St. Mary's 10,000$ 10,000$ 43$ 43$
Environmental Survey/Analysis
Phase I St. Mary's 1,000$ 1,000$ 4$ 4$
Phase II St. Mary's N/A N/A N/A N/A
Special Inspections / Testing St. Mary's 100,000$ 100,000$ 427$ 427$
Asbestos/Hazardous Material Abatement St. Mary's 50,000$ 50,000$ 214$ 214$
Subtotal - Testing & Environmental 181,000$ 181,000$ 774$ 774$
Real Estate, Financial and Legal
Survey St. Mary's 15,000$ 15,000$ 64$ 64$
Legal Fees St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction Loan Expenses St. Mary's 200,000$ 200,000$ 855$ 855$
Information Requirements for Lending Agency St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal - Real Estate & Financial 215,000$ 215,000$ 919$ 919$
Low Voltage & Technology Systems
Voice and Data Cabling Infrastructure to Building St. Mary's 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,068$ 1,068$
Voice and Data Equipment St. Mary's 250,000$ 250,000$ 1,068$ 1,068$
Security System - Surveillance Cameras St. Mary's 30,000$ 30,000$ 128$ 128$
Security System - Card Access St. Mary's 20,000$ 20,000$ 85$ 85$
Other Technology Expenses St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Cable TV St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal - Low Voltage & Technology Systems 550,000$ 550,000$ 2,350$ 2,350$
Furniture & Equipment
Furniture - Suites, Lobby/Lounge, Study Rooms, etc. St. Mary's 702,000$ 772,200$ 3,000$ 3,300$
Office Furniture St. Mary's 20,000$ 30,000$ 85$ 128$
Exterior Furniture St. Mary's 20,000$ 30,000$ 85$ 128$
Audio Visual Systems St. Mary's 15,000$ 20,000$ 64$ 85$
Vending Equipment St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Residential Appliances (Refrigerator, Microwave) St. Mary's 105,000$ 120,000$ 449$ 513$
Waste Handling Equipment/Recycling Centers St. Mary's 20,000$ 30,000$ 85$ 128$
Kitchen Equipment St. Mary's 40,000$ 50,000$ 171$ 214$
Laundry Equipment St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Building Signage & Graphics St. Mary's 20,000$ 35,000$ 85$ 150$
Custodial Equipment St. Mary's 25,000$ 40,000$ 107$ 171$
Maintenance Equipment St. Mary's 25,000$ 40,000$ 107$ 171$
Subtotal - Furniture & Equipment 992,000$ 1,167,200$ 4,239$ 4,988$
Other Owner/Miscellaneous
Ground Breaking Costs St. Mary's 5,000$ 5,000$ 21$ 21$
Grand Opening Costs St. Mary's 5,000$ 5,000$ 21$ 21$
Marketing Materials, Literature, etc. St. Mary's 15,000$ 15,000$ 64$ 64$
Commissioning Agent St. Mary's 25,000$ 25,000$ 107$ 107$
Audio-Visual / IT Consultant St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Owner’s Representative St. Mary's 300,000$ 300,000$ 1,282$ 1,282$
Moving Costs St. Mary's 10,000$ 10,000$ 43$ 43$
Builders Risk Insurance St. Mary's 81,557$ 87,068$ 349$ 372$
SAC/WAC Charges St. Mary's 5,000$ 5,000$ 21$ 21$
Park Dedication Fees St. Mary's -$ -$ -$ -$
Owner’s Project Contingency (5%) St. Mary's 987,428$ 1,053,913$ 4,220$ 4,504$
Subtotal - Other Owner/Miscellaneous 1,383,985$ 1,455,981$ 5,914$ 6,222$
TOTAL COSTS 20,685,985$ 22,082,181$ 88,402$ 94,368$
St. Mary's University - Phase 1 Student Housing Conceptual Budget Worksheet
November 19, 2015
Project Cost Estimate
The following estimate of likely design, construction
and other project costs was developed based upon the
preliminary program, the concept sketches and the
specification narrative.
Room Rate Analysis and Scenario
The chart below provides a comparison of
current (Fall 2015) single and double room
rates between St. Mary’s and seven other local/
regional Universities. Currently, the weighted
average room rate for St. Mary’s is about 22%
below the weighted average of the entire group of
institutions. Through the process of renovating/
refreshing existing facilities and redeveloping the
Outback it is the goal of St. Mary’s to bring their
weighted average room rate to that of the group
of peer institutions.
The chart on pages 50 - 51 provides a scenario
of how that can be achieved based upon
the anticipated schedule of renovation and
redevelopment. The basic strategy is threefold:
• when an existing facility is renovated/
refreshed that upon reopening a significant room
rate increase would be implemented
• when a new facility is constructed as part of
the redevelopment of the Outback, the room rate
for that student housing would be at a market
comparable rate to the other institutions
• It is assumed that the other institutions will
raise their room rates at an average of 3% per
year. St. Mary’s will raise the room rates for their
existing facilities at a higher rate.
As a result of the renovation/refreshing of existing
facilities, the redevelopment of the Outback
and the room rate strategy identified above, the
projected annual revenue from student housing
starts will increase from approximately $7M this
current year to about $15.5M in 2027-28.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
5150
Development Package
December 9, 2015
PROJECTED ROOM RATE STRUCTURE
2015 - 2020
PROJECTED ROOM RATE STRUCTURE
2021 - 2027

Development Package
December 9, 2015
5352
Development Package
December 9, 2015
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECTION - OCCUPANCY, COST, REVENUE AND NET REV OVER(UNDER) EXP
ASSMPTIONS:
1. Annual occupancy projected at 95% of available beds.
FY16 - additional rental revenue loss of $185,857, due to lower occupancy rate than projected.
2. Annual operating cost increase by 3%
3. Rent is provided by Tim and Eric, per DORM_RATE_ERIC worksheet
4. Debt payment remains constants for all financed dorms.
5. Phase_1 with 234 beds. Debt payment starts in FY18. A 25-year term, at 4% fixed rate, $93K/bed, total cost: $21,762K
This is subject to change on RFPs to financing institutions
6. Construction cost is based a 3% annual increase from Phase_1 of $93K for future phases
7. No policy change on mandatory requirement for Sophmore
8. FY16 published room rate as base for projection
9. New Dorms are all based on current Founder's operating cost with an annual increase cost of 3%
10. Renovation as a total cost reduction, not identified with dorms, at $800K annually after FY16. This is subject to change
11. Refresh cost is funded by housing surplus reserve. Might need to seek out for financing after FY20 for $1.5 million
12. Summer sessions and conference revenue at $100K annually
13. University funded housing grant is projected to be $600K in FY16 and increase by 5% annually
Housing - RenovationBuilding Analysis - Summary - for Report.xlsx
11/25/2015 8:47 AM
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28
Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp
Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount
Model_E(18,21,25,28,29) 352,562 (1,560,146) (689,394) (394,291) (215,194) (908,798) (134,118) 146,231 1,369,746 638,946 834,511 1,023,307 617,831
Model_B(18,21,24,27,28) 352,562 (1,560,146) (689,394) (394,291) (215,194) (908,798) (134,118) 146,231 496,233 698,861 894,426 495,310 498
Model_A(18,22,26,28,29) 352,562 (1,560,146) (689,394) (394,291) (215,194) (11,011) (179,054) 101,294 1,324,810 1,503,634 744,638 933,434 534,488
Model_C(18,22,24,26,27) 352,562 (1,560,146) (689,394) (394,291) (215,194) (11,011) (179,054) 101,294 451,296 653,925 275,217 (164,968) 54,877
Model_D(18,23,27,30,31) 352,562 (1,560,146) (689,394) (394,291) (215,194) (11,011) 734,515 (275,192) 938,423 1,107,010 1,267,791 828,666 1,037,707
Add'l Vacancy (185,857)
Projected Net: 166,705
If Moved in date change from
Fall 2017 to Spring 2018
Net Change: (45,000)
Reserve Bal: 2,346,000
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28
Vacancy Factor (5%) (372,316) (390,340) (453,947) (477,221) (499,925) (571,519) (595,275) (624,412) (709,565) (731,492) (767,220) (794,299) (818,128)
summer conference 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Refresh (2,600,000) (1,250,000) (1,250,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000)
Refresh - Leies (150,000)
Housing grants (600,000) (630,000) (661,500) (694,575) (729,304) (765,769) (804,057) (844,260) (886,473) (930,797) (977,337) (1,026,204) (1,077,514)
addl personnel needs
Annual Refresh (1,389,142) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000) (800,000)
TOTAL: (2,261,458) (4,470,340) (3,065,447) (3,121,796) (3,429,229) (3,537,288) (3,099,332) (3,168,672) (2,296,038) (2,362,289) (2,444,557) (2,520,503) (2,595,642)
FY17-FY28 FY17-FY27 FY17-FY28 FY17-FY26 FY17-FY30
FINANCING Model_E Model_B Model_A Model_C Model_D
Phase 1 21,762,000 21,762,000 21,762,000 21,762,000 21,762,000
Phase 2 23,868,000 23,868,000 24,570,000 24,570,000 25,272,000
Phase 3 26,910,000 25,974,000 27,612,000 25,974,000 28,548,000
Phase 4A 12,852,000 12,342,000 12,750,000 12,036,000 13,566,000
Phase 4B 13,260,000 12,750,000 13,158,000 12,444,000 13,974,000
Total 98,652,000 96,696,000 99,852,000 96,786,000 103,122,000
Construction Starts FYXX - Phase 1 thruough Phase 4B
Residence Housing Project Projection
Assumed Moved In Date : Fall 2017 (FY18)
ITEMIZED INFORMATION INCLUDED ON THE ABOVE TOTAL
Project Financial Analysis
The following pages of financial information were developed by Mei Lin
Lee of St. Mary’s University to provide financial analysis of the Outback
Redevelopment plan as well as the renovation/updating of existing
student housing facilities to remain.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
5554
Development Package
December 9, 2015
MODEL E FINANCING - CHART MODEL E FINANCING - NARRATIVE
Funded by
Dorm Name Start Date End Date FISCAL YR Financing Amt Reserve
Chaminade Summer 15 Summer 16 FY16&17 2,300,000 (2,300,000)
Founders Summer 16 Summer 16 FY17 300,000 (300,000)
Demolition_1 Fall 17 FY18 (2,600,000)
Treadaway Summer 17 Summer 18 FY18&19 2,500,000 (2,500,000)
Dougherty Summer 19 Summer 20 FY20&21 3,000,000 (3,000,000)
Demolition_2 Fall 20 FY20
Marian Summer 21 Summer 22 FY22&23 2,000,000 (2,000,000)
Demotion_3 Fall 23 FY23
Demotion_4 Fall 26 FY26 Total: 10,100,000 annual cost increase
beds Rate Terms 3% waiting
New_1 (250 beds) Summer 16 Summer 17 FY17&FY18 93,000 21,762,000 234 4% 25 per bed years rounded
FY18 Debt Payment Starts 1,393,028 2,977
Phase_2 Summer 19 Summer 20 FY20&FY21 102,000 23,868,000 234 4% 25 101,623.61 3 102,000
Phase_4A Summer 26 Summer 27 FY26&FY27 126,000 12,852,000 102 4% 25 125,663.61 3 126,000
FY28 Debt Payment Starts 822,682 4,033
Phase_4B Summer 27 Summer 28 FY28&FY29 130,000 13,260,000 102 4% 25 129,780.00 1 130,000
FY29 Debt Payment Starts 848,799 4,161 11
Total: 98,652,000
Housing Reverve Projection
Reserve Balance @9.28.2015 2,346,000
Summary of Key Residence Halls and Deferred Maintenance Costs
Considering the overall size, cost of new construction and build quality, the following buildings are viewed by facilities as residence halls that should be considered for a full
reinvestment of deferred maintenance - Chaminade Hall, Founders Hall, Marian Hall, Treadaway Hall, and Dougherty Hall.
Chaminade Hall is a four floor hall built in 1953 standing adjacent to St.Louis Hall and Reinbolt Hall at the front of campus. The building is on a solid foundation and has experienced
very little settling over the years. Its central location has made it a favorite for the student population particularly amongst the law, graduate and older student population. A major
refresh renovation began in the summer of 2015 that includes: new HVAC, new raised ceilings, new walls, vanity, sinks, flooring, furniture, paint, lighting, tile in bathrooms and a
refurbishment of the laundry and shared spaces. This work also includes the updating of the hot and chilled water lines inside the building, enhancements to the mechanical rooms
and the addition of new isolation valves on each floor. The project is currently being approached on a floor-by-floor basis with the basement scheduled for completion in the Fall of
2015 and each subsequent floor being considered for each corresponding semester. If the project continues as outlined, the completion date will land in spring 2017. Current
estimates of work place the total cost of renovation at 2.5-3M with approximately 700K already expended for the first floor for a total of 1.8-2.3M remaining.
Treadaway Hall is a five floor, multi-use facility built in 1965. Treadaway Hall houses student residence, classrooms, faculty offices, various storage facilities and a campus chapel.
While the building presents various challenges for rehabilitation particularly with respect rooms size and accessibility issues, the building’s solid construction, multi-use and overall
size make it an ideal candidate for rehabilitation. A further consideration is that Treadaway Hall is currently the only hall available as single room occupancy. In spite of the room’s
diminutive size, this privacy creates a unique niche that students are drawn to. Recent rehabilitation efforts have outlined furniture layouts that significantly increase the overall
useable space in a room and offer a modern refresh on the dated building. Utilizing numbers provided during a bid process in the fall of 2015, the estimated rehabilitation costs for
all floors of the residence hall portion is 2-2.5M.
Built in 1960, Marian Hall is a three floor residence hall centrally located on the campus directly adjacent to the University Center, Blume Library and the Athletic and Convocation
Center. Its central location, functional layout, build quality and overall condition make it an excellent candidate for reinvestment. Unlike a few of the other residence halls, Marian
Hall is in need of some external grounds reinvestment in addition to an interior refresh. Work undertaken over the last year has seen some 70K investment in the grounds to correct
issues related to entrances and a stabilization of the front terrace. Additional grounds work will include the enhancement of drainage around the building and a rehabilitation of the
tile entrance. Significant water flows around the building during heavy rain events and additional exterior work will help ensure that the building remains on a solid foundation.
Overall the interior of the building is in good repair but an unattractive wall covering, dated bathrooms and furniture warrant a full upgrade. Total estimated cost of construction for
the interior and exterior renovations are 1.6-2M
Founders Hall was the most recently constructed residence hall on campus .Outside of existing debt, building footprint and state of repair, this building needs little investment.
Consistent attention to year over year needs has significantly mitigated the deferred maintenance need of the building. As it currently sits the building is in need of some additional
painting and a consideration to change out the manner in which the bathroom fan and lighting is wired. Total investment is 200-250K.
Dougherty Hall was constructed in 1968 yet in spite of its age the building has held up well to use and still maintains a functional layout. In addition, the building is still well received
by students and has shown itself to be one of the most impactful dorms for helping to develop a real sense of community within individual halls. Due to the age, dated furniture and
bathroom condition, a renovation of this magnitude will require considerable resources similar to that of Treadaway or Chaminade Hall. A minor amount of exterior work is necessary
to enhance any interior work and all shared spaces should be renovated along with the rooms. Total estimated cost will be 2.5-3M.
Phase_4A Summer 26 Summer 27 FY26&FY27 126,000 12,852,000 102 4% 25 125,663.61 3 126,000
FY28 Debt Payment Starts 822,682 4,033
Phase_4B Summer 27 Summer 28 FY28&FY29 130,000 13,260,000 102 4% 25 129,780.00 1 130,000
FY29 Debt Payment Starts 848,799 4,161 11
Total: 98,652,000
Housing Reverve Projection
Reserve Balance @9.28.2015 2,346,000
Considering the overall size, cost of new construction and build quality, the following buildings are viewed by facilities as residence halls that should be considered for a full
reinvestment of deferred maintenance - Chaminade Hall, Founders Hall, Marian Hall, Treadaway Hall, and Dougherty Hall.
Chaminade Hall is a four floor hall built in 1953 standing adjacent to St.Louis Hall and Reinbolt Hall at the front of campus. The building is on a solid foundation and has experienced
very little settling over the years. Its central location has made it a favorite for the student population particularly amongst the law, graduate and older student population. A major
refresh renovation began in the summer of 2015 that includes: new HVAC, new raised ceilings, new walls, vanity, sinks, flooring, furniture, paint, lighting, tile in bathrooms and a
refurbishment of the laundry and shared spaces. This work also includes the updating of the hot and chilled water lines inside the building, enhancements to the mechanical rooms

Development Package
December 9, 2015
5756
Development Package
December 9, 2015
CHG-SP2018 MOVED IN PROJECT SCHEDULE- NARRATIVE
PROJECTION - OCCUPANCY, COST, REVENUE AND NET REV OVER(UNDER) EXP
Annual Cost Increase at: 3% Occupancy based on annual available beds
Annual FY16 FY17 FY18 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY18
Occupancy Cost Cost Cost Revnue Revnue Revnue Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp Rev>Exp REV>EXP
Hall Name Available Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Per Bed Amount Amount Amount 1/2 OLD&NEW
Adele (1) 118 1,321 1,360 1,401 2,764 2,902 3,047 1,443 1,542 1,646 170,312 181,980 194,265 97,132
Flores (1) 118 1,270 1,308 1,347 2,764 2,902 3,047 1,494 1,594 1,700 176,249 188,116 200,637 100,318
Phase_1 468 - 4,353 3,400 - - (953) - - (445,796) (222,898)
net change (25,448)
5% vacancy 21,801
Semester Rev: 1,155,183 phase 1 - Spring 2018 and 2 halls for fall 2017 Net Loss (3,647)
Vacancy 5% 57,759 Transportation Estimate (41,353)
Total Net Change (45,000)
Included in Eric's calculation
1,591,200 phase 1 full year
Vacancy 5% 79,560
Vacancy Net Change 21,801
Mei Lin
Should we plan $40,000 to include the cost of the drive and the possibility of needing a more frequent shuttle schedule? Tim
Tim,
As per your request, La Quinta and Red Roof Inn are relatively the same distance (5 miles one way). A 15 passenger van gets 10 miles to the gallon and has a 35 gallon tank. I assume
we will have four (4) daily trips (morning, lunch, dinner, and late evening). I also assumed a gas average of about $3 a gallon. Here is a ball park figure:
Van rental: $ 896 per week for 16 weeks = $ 14,336
Gas: 35 gallon X $3 gal. X 56 days (112 days/sem) = $ 5,880
$ 20,216* *this does not include the cost of driver(s)
James J. Villarreal
Director of Residence Life
Project Schedule
Two schedules are included. First, the schedule on page 58, represents the current planning process that will inform a Request for Proposal for a Design-Build
Team. That Team will design and construct the Phase 1 student housing facility, site amenities and ultimately raze Adele and Flores Halls after students move into
the new facility for the start of the academic year in Fall 2017.
To meet the goal of moving students into this new facility in August 2017, the project delivery method for the Phase 1 project is recommended to be Design-
Build. The schedule indicates that construction will commence prior to the completion of design. The intent is to have an initial package of construction
documents that allows the footing/foundation, building structure and site utilities to commence as soon as possible after the conclusion of the Spring 2016
semester while the balance of design is finalized.
The second schedule, on page 59, identifies the phased redevelopment activities of the Outback starting in 2016 and concluding in 2026. The schedule provides
for periods of review of the past, and planning for the future between the phases of redevelopment, design and construction. The design and construction
process depicted in this schedule is a Design-Build process. If St. Mary’s chose to implement future phases utilizing a different project delivery method, such as
Design-Bid-Build, this schedule would need to be modified to reflect that process.

Development Package
December 9, 2015
5958
Development Package
December 9, 2015
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PHASE 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
OUTBACK REDEVELOPMENT OVERALL
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Predesign Phase 1 - Establish Institutional Parameters 35 days Mon 09/14/15 Fri 10/30/15
2 Predesign Workshop #1 - Business Plan Inputs (Eric at St. 2 days Thu 09/17/15 Fri 09/18/15
3 Predesign Phase 2 - Programmatic and Physical Planning 35 days Mon 10/05/15 Fri 11/20/15
4 Predesign Workshop #2 - Finalize Business Plan Input/Prog 2 days Thu 10/08/15 Fri 10/09/15
5 Predesign Workshop #3 - Finalize Business Plan/Review P 2 days Thu 10/29/15 Fri 10/30/15
6 Predesign Workshop #4 - Review Final Predesign informat 2 days Thu 11/19/15 Fri 11/20/15
7 Finalize Predesign Report 10 days Mon 11/23/15 Fri 12/04/15
8 RFP Process for Design-Build Team 30 days Mon 12/07/15 Fri 01/15/16
9 Finalize RFP for D-B Services 5 days Mon 12/07/15 Fri 12/11/15
10 Deliver RFP to Invited Firms 1 day Fri 12/11/15 Fri 12/11/15
11 Pre-proposal Meeting (Eric to participate via phone) 1 day Thu 12/17/15 Thu 12/17/15
12 Questions Due from Invited Firms 1 day Tue 12/29/15 Tue 12/29/15
13 Answers Back to Invited Firms 1 day Tue 01/05/16 Tue 01/05/16
14 RFP Responses Due 1 day Tue 01/12/16 Tue 01/12/16
15 Review RFP Responses - Decide who to interview 4 days Wed 01/13/16 Mon 01/18/16
16 Notify firms of their status and schedule interviews 1 day Mon 01/18/16 Mon 01/18/16
17 Interview D-B Team (Eric at St. Mary's) 1 day Thu 01/21/16 Thu 01/21/16
18 Select D-B Team to proceed with (Eric at St. Mary's) 1 day Fri 01/22/16 Fri 01/22/16
19 END OF PREDESIGN PHASE / START OF DESIGN PHAS 1 day Fri 01/22/16 Fri 01/22/16
20 Phase 1 Outback Redevelopment Design, Permitting, etc. 145 days Mon 02/01/16 Fri 08/19/16
21 Design Workshop #1 (Eric can be at St. Mary's) 2 days Thu 02/04/16 Fri 02/05/16
22 Phase 1 Outback Construction 270 days Mon 06/20/16 Fri 06/30/17
23 Owner Furniture and Equipment 18 days Wed 07/05/17 Fri 07/28/17
24 Owner Occupancy 10 days Mon 07/31/17 Fri 08/11/17
25 Students Move-in for Fall 2017 0 days Fri 08/11/17 Fri 08/11/17
26 Raze Existing Buildings 30 days Mon 08/21/17 Fri 09/29/17
27 Project Close-out 73 days Wed 07/05/17 Fri 10/13/17
Predesign Phase 1 - Establish Institutional Parameters
09/17 Predesign Workshop #1 - Business Plan Inputs (Eric at St. Mary's)
Predesign Phase 2 - Programmatic and Physical Planning
10/08 Predesign Workshop #2 - Finalize Business Plan Input/Programming (Eric at St. Mary's)
10/29 Predesign Workshop #3 - Finalize Business Plan/Review Planning Alternatives (Eric at St. Mary's)
11/19 Predesign Workshop #4 - Review Final Predesign information (Eric at St. Mary's)
Finalize Predesign Report
12/07 RFP Process for Design-Build Team
12/07 Finalize RFP for D-B Services
12/11 Deliver RFP to Invited Firms
12/17 Pre-proposal Meeting (Eric to participate via phone)
12/29 Questions Due from Invited Firms
01/05 Answers Back to Invited Firms
01/12 RFP Responses Due
01/13 Review RFP Responses - Decide who to interview
01/18 Notify firms of their status and schedule interviews
01/21 Interview D-B Team (Eric at St. Mary's)
01/22 Select D-B Team to proceed with (Eric at St. Mary's)
END OF PREDESIGN PHASE / START OF DESIGN PHASE
Phase 1 Outback Redevelopment Design, Permitting, etc.
02/04 Design Workshop #1 (Eric can be at St. Mary's)
Phase 1 Outback Construction
Owner Furniture and Equipment
Owner Occupancy
Students Move-in for Fall 2017 08/11
Raze Existing Buildings
Project Close-out
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct N
2016 2017
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Progress
Deadline
ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY OUTBACK REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING, PHASE 1 PREDESIGN PLANNING, RFP PROCESS AND DESIGN AND ACONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Page 1
Pegasus Group
Date: Sat 11/14/15
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Outback Redevelopment Planning
and Predesign Planning for Phase 1
95 days Mon 09/14/15 Fri 01/22/16
2
3 Phase 1 Design 145 days Mon 02/01/16 Fri 08/19/16
4 Phase 1 Contruction 270 days Mon 06/20/16 Fri 06/30/17
5 Owner Furniture & Equipment 18 days Wed 07/05/17 Fri 07/28/17
7 Students Move-In 1 day Mon 08/14/17 Mon 08/14/17
8 Raze Adele and Flores 30 days Mon 08/21/17 Fri 09/29/17
9 Phase 1 Project Close-out 73 days Wed 07/05/17 Fri 10/13/17
10 Evaluate and Update Outback
Redevelopment Plan
43 days Thu 03/01/18 Mon 04/30/18
11
12 Predesign Planning for Phase 2 55 days Mon 10/01/18 Fri 12/14/18
13 Phase 2 Design 174 days Tue 01/01/19 Fri 08/30/19
18 Raze Donohoo and Frederick 30 days Mon 08/24/20 Fri 10/02/20
19 Phase 2 Project Close-out 70 days Mon 07/06/20 Fri 10/09/20
Redevelopment Plan
45 days Mon 03/01/21 Fri 04/30/21
21
22 Predesign Planning for Phase 3 55 days Mon 10/04/21 Fri 12/17/21
23 Phase 3 Design 174 days Mon 01/03/22 Thu 09/01/22
28 Raze Cremer 25 days Mon 08/21/23 Fri 09/22/23
29 Phase 3 Project Close-out 63 days Wed 07/05/23 Fri 09/29/23
Redevelopment Plan and Predsign
Planning for Phase 4
65 days Mon 09/18/23 Fri 12/15/23
31
32 Phase 4A Design 160 days Mon 01/08/24 Fri 08/16/24
33 Phase 4A Contruction 284 days Mon 06/03/24 Thu 07/03/25
34 Owner Furniture & Equipment 20 days Mon 07/07/25 Fri 08/01/25
37 Raze Leies 25 days Mon 08/25/25 Fri 09/26/25
38 Phase 4A Project Close-out 69 days Fri 07/04/25 Wed 10/08/25
39
40 Phase 4B Design 160 days Mon 01/06/25 Fri 08/15/25
41 Phase 4B Contruction 285 days Mon 06/02/25 Fri 07/03/26
42 Owner Furniture & Equipment 20 days Mon 07/06/26 Fri 07/31/26
45 Raze Lourdes 25 days Mon 08/24/26 Fri 09/25/26
46 Phase 4B Project Close-out 69 days Mon 07/06/26 Thu 10/08/26
Outback Redevelopment Planning and Predesign Planning for Phase 1
Phase 1 Design
Phase 1 Contruction
Owner Furniture & Equipment
Owner Occupancy
Students Move-In
Raze Adele and Flores
Phase 1 Project Close-out
Evaluate and Update Outback Redevelopment Plan
Predesign Planning for Phase 2
Phase 2 Design
Phase 2 Contruction
Owner Occupancy
Students Move-In
Raze Donohoo and Frederick
Evaluate and Update Outback Redevelopment Plan
Predesign Planning for Phase 3
Phase 3 Design
Phase 3 Contruction
Owner Occupancy
Students Move-In
Raze Cremer
Evaluate and Update Outback Redevelopment Plan and Predsign Planning for Phase 4
Phase 4A Design
Phase 4A Contruction
Owner Occupancy
Students Move-In
Raze Leies
Phase 4A Project Close-out
Phase 4B Design
Phase 4B Contruction
Owner Occupancy
Students Move-In
Raze Lourdes
Phase 4B Project Close-out
Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Q
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 20
Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Progress
Deadline
Page 1
Project: St. Mary's Outback Redevelop
Date: Sat 11/14/15

60
Development Package
December 9, 2015
FINANCIAL PLAN & ANALYSIS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the people who contributed to this report and
express my appreciation of their time and efforts toward the development of
this important plan for St. Mary’s University.
Core Team
• Rebeckah Day, Vice President, Finance & Administration
• Tim Bessler, Dean of Students
• Aaron Hanna, Executive Director, Facilities Administration
• James Villarreal, Director of Residence Life
• Mei Lin Lee, Director, Finance
Residence Life Staff
• Ann Karam, Associate Director
• Jackie Pena, Associate Director
• Charity Bowen-Miller, Assistant Director
Facilities Management Staff
• Tim McCormick, Director Facilities Central Plant Services
• Luis Rodriguez, Associate Director Operations and Construction Services
Katherine Sisoian, Vice President, Student Development
Suzanne Petrusch, Vice President, Enrollment Management
Dave Krause, Director, Financial Assistance

Information Technology Staff
• Curtis White, Vice President, Information Services
• Louisa Martin, Executive Director of Resource Management & Planning
• Joseph Longo, Director of IT Infrastructure
Elness Swenson Graham Architects
• Art Bartels
• Mike Engel
• Ann Abel
Pegasus Group
• Pam Handt
Eric Kruse, DBIA
Principal
Pegasus Group
ELNESS SWENSON GRAHAM ARCHITECTS INC
500 Washington Avenue South | Minneapolis MN 55415
esgarch.com
PEGASUS GROUP
1 W Water St # 280 | St Paul MN 55107
pegasusgrp.net

Development Package
December 9, 2015
6362
Development Package
December 9, 2015
APPENDIXAPPENDIX
OUTLINE SPECIFICATION
NARRATIVE- ARCHITECTURAL
OUTLINE SPECIFICATION
NARRATIVE- ARCHITECTURAL



Page 3 of 22
T E S T I N G & S P E C I A L I N S P E C T I O N S
• Provide all testing and special inspections required by the City of San Antonio and
State of Texas.
• The owner will require a copy of all testing results.
• Acoustic Testing: Within dwelling units conduct field sound transmission classification
tests (FSTC) of party and corridor walls and field sound transmission classification tests
(FSTC) and field impact isolation classification tests (FIIC) of floor/ceiling assemblies
to verify conformance to design and code requirements.
o Conduct separate floor/ceiling tests for each type of finish flooring used.
o Test as soon as practical during construction once two adjacent dwelling units
have received gypsum board and been taped.
o For testing, install the permanent, or provide temporary, doors and hardware,
provide temporary finish flooring, cover miscellaneous mechanical/electrical
openings, and correct any deficiencies noted.
• Window Performance Testing: Test installed windows for compliance with
performance requirements for air infiltration and water penetration. Follow AAMA
502. Initially test one window using Method A; upon this window successfully passing
test requirements, retest this window and test all remaining windows using Method B.
Use uniform pressure.
o For air infiltration tests, use the same pressure difference as specified for
laboratory tests. Allowable rate of air infiltration for field testing shall be 1.5
times the maximum air infiltration rate specified for the project.
o For water infiltration tests, use 2/3 of the pressure difference as specified for
laboratory tests. Allowable water infiltration shall be at the same limit as
specified for laboratory tests.
o Test 3 percent of installed windows and not less than 2 windows total.
o If any window fails, re-test the failed window plus test one additional
window for each failed test at sub-contractor's expense.
o No limit shall be set of the total number of tests required to verify compliance
with specified performance requirements.
o Special Note: Architect recommends performing the Method A test prior to
or during the initial window installation period or in shop setting prior to
shipping so that any product defect is discovered before large scale
installation occurs.
o Replace windows that have failed field testing and retest until performance is
satisfactory.
• Horizontal surface waterproofing flood testing:
o On completion of horizontal membrane installation, dam installation area in
preparation for flood testing.



Page 4 of 22
o Flood to minimum depth of 1 inch with clean water. After 48 hours, inspect
for leaks.
o If leaking is found, remove water, repair leaking areas with new
waterproofing materials as directed by Architect; repeat flood test. Repair
damage to building.
o When area is proven watertight, drain water and remove dam.
o If additional penetrations are made or final covering materials are not
immediately placed after flood testing, then repeat flood testing after all
penetrations are in place and just prior to covering materials being placed.
S I T E CLEARING
DRIVES AND WALKS
• Remove existing drives, walks, curbs, aprons, retaining walls, and site accessories to
back of existing curb unless noted otherwise.
• Remove existing site lighting, private overhead and underground electrical wiring.
• Remove any underground tanks or structures.
BUILDING STRUCTURES
• Provide Allowance for Owner removal of Hazardous Materials required to be removed
prior to demolition
• Remove existing building structures and dispose of at landfills qualified to receive each
type of materialand retain records of proper disposal to be provided to owner.
• Remove existing utilities scheduled for abandonment at property line or at city utility
main as required. Include all street excavation, backfill, and patching.
• All termination or connection to utilities must be coordinated with the owner and
utility representative.
S I T E C O N S T R U C T I O N
DRIVES AND WALKS
• Pedestrian-only sidewalks shall be 4 inch thick, reinforced with steel mesh, air-
entrained cast-in place concrete on compacted granular sub-base or as required by
campus standards.
• Vehicle traffic areas shall be 6 inch thick, rebar reinforced with #2-4 gauge determined
by engineer air-entrained cast-in place concrete on compacted granular sub-base.
• Within public rights of way, conform to applicable municipal standards.
• Coordinate work for safe ongoing campus operation. Provide temporary walks,
fencing, and guardrails for duration of project construction.
• All walks and drives, as required to provide accessible pathways, must conform with
Texas Accessibility Standards. All sidewalks and drives need to finished with a
medium broom finish.

Page 3 of 22
State of Texas.
satisfactory.



Page 3 of 22
State of Texas.
satisfactory.

Page 4 of 22
o Flood to minimum depth of 1 inch with clean water. After 48 hours, inspect
for leaks.
o If leaking is found, remove water, repair leaking areas with new
waterproofing materials as directed by Architect; repeat flood test. Repair
damage to building.
o When area is proven watertight, drain water and remove dam.
o If additional penetrations are made or final covering materials are not
immediately placed after flood testing, then repeat flood testing after all
penetrations are in place and just prior to covering materials being placed.
S I T E CLEARING
DRIVES AND WALKS
• Remove existing drives, walks, curbs, aprons, retaining walls, and site accessories to
back of existing curb unless noted otherwise.
• Remove existing site lighting, private overhead and underground electrical wiring.
• Remove any underground tanks or structures.
BUILDING STRUCTURES
• Provide Allowance for Owner removal of Hazardous Materials required to be removed
prior to demolition
• Remove existing building structures and dispose of at landfills qualified to receive each
type of materialand retain records of proper disposal to be provided to owner.
• Remove existing utilities scheduled for abandonment at property line or at city utility
main as required. Include all street excavation, backfill, and patching.
• All termination or connection to utilities must be coordinated with the owner and
utility representative.
S I T E C O N S T R U C T I O N
DRIVES AND WALKS
• Pedestrian-only sidewalks shall be 4 inch thick, reinforced with steel mesh, air-
entrained cast-in place concrete on compacted granular sub-base or as required by
campus standards.
• Vehicle traffic areas shall be 6 inch thick, rebar reinforced with #2-4 gauge determined
by engineer air-entrained cast-in place concrete on compacted granular sub-base.
• Within public rights of way, conform to applicable municipal standards.
• Coordinate work for safe ongoing campus operation. Provide temporary walks,
fencing, and guardrails for duration of project construction.
• All walks and drives, as required to provide accessible pathways, must conform with
Texas Accessibility Standards. All sidewalks and drives need to finished with a
medium broom finish.
November 30, 2015
St. Mary’s University Outback Student Housing
OUTLINE SPECIFICATION NARRATIVE
Predesign Budget Pricing Set
C O D E REQUIREMENTS
• Final Design and construction to meet Current editions of Texas State Building Code, with local
San Antionio amendments, and the Federal Fair Housing Act.
As of May 1, 2015 the City of San Antonio has the following International Code Council (ICC) codes in
effect. The International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) will go into effect July 15, 2015.
o 2015 International Building Code
o 2015 International Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings
o 2015 International Mechanical Code
o 2015 International Plumbing Code
o 2015 International Existing Building Code
o 2015 International Fuel Gas Code
o 2015 International Fire Code
o 2015 International Energy Conservation Code
o 2014 National Electric Code
The following local amendments to the Codes have also been adopted
o 2015 Chapter 10, Building-related Codes
o 2015 Chapter 11, International Fire Code with local amendments
(Adopted January 29, 2015 )
o 2015 San Antonio Property Maintenance Code
• Construction Type: Type V-A (Conventional light-framed wood construction) with Residential
(R2), and accessory Assembly (A3), Storage (S1), and Business (B- Office and Residential Lobby),
occupancies
• Building shall be protected with NFPA 13 Sprinkler System Allowing increase height and
number of stories over base allowable
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
• Shop drawings shall be required for all major sections of the work.
• Shop drawings pertaining to the mechanical and electrical work shall be reviewed by
the Architect for conformance to physical scope parameters.



Page 2 of 22
• The mechanical contractor shall include in their scope of work the calculations for
conformance of the exterior shell to the State Energy Code based upon wall and roof
composition information provided by Architect.
• Electronic Shop Drawing submittals will be required. Contractor will review and
upload submittals to an electronic submittal hosting site. Design team will review and
red-line submittals electronically and post for contractor’s distribution. “Submittal
Exchange” shall be the basis for electronic submittals software scope.
• Reference the structural General Structural Notes for all deferred submittals. Deferred
submittals are the Contractor’s responsibility to retain subcontractors / fabricators that
can produce the fabrication drawings and provide signed and sealed calculation
packages for their products or system. These include, but are not limited to, steel joists,
steel pan stairs, cold formed wall systems, window walls / curtain walls, and
mechanical equipment acoustical isolation.
• Include all temporary facilities required for the work such as offices, equipment, toilets,
dumpsters, etc. Include costs associated with the work including tower cranes, lifts,
hoists, etc.
• Provide 8 foot high chain link fence with gates as required around the entire site.
• Provide a 64 square foot project identification sign, including project image view, logo,
and the names of the developer, city, and major parties of the design and construction
team.
• Testing and approval of materials by an independent laboratory will be provided by
the Owner.
• Include a budget allowance for Code required Special Inspections; separate from cost
of non-code required testing.
• Provide erosion control, including dust control, for the site as required by the City and
other regulatory agencies.
• Provide temporary de-watering for excavation, grading and foundation work as
required.
• Include street cleaning of the site for the duration of construction, or for a specified
time mutually agreed upon between Contractor and Owner.
• Maintain Record Documents for the Project including marked-up record drawings,
specifications, and record set of submittals. Provide complete Operations and
Maintenance Manuals. The owner will require a copy of all marked up record drawings
for permanent file.
• Provide for safety provisions and clean-up. Include street and sidewalk barricades and
guardrails, warning devices and safety signage as required by OSHA and the City
during execution of work and completion of project.
• Include the cost of plan and document reproduction for the general contractor and sub-
contractors.

Page 2 of 22
• The mechanical contractor shall include in their scope of work the calculations for
conformance of the exterior shell to the State Energy Code based upon wall and roof
composition information provided by Architect.
• Electronic Shop Drawing submittals will be required. Contractor will review and
upload submittals to an electronic submittal hosting site. Design team will review and
red-line submittals electronically and post for contractor’s distribution. “Submittal
Exchange” shall be the basis for electronic submittals software scope.
• Reference the structural General Structural Notes for all deferred submittals. Deferred
submittals are the Contractor’s responsibility to retain subcontractors / fabricators that
can produce the fabrication drawings and provide signed and sealed calculation
packages for their products or system. These include, but are not limited to, steel joists,
steel pan stairs, cold formed wall systems, window walls / curtain walls, and
mechanical equipment acoustical isolation.
• Include all temporary facilities required for the work such as offices, equipment, toilets,
dumpsters, etc. Include costs associated with the work including tower cranes, lifts,
hoists, etc.
• Provide 8 foot high chain link fence with gates as required around the entire site.
• Provide a 64 square foot project identification sign, including project image view, logo,
and the names of the developer, city, and major parties of the design and construction
team.
• Testing and approval of materials by an independent laboratory will be provided by
the Owner.
• Include a budget allowance for Code required Special Inspections; separate from cost
of non-code required testing.
• Provide erosion control, including dust control, for the site as required by the City and
other regulatory agencies.
• Provide temporary de-watering for excavation, grading and foundation work as
required.
• Include street cleaning of the site for the duration of construction, or for a specified
time mutually agreed upon between Contractor and Owner.
• Maintain Record Documents for the Project including marked-up record drawings,
specifications, and record set of submittals. Provide complete Operations and
Maintenance Manuals. The owner will require a copy of all marked up record drawings
for permanent file.
• Provide for safety provisions and clean-up. Include street and sidewalk barricades and
guardrails, warning devices and safety signage as required by OSHA and the City
during execution of work and completion of project.
• Include the cost of plan and document reproduction for the general contractor and sub-
contractors.

151209 SMU Outback Quad Redev Pkg-EmailSpreads (1)

151209 SMU Outback Quad Redev Pkg-EmailSpreads (1)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to 151209 SMU Outback Quad Redev Pkg-EmailSpreads (1)

Similar to 151209 SMU Outback Quad Redev Pkg-EmailSpreads (1) (20)

More from Ann Abel

More from Ann Abel (6)

151209 SMU Outback Quad Redev Pkg-EmailSpreads (1)