sr-081010-8dc7®
~;tYof City Council Report
Santa 6lonica'
City Council Meeting: August 10, 2010
Agenda Item:~~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development
Subject: Mountain View Mobile Home Park Rental Unit Replacement Contract
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions to replace the 20 existing
City-owned travel trailers and mobile homes at Mountain View Mobile Home Park
(MVMHP) with new; affordable and sustainable manufactured housing:
1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract not to exceed
$3,000,000 with Cavco Industries, Inc. (Cavco), an Arizona-based company, to
design, build, and install 20 new manufactured homes to replace 20 existing
rental units; and
2. Approve the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget
Actions section.
Executive Summary
Ten years ago, the City purchased MVMHP to preserve it for affordable housing.
Recently, MVMHP underwent a complete infrastructure upgrade. The next phase of
work involves replacing the older travel trailers and mobile homes. The City issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to companies who could manufacture, design, build, and
install new affordable and sustainable manufactured homes at MVMHP. Staff
recommends Cavco as the manufacturer to replace the 20 City-owned travel trailers
and mobile homes. Next month, staff will bring a voluntary financing program, designed
to assist qualified MVMHP residents with replacing existing travel trailers and mobile
homes, to City Council for consideration following Housing Commission and public
input.
Background
On December 22, 2000, the City acquired the 141-space MVMHP along with 36 existing
mobile home units for $6,690,000. The acquisition was part of a legal settlement with
the owner and preserved this unique affordable housing option. The Housing Element
articulates the City's commitment to preserving existing affordable housing (see Goal
3.0) and includes the protection of mobile home park tenants as a specific objective
(Objective 3-b).
Because the MVMHP was built in the late 1940's, it was necessary to upgrade the
obsolete and worn infrastructure. Planning for a comprehensive infrastructure
improvement project for MVHMP began in 2002 and included the following components:
• a reduction from 141 rent-controlled spaces to 105 spaces;
• partial reconfiguration of the site involving establishing lot lines for the 105
spaces and creating a new street for improved fire truck access;
• aligning existing mobile homes within the new established lot lines;
• replacing all utilities, street lights and internal streets; and
• installing fire hydrants, curbs and a new drainage system to prevent flooding.
The infrastructure improvement effort was completed in July 2010 and as a result, each
of the 105 spaces at MVMHP now has the required infrastructure to accommodate at
least astandard-sized, single-wide mobile home.
In order to facilitate future replacement of units, Housing staff has been coordinating
with City Planning, Building and Safety, and the Office of sustainability to establish
standards of sustainability; setbacks, compatibility, size and architectural quality for the
MVMHP. Manufactured home designs will be submitted to the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) for review and approval, setting the standard for all mobile home
replacements.
Discussion
Currently there are 143 people residing within the 74 units at MVMHP, of which 48 are
mobile homes and 26 are travel trailers. Eighty percent of these units were
manufactured prior to 1976. The City owns 21 of the units. Most of the homes lack
contemporary amenities that promote energy efficiency and other sustainability
measures and do not meet current standards for manufactured homes. The City has
allocated federal CDBG and HOME funds through the Consolidated Plan to purchase
2
new manufactured homes that include the latest advances in safety, energy efficiency
and sustainability in contemporary manufactured-home living.
Purchase of New City-owned Rental Units
The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to mobile home manufacturers on
December 1, 2009 to design, build and install affordable and sustainable manufactured
homes at MVMHP. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP.
Proposal
A Proposal
B Proposal
C Proposal
D Proposal
E Proposal
F Proposal
G
Manufact- Cavco Silvercrest Skyline Cavco Golden Fleetwood Fleetwood
urer/ Industries Western Corp./ Homes West Homes, Homes,
Partner (if Inc./ Homes Touraine Inc. Homes Inc. Inc./
applicable) Marmol Corp. Richmond Green
Radziner Architects Crafted
Prefab Homes
Since the proposals were submitted, there have been some notable changes to the
manufacturers. Fleetwood Homes has been purchased by Cavco Industries, Inc., and,
as a result, four of the proposals received are from companies now owned by Cavco
(Proposals A, D, F and G.) Additionally, Silvercrest's parent company has filed for
bankruptcy, creating uncertainty regarding their financial capacity.
The review process was kicked off on January 13, 2010, when all seven bidders
presented their proposals to the Mountain View residents. Residents participated in a
question and answer session and then prioritized Proposals B, E and G as their top
three choices, based on proposed designs. An interdepartmental team, which included
representatives from the Planning and Housing Commissions, Finance, and the Office
of sustainability, reviewed all seven proposals and narrowed the recommendations to
three, Proposals A, E and G. Selection criteria included qualifications (experience,
financial capacity, and familiarity with code requirements), competitive pricing; schedule
of completion, quality of the proposed design, environmentally sustainable aspects, and
the completeness of the submission.
3
Staff analyzed- all materials, references, and resident. and review panel
recommendations and determined that the clear first choice was Proposal A submitted
by Cavco in partnership with Marmot Radziner Prefab. Details of the cost of purchasing
and installing new manufactured homes from Cavco are provided in Attachment A.
Details of the .RFP process are provided in Attachment B. Images of the proposed
manufactured home designs are provided in Attachment C.
The RFP required bid prices to be good through June 28, 2010. Since the
recommendation was not heard by Council prior to that date, Cavco agreed to extend
their commitment to their pricing through September 1, 2010. Staff has not contacted
the other six manufacturers to determine if they would extend their proposed pricing.
Arizona-Based Manufacturer
On May 25, 2010, Council adopted a resolution imposing financial trade sanctions
against the State of Arizona. Council directed staff to review current and likely future
contracts to determine the feasibility of obtaining services from companies located
elsewhere. In response to Council's direction, staff has reviewed the proposed
purchase of 20 new manufactured homes from Cavco Industries Inc. and recommends
against purchase of the units from one of the non-Arizona proposals, as such units are
not of the standard and quality that Santa Monica has come to expect from its
affordable housing. For the reasons outlined below, staff recommends that City Council
approve moving forward with Proposal A, the Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab proposal:
1. Timing Impacts
Staff began working on a plan to replace the existing City-owned travel trailers and
mobile homes around December 2008. Staff spent the first six months of 2009
researching and drafting a Request for Proposals. In July of 2009, staff issued a
Request for Letters of Interest which informed interested parties that the City was
seeking to develop a list of potential bidders and garner input on the draft RFP. In
response to the Request for Letters of Interest, 19 letters of interest were received from
4
potential bidders, 15 of whom attended an information and input session held in August
2009. In September 2009, the RFP was issued and apre-submission meeting was held
to provide the bidders with an opportunity for questions and answers. Twenty-six
organizations attended the meeting and asked numerous questions.
In researching the answers to some of the questions raised at the pre-submission
meeting, staff determined there were several key issues that required clarification and
notified bidders that the RFP was going to be temporarily suspended. Upon resolution
of the issues, the RFP was revised and re-issued in December 2009 to a list of 94
potential bidders. Seven applications were received and a review process that included
MVMHP residents, staff from various City departments and members of the Planning
and Housing Commission was completed. Upon conclusion of this process, staff
identified Proposal A, from Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab, as the most responsive
proposal. A staff report was prepared, recommending that the City enter into a contract
with Cavco Industries, Inc. to purchase 20 new, affordable and sustainable
manufactured homes to replace the existing City-owned travel trailers and mobile
homes. The staff report was originally planned for the agenda of the June 8, 2010 City
Council meeting.
In May 2010, just prior to the conclusion of the year-and-a-half process, City Council
adopted a resolution imposing financial sanctions against the State of Arizona. If the
purchase of new units does not proceed, staff will not be able to achieve the goal of
having standard unit designs approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) prior to
the end of 2010. A contract with Cavco would ensure that the Cavco/Marmot Radziner
Prefab designs go through the ARB process and enable the City and residents to
replace the existing travel trailers and mobile homes that are an average of 43 years
old. Although the Gity will invite all seven manufacturers' to go through the ARB at the
same time, they may not elect to go through the process if they have no purchase
commitment on their units. Further delays to the process, or beginning the RFP process
again, would penalize existing residents who have been patiently waiting years for the
opportunity to upgrade their living conditions.
5
2. No Feasible Alternative from Existing Proposals
The chart on the following page provides information on the seven applications received
in response to the RFP. Details include the manufacturers' names, the partners' names
(if the manufacturers partnered with a designer or other organization), and where the
manufacturers and partners are located. This chart illustrates that four out of the seven
applications are from manufacturers that are owned by companies headquartered in
Arizona (Proposals A, D, G and G) and the other three proposals are from
manufacturers that are located elsewhere (Proposals B, C and E).
Staff cannot recommend selection of Proposals B, C and E for a number of reasons,
several of which apply to each of the three proposals. The reasons are:
a. significantly higher unit costs;
b. lack of requested financial information or Zack of financial stability;.
c. lack of a strong design;
d. lack of required unit sizes; and
e. lack of required green energy alternatives.
As a result, staff cannot recommend any of the three proposals received from
manufacturers outside of Arizona. Furthermore, staff strongly recommends Proposal A,
Cavco/Marmot Radzirier Prefab, as the most cost-effective and the only proposal that
was responsive to all of the RFP requirements.
6
Proposal A ProposalB ProposalC Proposal D ProposalE ProposalF Proposal G
Manufacturer Cavco Silvercrest Skyline Cavco Homes, Golden West Fleetwood Fleetwood
Industries Inc. Western Corporation Inc. Homes Homes, Inc. Homes, Inc.
Homes
Corporation
Partner(s) Marmol Touraine Modular Green Crafted
(if applicable) Radziner Richmond Lifestyles, Inc. Homes
Prefab Architects and
5 Star Homes
Location of Goodyear, Corona, San Jacinto, Phoenix, Perris, Riverside, Riverside,
Manufacturer Arizona- California California Arizona California California California
Location of West Los Venice, Irvine,
Partner(s) Angeles, California and California
(if applicable) California_ Stanton,
California
Manufacturer A Publicly As subsidiary A Publicly A Publicly A Division of A wholly A wholly
Ownership Owned of Champion Owned Owned Clayton Homes owned owned
Information and Corporation. Enterprises, Corporation. Corporation. Headquartered subsidiary of subsidiary of
Headquarters Headquartered Inc., a Publicly Headquartered Headquartered in Maryville, Cavco Cavco
Location in Phoenix, Owned in Elkhart, in Phoenix, Tennessee,. Industries, Inc., Industries, Inc.,
Arizona Corporation. Indiana Arizona A wholly A Publicly A Publicly
Headquartered owned Owned Owned ~
in Troy, subsidiary of Corporation, Corporation.
Michigan Berkshire Headquartered Headquartered
Hathaway Inc., in Phoenix, in Phoenix,
A Publicly Arizona Arizona
Owned
Corporation
Headquartered
in Omaha,
Nebraska
3. Manufactured Unit Cost:
Due to the varied configurations of the 105 spaces at MVMHP, the RFP required that
each bidder provide costs for 21 manufactured home sizes of standard widths and
lengths. Attachment D shows all of the unit sizes and the costs provided by each bidder.
Only Proposals A, E and G provided all of the required information; these were the
same three proposals that were selected for further review by the review panel.
Of the three responsive proposals, Proposal A, the Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab
proposal had the lowest per unit costs. The unit costs from Proposals E and G range
from 10 percent to 111 percent more than the Proposal A unit costs, depending on unit
size. While the exact costs to the City of choosing a more expensive producer cannot
be determined until a mobile. home size is matched to each site, staff anticipates that
the added costs of choosing an alternative producer to purchase the 20 new
manufactured homes would range from $250,000 to $450,000.
Additionally, if the City chooses to purchase manufactured units from one of the non-
Arizona based manufacturers and the cost per unit is higher, there will be financial
repercussions for the current resident-owners who wish to replace their units. It is
envisioned that all seven manufacturers who submitted proposals will be invited to
submit to ARB to offer a broad range of options to the residents who wish to purchase
units through the loan program currently under development. The cost associated with
the process will be covered by the City as a development cost. Staff cannot guarantee
that the manufacturers who do not get the contract for the 20 City-owned units will
participate in the ARB approval process. If Cavco is not selected and chooses not to
participate in the ARB process, residents will have no choice but to purchase units from
one of the other manufacturers, all of which have significantly higher unit costs. This
may also prevent residents from qualifying for a conventional loan and/or increase their
mortgage payment.
8
Furthermore, all applicants were asked to provide a narrative or spreadsheet explaining
the difference between the 'developer cost' that will be charged to the City and the
`resident cost' that may be charged to residents at MVMHP if they chose to purchase a
manufactured home. Only one of the three proposals selected for further review,
Proposal. A from Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab, provided the `resident cost' proposal.
Attachment F shows the "developer cost' and the `resident cost.' Since none of the other
proposals provided the requested information, staff cannot determine the resident cost
of the other homes if residents choose to purchase them.
4. Livable Design:
The RFP sought proposals for new affordable home units that would provide:
i) a model of affordability and sustainability;
ii) designs with durability, environmentally sustainable materials and aesthetic
appeal;
iii) elements that contribute to a friendly, interesting and hospitable pedestrian
environment; and
iv) street-facing entries for all units as well as access from the Stewart Street
sidewalk for units adjacent to Stewart Street.
Attachment A provides representative images of all seven proposals and reflects the
fact that. there are significant differences in the quality of the designs proposed.
Proposal A, the Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab proposal, was the only one to address
all of the elements described above and to reflect them in the details of their application.
Some examples of how the other proposals were not responsive to the RFP include:
representing the units at grade level and not addressing the requirement that the units'
be on raised piers with skirting, not providing street-facing. entries, utilizing non-durable
materials, and failing to provide descriptions or samples of the proposed materials
9
5. Sustainability
The RFP required that bidders provide a series of environmentally sustainable additive
alternatives and requested that applicants propose any additional environmentally
sustainable additive alternatives. Details of the additive alternatives provided in each
proposal are provided in Attachment E. Proposal A, the Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab
proposal, is the only proposal that provided all of the required additive alternatives,
including three green energy sources and other livability amenities.
6. Geographic Impact
The RFP process to identify a manufactured home producer included direct outreach to
94 potential bidders, 73 of which were from California, while the other 21 were from
Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oregon, Tennessee and
Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York. Despite the significant direct
outreach, only seven proposals were submitted. The largest factor that likely
contributed to the small number of responses is geography and its direct relationship to
transportation costs.
The high cost and logistics of transporting manufactured homes limits manufacturers'
sales to the region in which they produce the units. Despite the fact that identified
potential bidders were located throughout the United States, all seven proposals
received were from manufacturers located in the southwestern region of the country.
Cavco is located in Arizona and is the largest producer of manufactured homes in the
western region. Cavco's partner on Proposal A, Marmot Radziner Prefab, is located in
West Los Angeles, California.
7. Funding Source Deadlines
Federal CDBG entitlement program funds of $1,233,611 identified for the mobile home
replacement program may be at risk if not expended by April 2011. Delays related to
10
reissue an RFP, identifying a new vendor and subsequently securing ARB approvals
places these funds at risk.
Altarnativac
Alternatives to approving the recommendation of the Cavco/Marmot Radziner Prefab
proposal include:
• Rejecting all seven proposals received and directing staff to issue a new RFP
directed at manufacturers not located in Arizona; or
Rejecting all seven proposals received and directing staff to negotiate on the
open market; or
• Selecting an alternative proposal to replace the 20 City-owned units.
Each alternative has the potential to significantly impact the families currently living at
MVMHP by delaying both the City's and residents' ability to replace existing travel
trailers and mobile homes with new affordable and sustainable manufactured homes
and likely by increasing the cost of the units.
City/Resident Obligations
The proposed purchase of 20 new manufactured units will ensure that all current
tenants residing in the City-owned rental units will be provided with new homes. Some
of the 'City-owned units may be relocated to vacant spaces within MVMHP that will
better accommodate the size of the new units and the occupant's household size. In
this situation, a tenant may remain in their existing unit until the new manufactured
home is installed. For a tenant whose unit will remain in the same mobile home space,
the replacement process will last approximately one month. During this time, the
existing unit and the tenant will be relocated within MVMHP to a vacant space while the
new home is installed.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed purchase of 20 manufactured homes has been reviewed under both the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Quality
11
Act (NEPA). The City contracted with Terry A. Hayes Associates to prepare the
CEQA/NEPA analysis for the replacement of these units and determined that the
proposed project is exempt from CEQA and achieved a Finding of No Significant Impact
under .NEPA. Regarding NEPA, staff will assemble the environmental review
documentation and submit the package to HUD to initiate a final public comment period
prior to HUD's release of funds for the subject purpose.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The total cost to replace the 20 City-owned units will not exceed $3,000,000.
The replacement of the 20 existing City-owned units with new manufactured homes will
decrease the City's annual costs for maintenance of those units. Staff recommends that
Council appropriate $527,956 in available HOME Investment Partnership Grant funds
that remain unprogrammed from previous years' allocations to the HOME Housing Trust
Fund account H20034410.589000. CDBG entitlement program funds in the amount of
$1,233,611 maybe at risk if not expended by April 2011. The total of $3,000,000 is
comprised of the $527,956 appropriation described above and $2,472,044 budgeted
and available in the following accounts:
12
.Account Number Amount Source of Funding
0194042.589000 $ 307,487 CDBG (Stimulus Funds)
0195002.589000 $ 1,233,611 CDBG (Entitlement Funds)
H20034409.589000 $ 178,518 HOME (Entitlement Funds)
H20034410.589000 $ 475,000 HOME (Entitlement Funds)
H20005005.589000 $ 68,646 HOME (Entitlement Funds)
H20005010.589000 $ 29,000 HOME (Entitlement Funds).
H150194.589000 $ 179,782 Low/Mod Income Housing Fund
H20034410.589000 $ 527,956 HOME (Entitlement Funds)-new
$ 3,000,000 Total
Prepared by: Melissa Lindley, Senior Administrative Analyst
Andy Agle, Director
Housing and Economic
Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Estimated Project Costs
B. Manufacturer Selection Process
C. Proposed Designs of Units
D. Manufactured Unit Costs Comparison
E. Add Alternatives Comparison
F. Comparison of `Developer Cost' and `Resident Cost'
13
ATTACHMENT A
Estimated Project Costs
Description Cost Per
Unit
# Units
Total Cost
MANUFACTURED UNIT COSTS
12' x 32' Unit $ 22,975 8 $ 183,800
13.5' x 32' Unit $ 22,975 3 $ 68,925
13.5' x 50' Unit $ 31,411 1 $ 31,411
16' x 50' Unit $ 38,577 7 $ 270,039
24' x 48' Unit $ . 55,449 1 $ 55,449
Sub-Total 20 $ 609,624
ADD ALTERNATIVES
Solar Photovoltaic System (Net Cost after Rebate
and Federal Tax Credit
$
8;303
20
$
166,060
Passive Domestic Solar Water Heating (Net Cost
after Rebate and Federal Tax Credit
$
1,860
20
$
37,200
Sunearth Domestic Hot Water Panel $ 5,900 20 $ 118,000
Built-In Microwave $ 600 20 $ 12,000
Stackatile Washer & D er $ 1,500 20 $ 30,000
Air Conditionin $ 2,600 20 $ 52,000
Tankless Hot Water Heater $ 1,500 20 $ 30,000
Side Porch $ 8,400 20 $ 168,000
Rear Porch Railin $ 1,800 20 $ 36,000
Front orch railin $ 1,000 20 $ 20,000
Green Box -Kitchen garden, water collection &
Com ost
$
2,200
20
$
44,000
Subtotal $ 713,260
UNIT INSTALLATION
Unit Transit $ 4,000 20 $ 80,000
Unit Installation $ 17,000 20 $ 340,000
Subtotal $ 420,000.
SOFT COSTS
Permits, Insurance & Bond $ 80,000
Relocation of Units $ 3,500 20 $ 70,000
Removal and Dis osal of Units $ 20,000 20 $ 400,000
Construction Mana ement $ 200,000
Sub-Total $ 750,000
TOTAL $ 2,492,884
Contin enc $ 507,116
TOTAL with Contin enc $ 3,000,000
TOTAL per Unit $ 150,000
ATTACHMENT B
Manufacturer Selection Process
• Staff begins working on a plan to replace the existing City-owned travel trailers and
mobile homes around December 2008.
• Request for Letters. of Interest issued July 29, 2009 which informed interested
parties that the City was seeking to develop a list of potential bidders and garner
input on the draft RFP.
• Potential Bidders Information and Input Session held August 25, 2009.
• Request for Proposals (RFP) issued September 8, 2009 to design, build and install
sustainable and affordable manufactured homes Mountain View Mobile Home Park.
• Pre-Submission Meeting held September 22, 2009.
• RFP temporarily suspended September 25, 2009 to clarify several key issues.
• RFP re-issued December 1, 2009 to design, build and install sustainable and
affordable manufactured homes Mountain View Mobile Home Park; the applicant is
required to be a manufacturer of manufactured homes who may team with a
designer or other partner.
• RFP emailed to 94 interested parties, posted on the Housing Division's web-site and
on Planet Bids.
• Bidder's conference was held for all interested parties; written responses to all
questions from that meeting and those submitted prior to the RFP submittal deadline
was posted on the Housing Division's web-site.
• Seven (7) proposals received from the following manufacturers/teams:
o Cavco Industries Inc. in partnership with Marmol Radziner Prefab;
o Silvercrest/Western Homes Corporation;
o Skyline Corporation in partnership with Touraine Richmond Architects;
o Cavco Homes Inc. (Cavco Durango);
o Golden West Homes;
o Fleetwood Homes, Inc.; and
o Fleetwood Homes, in partnership with Green Crafted Homes, LLC.
• All seven proposals were presented to the residents of the MVMHP on January 13,
2010 at a meeting facilitated by HED staff with participation from all seven
applicants; residents were given an opportunity to review designs, hear
presentations, and ask questions of the applicants; residents ranked the proposals
based on design and chose Fleetwood Homes/Green Crafted Homes,
Silvercrest/Western Homes Corporation and Golden West Homes as the top three.
ATTACHMENT B (cont.)
Manufacturer Selection Process
• An inter-departmental team consisting of Housing and Economic Development,
Finance, Planning and Community Development, and the Office of Sustainability,
with participation by members of the Planning Commission and Housing
Commission, reviewed all aspects of the proposals, .including the quality of the
design, sustainability, qualifications of the manufacturers and their team members,
experience with this type of project, financial capacity, proposed schedule and
pricing
• Three proposals were selected for further review: 1) Cavco Industries Inc. in
partnership with Marmol Radziner Prefab; 2) Golden West Homes; and 3) Fleetwood
Homes in partnership with Green Crafted Homes, LLC; additional discussions and
reference checks followed.
• Staff determined that the proposal from Cavco Industries, Inc. was most responsive
based on the selection criteria, including the completeness of the submission, the
quality of the proposed design, qualifications (experience, financial capacity, and
familiarity with code requirements), competitive pricing, and schedule of completion.
All references reported that Cavco was professional, delivered the specified product
in a timely manner and that they would purchase manufactured homes from Cavco
again.
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed Design of Units
Proposal A - Cavco Industries Inc./Marmot Radziner Prefab
ATTACHMENT C (cont.)
Proposal B - Silvercrest Western Homes
ATTACHMENT C (cont.)
Proposal C -Skyline/Touraine Richmond Architects
ATTACHMENT C (cont.)
Proposal D -Cavco Homes Inc. (Cavco Durango)
ATTACHMENT C (cont.)
Proposal E -Golden West Homes
~~
~~~
;~,
~~~
narwaia~a ~~a°am,,
(7} -x xe na ra%sarnur acau
(+~}-axersa am r~rra<ai
~! -tukH~lFSr 4P2FTfl1Jf'A.~1
r ~ {gel :+f~;. er'lYSY
Q' Y8Plaf?' ICTlIAM1+LLLh°6Gf'li i9p^,.1'F.GN:NI
- Y${7.MC'e~dC+tI. FPFI"a fFJ[P7 fq.FR]
~}l -PBffi6KW, iti a6 *EAR~/1r'BmGnal~ba+CJ F6
!!xA~'db9SY.D'r Pixf NWJ-
~i PFPg1+i8ft CClOR [HefU
SINGLE SECT141V
...~~
~ramr~+~ ewe i~,ayL mi ayaMU.
ATTACHMENT C (cont.)
Proposal F -Fleetwood Homes, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C (cont.)
Proposal G -Fleetwood Homes/ Green Crafted Homes
ATTACHMENT D
Manufactured Unit Costs Comparison
Proposal A
Cavcolndustries
Inc./Marmot
Radziner Prefab Proposal B
Silvercresf
WestermHomes Proposal C
SkylinelTouraine
Richmond
Architects Proposalb
Cavco Homes Inca
(CavcoDurango) ° Proposal E
Golden West
Homes Proposal F
Fleetwood Homes,
Inc. Proposal G
Fleetwood
Homes/Green
Crafted Homes
Unit Sizes
Required by
RFP
Per Unit Cost
Per Unit
Cost Above
Prop. A
Unit
Cost
Per Unit
Cost Above
Prop. A
Unit
Cost
Per Unit
Cost Above
Prop. A
Unit
Cost
Per Unit
Cost Above
Prop. A
Unit
Cost
Per Unit
Cost Above
Prop. A
Unit
Cost
Per Unit
Cost Above
Prop. A
Unit
Cost
12' x 32' $ 22,975 $ 46,686 103% $ 38,800 69% $ 39,941 74%
12' x 34' $ 23,702 $ 40,940 73% $ 40,741 72%
12' x 36' $ 24,381 $ 49,324 102% $ 28,760 18% $ 42,760 75%
$ 41,541 °
70%
12' x 38' $ 25,241 $ 35,790 42% $ 44,580 77% $ 32,708 30% $ 42,341 68%
13.5' x 30' $ 21,927 $ 39,350 79% $ 39,371 80%
13.5'x32' $ 22,975 $ 29,115 27% $ 40,240 75% $ 32,971 44% $ 40,171 75%
13.5' 34' $ 23,702 $ 30,015 27% $ 42,130 78% $ 33,171 40%
$ 40,371 °
70%
13.5' x 36' $ 24,381 $ 37,017 52% $ 29,975 23% $ 44,020 81% $ 33,371 37% $ 40,771 67%
13.5' x 38' $ 25,241 $ 38,509 53% $ 31,325 24% $ 46,910 86% $ 33,471 33% $ 41,471 64%
13.5' x 46 $ 29,277 $ 42,410 45% $ 53,470 83% $ 42,071 44%
13.5'.x50' $ 31,411 $ 44,245 41% $ 34,250 9% $ 57,250 82% $ 34,616 10% $ 42,816 36%
16' x 50' $ 38,577 $ 63,910 66% $ 66,000 71% $ 38,671 0% $ 45,871 19%
18' x 30' $ 25,511 $ 49,800 95% $ 47,518 86%
18' x 36' $ 29,366 $ 55,360 89% $ 48,318 65%
18' x 38' $ 30,744 $ 57,880 88% $ 49,118 60%
18'x44' $ 31,021 $ 65,440 111%. $ 49,918 61%
18' x 50' $ 37,994 $ 73,000 92% $ 50,718 33% $ 57,918 52%
20' x 48' $ 49,065 $ 63,250 29% $ 77,200 57% $ 50,738 3% $ 57,938 18%
24'x36' $ 43,810 $ 59,691 36% $ 70,480 61% $ 44,091 1% $ 51,291 17%
24'x48' $ 55,449 $ 60,490 .9% $ 91,640 65% $ 61,918 12%
24' x 50' $ 57,466 $ 61,023 6% $ 95,000 65%
$ 63,018 °
10%
Empty cells indicate that information was not provided by Applicant.
ATTACHMENT E
Add Alternatives Comparison
Add Alternative Proposal A
Cavco
Industries/
Marmol
Radziner "
'.Prefab Proposal B
Silvercrest
Western
Homes Proposal C
Skyline/
Touraine
Richmond
Architects Proposal D
Cavco
Homes lnc.
(Cavco
Durango) - Proposal E
Golden'
West
Homes Proposal F
Fleetwood
Homes,
Inc. Proposal G
Fleetwood
Homes/
Green
Crafted
Homes
REQUIRED BY RFP:
Green Energy Sources Such As Solar: Solar
Photovoltaic System $ 8,303.00 $5-6/watt ',
Green Energy Sources Such As Solar: Passive
Domestic Solar Water Heating $ 1,860.00 $4.95/s.f.
Green Energy Sources Such As Solar: Sunearth
Domestic Hot Water Panel $ 5,900.00
Built-In Microwave $ 600.00 $ 345.00 $ 675.00 $ 260.00
Stackable Washer& Dryer $ 1,500.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 1,695.00 $ 1;100.00
A/C $ 2,600.00 $ 2,075.00 $ 1,850.00
Tankless Water Heater $ 1,500.00 $ 1,575.00 $ 775.00 $ 1,715.00 $ 1,550.00
PROPOSED BY APPLICANT:
6'-Side Porch $ 8,400.00
4' Side Porch $ 7,800.00
Rear porch railing $ 1,800.00
Front porch railing $ 1,000.00
Green Box -Kitchen Garden, Water Collection &
Compost $ 2,200.00
Cork Flooring $ 4,800.00
Solid Surface Counters $ 1,168.00
Recycled Cotton Batt Insulation $ 500.00
Deck/Living Wall Upgrade $ 9,000.00
Rainwater Collection $ 3,000.00
Solartube $ 350.00
Green-Top Roof
Empty cells indicate that information was not provided by Applicant.
ATTACHMENT F
Comparison of `Developer Cost' and `Resident Cost'
Proposal A
Cavco Industries, Inc./Marmot Radziner Prefab
Unit Sizes
Required by RFP Per Unit
'Developer Cost' Per Unit
'Resident Cost' Cost Difference
12' x 32' $ 22,975.00 $ 25,272.50 10%
12' x 34' $ 23,702.00 $ 26,072.20 10%
12' x 36' $ 24,381.00 $ 26,819.10 10%
12' x 38' $ 25,241.00 $ 27,765.10 10%
13.5' x 30' $ 21,927.00 $ 24,119.70 10%
13.5' x 32' $ 22,975.00 $ 25,272.50 10%
13.5' 34' $ 23,702.00 $ 26,072.20 10%
13.5' x 36' $ 24,381.00 $ 26,819.10 10%
13.5' x 38' $ 25,241.00 $ 27,765.10 10%
13.5' x 46 $ 29,277.00 $ 32,204.70 10%
13.5' x 50' $ 31,411.00 $ 34,552.10 10%
16' x 50' $ 38,577.00 $ 42,434.70 10%
18' x 30' $ 25,511.00 $ 28,062.10 10%
18' x 36' $ 29,366.00 $ 32,302.60 10%
18' x 38' $ 30,744.00 $ 33,818.40 10%
18'x44' $ 31,021.00 $ 34,123.10 10%
18' x 50' $ 37,994.00 $ 41,793.40 10%
20' x 48' $ 49,065.00 $ 53,971.50 10%
24' x 36' $ 43,810.00 $ 48,191.00 10%
24' x 48' $ 55,449.00 $ 60,993.90 10%
24' x 50' $ 57,466.00 $ 63,212.60 10%