My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/08/2015 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2015
>
09/08/2015 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:29:45 AM
Creation date
7/24/2018 6:52:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
9/8/2015
Year
2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council <br />Tuesday, September 8, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br />Ed Parker fi~oin ThenDesign was in the audience. Mr. Saponaro asked, Ed, if you just want <br />to highlight it. You don't have to go into all the details. The information you provided, <br />coupled with the memo Diane provided was very good. <br />Frl Parker <br />ThenDesign <br />We went out to bid for the Community Room and the first bid came back over the projected <br />budget. The budget listed was not necessarily the real budget of the building. As we were <br />designing, a lot of things came up that were good ideas and made sense to do now and not <br />wait until later. A couple of the items are, site lighting. <br />When we were first hired, it was to renovate the existing Community Room. It was a good <br />budget but at that cost we could get a new building and highlight the town square idea. We <br />went through the process of renovation versus a new building. The only reason'I bring that <br />up is that when we budgeted the new building, we were doing an apples to apples <br />comparison of here is the existing building, here is the new building with everything the <br />existing building could have but not the site lighting for example or soiree of the exterior <br />site improvements. <br />Over the course of about a year, we went through the process of designing the site and the <br />building. There was some extensive research done to the traffic to see exactly how we <br />could be good neighbors with Center School and really share the site as far as vehicular <br />access being of a peak at different times. Through that process, we have developed the site <br />plan. We are going to be eliminating one of the access drives off of SOM Center which <br />should help the flow for both the Community Room and Center School. <br />As we were designing, ideas were brought up that were part of the Village's visions such as <br />pervious paving and being green. When I said the budget of $1.75 million was kind of a <br />published budget, there was a little bit of an understanding that every time we added <br />something, saying that's not in the budget. As we had the discussion, it made sense to still <br />figure out exactly how much this was going to cost because it's never cheaper to build and <br />then come back and build again. <br />When we started site planning, Jim McKnight shared with us the overall vision of <br />accessing the nodes. You have already started phase 1 of it, which is done now. That was <br />pervious paving; sidewalks that would connect to the community center across the street. <br />We included all of the suggestions that made sense into our first bid package. <br />The bids came in over the published budget by about 22%. Because of the timeline of the <br />school's having to be complete with the full project by next August to not disrupt the <br />school, we just went right back out to bid. We raised the budget so that the published <br />budget would fall within the 10% of what we anticipated. <br />We didn't just raise the budget. We also cut back some of the design and explored where <br />we could save some money. It's called value engineering. We looked at the interior <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.