Loading...
LIbrary Board Minutes 05-18-2004 Library Board Minutes - 5/18/04 . Members Present: MINUTES MONTICELLO LIBRARY BOARD Tuesday May 18,2004 - 4 p.m. Members Absent: Eric Anderson, Sandra Foster, Jacquelin Gordon, Dawn (hossinger, Tom Parker and Council Liaison, Glen Posusta None Others Present: Margo Askin, Branch Librarian, Deb Otten, Assistant Librarian and Fred Patch, Building OffIcial 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. by Chair, Tom Parker. A quorum was pres cut Margo Askin introduced Deb Otten who has been an cmployee at the library since 1982. Ms. Otten took some time to explain to the Library Board some of the activities shc is involved in at the library such as children's programs, storytelling events, etc. 2. Discussion of RFP's from architects on the library expansion. . Fred Patch reported that nine requests for proposals on thc library expansion had been sent out and five responses had been received. The tinns of Hagemeister & Mack, Mahler & Associates, Keenan Arcbitectural Group, GLTA Arcbitects and Kodet Architectural Group submitted proposals, which were distributed to the Library Board members. Sandra Foster questioned why Mabler & Associates proposal was for an 8,000 sq. ft. expansion and all tbe otbcr proposals were for a 3,000 sq. ft. expansion. Fred Patch responded tbat tbe scope oftbe expaosion would be defined in the programming pbase oftbe project. He stated tbat project service depends on three factors, quantity, quality and budget. Tbe preliminary budget amount is $500,000 but the Council could cbange the budget amount. There was Some question wbether the $500,000 Was in this years budget or wbether $250,000 was budgeted for 2004 and anotbcr $250,000 budgeted for 2005. Tom Parker indicated that initially the expansion was proposed for the canopy area, whicb would be about 3,000 sq. ft. Margo Askin indicated tbat three of the fIrms who had responded on the RFP did visit the library site. Sandra Foster asked wbether the library Board should be addressing the immediate expansion needs or sometbing long term. She telt it may be more advisable to look at a plan for the long tenn. She also noted in reviewing the proposals that a number of tbe arcbitects bad specifically addressed the tlmction of the library. Tom Parker indicated that the Library Board would interview the selected arcbitccts and make a recommendation to tbe City Council. Tbe question was on wbat criteria sbould tbe Library Board select the candidates to be interviewed. Fred Patcb indicated he had done a preliminary analysis based on ICe comparison. He also noted anotber lactor to consider is the working relationsbip between tbe Board and the architect and while considering the function of the building is okay, he also felt there needs to beauty in the structure design. Library Board Minutes- 5/18/04 . Fred Patch noted the proposal submitted Mahler & Associates did not include civil engineering or HV AC. lfthese items were added the fee would be increased. As it stands without these items, the fee proposed by Mahler & Associates was the lowest of the five. There was discussion on what constituted the work that the civil engineer would do and also the requirements of code for J IV AC design. Fred Patch suggested that perhaps the City would do Some of the work such as landscape, civil engineering. Tom Parker lelt these issues were more suited for discussion at a later date. Now he was more concerned ahout Fred's recommendation ahout making a decision on how to proceed. Fred Patch responded that the Board should look at the fee proposal first. He felt that any of the firms were capable of designing a huilding expansion but the Library Hoard needed to determine which firm could provide the best performance hased on staff involved. Another factor to consider was the firm's ability to work with the Board. Sandra Foster suggested that each board member rank the Jive firms with the top 2-3 ranked firms heing the ones the Library Board would interview. The Library Board looked at the fee proposals. Sandra Foster stated that the lowest price did not always mean you got the best product and that the Library Board was not obligated to go with the lowest bid. Jacquelin said she felt that actual expericnce in construction of lihraries and experience with media facilities were important factors to consider. . Margo Askin stated the project needs to look at the design of the existing space as well as the proposed expansion. It is important to not only design for the expansion but to efficiently utilize the existing space. The Library Board discussed the time ti-ame for the expansion and selecting an architect. It was determined that the board memhers will suhmit their rankings to Margo Askin hy noon on Wednesday and a special meeting of the Library Board will be set f()r Friday at 2 p.m. to interview the firms selected. A recommendation would be made to the City Council at their June 14,2004 meeting. There was continued discussion on the basis for selecting the architect. Glen Pnsusta leIt that the proposal that was lowest in price should be considered especially since the lirm had previously done work Jor the City. It was felt that perhaps by selecting a finn that was experienced in lihrary design and construction the City could save because it would take less design hours. Sandra Foster asked what was the typical time frame between selecting an architect have drawings ready for bidding. Fred Patch indicated that it would be at least a couple of months. Fred Patch stated that the long term plan is critical in this because the City may want to construct a parking lot on the west side of the building and that needs to he a part of the overall plan. The Library Board will allow 30-45 minutes for each interview. Fred Patch will be present at the Friday meeting for the architect interviews. Margo Askin did state that one of the library staff had worked with Hagemeister and felt the firm was impressive. 2 Library Board Minutes- 5/18/04 3. Approve minutes of April 6, 2004. . Jacquelin Gordon moved to approve the minutcs of April 6,2004 with a spelling correction. Eric Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Other Items: Tom Parker notcd that hc looked at the Hopkins Library and had checked out their Spanish book section Margo Askin indicated that Chaska is doing a program for their Spanish speaking population. The Board felt that this is something that should be pursued even though it may not be a top priority. Jacquelin Gordon notcd that she is on the Steering Committee for the Friends of the Library. They arc in the organizational stage yet but hope to be squared away by September Jacquelin Gordon would act as liaison for the Friends of the Library. 4. Adiourn. ERIC ANDERSON MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 5:40 P.M. JACQUELIN GORDON SECONDED THE MOnON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . Recording Secretary --~-'----------~~- 3 . Architectural Group ltd, I 'l 1'~)nd(.~,~ . ~\Hl!rl!,.','jn~',:d;\'.,>r.1N \ i J ~i4 r ~"!;'!il i:l.<:h:t~ k!)df:.It.('.'inJ .. \V(>h~".~lh> k 1)(:1",0 1 j'R'I~~phnl',;(> t',: J ;:> '{ '/ / .t;-, / '/ .! ",i1nll(": (> ? "J // ! Meeting Minutes Re: Monticello Library Meeting Date: July 27, 2004 . I. Working session with council August 9 - Council Meeting approximately 6:00pm. To show consolidated plans since last meeting. 2. Met with staff to review functional elements. 3. Silc plan changes. a. Look at expanding parking lot. b. New entryway established to make building (unction better. i. Better site lines within library ii. Book-drop from car -. I-way exit- Need to add access to Locus. iii. Work area expansion 4. Program room could be converted to a coffee shop in future, using drop-olT as a driw-thnl. 5. Phase I - work area, program room and entry area addition = just under 3,000. Add a small reading area by existing entrance for total ofJ,OOO. 6. Vault - plans appear like it is prefab. a. It will be work to remove, but it is non-functioning, no ventilation _ wasted space. 7. Canopy -- unsure if insulated or not- build under it as a room within a room. a. Leave now, can do something with it in a later phase ~. Might have to redo Reroof Part 1 of Phase 1 in Phase 2 or building is taller than canopied area. a. Can it be done with library open? It will be disruptive. b. Road to LOcust Would be out of project budget as is parking lot. 9. C""py go"g 'ow woold be ''''ce "'h" 'b" J"" "', 'b'Ow"g 'O'"'''''og good 'W'y, bot i," just something they can't use. I O. Canopy rt'moved - should be in budget ($1 O,OOO'?) II. Phase II cost? 4000 x $150/SF = $650,000 12. Phase I cost over by aboul $ J 00,000 -- we'll need to trim as we haven't done that yet. 13. Perspective items: a. Signage._ billboard along entry b. Clock at corner c. Something at exterior saying "Public" "Library" d. Add copper to tic in to Community Center. e. Uricks like Community ('enter or like rest of building'! ( Too much paving- scale back g. Courtyard outside reading area 14. What is the time frame 1'01' Phase IP 5-10 years. Margo: 4-5 years. 15. Doing Phase II as shelP 50% shell construction/50% Ilnish A !tend ees: Teri Nagel, Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd. Ed Kodet, Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd. Rick Wolfstellen, City of Monticello Glen R Posusta, City of Monticello 1'0111 Parker, Monticello Library Board Jacquelin Gordon, Monticello Library Board Margo Askin, Monticello Library Staff okp pc gc 0440(i MM Monticello 072704 . 16. 17. 18, 19, 20. 21. 22 23. 24. 25. 26 27. FFE budget uutside of construction budget $500,000 per Ed Kudct's discussion with Fred Patch. a. This w~s unclear with others and shuuld be confirmed, b. 5-10% of this <:ost shuuld he expected in addition 1'01' furnishings Nt;ed a project budget Options tu get us tu bUdget ~. Eliminate prugram room August y'h - Options - he undl'r $500,000 budget with uptions tu go higher. W wall not brick as tempur~ry with plannt;d exp~nsiun here. Tie buildings together a. Bricks like Community center? Or like rest of building? Te~r eanupy down a. Canopy is completely separ~k Irom main rouf b, Height beluw might be a probkm - getting I.IV AC beluw HV J\C system- will it handle ~ddilionallo~d? a. Possible prublem may be program ruom Program Roum - Exterior wall windows a. Doesn't need tu be darkened b. Winduws through space guod Luok at various custs for uptions Talk be/ore meeting Project bUdget a, Testing b. Soi1l3oring c. Cuntingeney d, AlE Fees c. Survey f. FFE g. 15-20% non construction costs 28. City might be able to do landscaping? Probably not. 2Y. Sitc was a swampy are~. . The above is ~ summary of thl' items dis<:ussed indi<:ating decisions regarding Ihe project. It is not me~nt to he totally inclusivc. Normal interpret~tiuns, and coordin~tion, ~s a parl uf professiun~1 services can and will dlange the design. Sud] inte'-pretations, and coordination, will be consistent with lhe UVl'r~lI direction and history oftht; project. Please review ~J1d respund with any changes, ~dditions, or <:brification within five working days. cc: Fred Patch Margo Askin (for distrihution) Kodet File okp pc gc ()4.4()(, MM Mot)llCcllo ()727()4