Finance Caucus - May 2nd 2016
MINUTES OF THE FINANCE CAUCUS COMMITTEE
Mayfield Village Civic Hall – Mayfield Village Civic Center
Monday, May 2, 2016 - 7:15 p.m.
The Finance Committee met on Monday, May 2, 2016 in Civic Hall at the Mayfield Village Civic Center. Chairman Saponaro called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Present: Mr. Marquardt and Mr. Saponaro
Also Present: Mrs. Mills, Mr. Jerome, Mr. Marrie, Mayor Bodnar, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Metzung, Chief Carcioppolo, Chief Edelman, Mr. Marrelli, Mr. Cappello, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Esborn, Ms. Calta, and Mrs. Betsa
- Wireless Environment Resolution of Support
Chairman Saponaro stated, Diane Calta is here. She has been special counsel to help with economic development along with Ted.
Mr. Esborn stated, the Resolution of Support Council passed in April the next step from there was to draft the incentive grant agreement. I have worked on that with Diane and it was sent out in packets. There was a mix-up. The version in packets only had every other page so we sent out the full agreement today in an e-mail. This is the version of the Agreement that has been reviewed by Wireless Environment. I look forward to Council’s comments on it. We have invited David Levine who is the President of Wireless Environment to the Caucus meeting tonight to introduce himself and the company and to talk a little bit about the process that they have been going through with the owners of 600 Beta and he will take any questions that Council has.
Chairman Saponaro asked, Diane do you have anything to showcase on here, to point out?
Ms. Calta stated, just to summarize, I took a look at some of the Agreements that the Village has been using in the past and sat down with the Mayor and Ted and Diane and we walked through some of the previous points of discussion that Council had so we tried to address those sort of things making sure that the Agreement is focused on this location if the Company were to open up at another location in the Village. This is just meant to cover the 600 Beta location. We tried to tighten that up. We tried to tighten up some of the default provisions. This incentive seemed to lend itself to be more straightforward so essentially if they meet the threshold the grant is provided. If they don’t meet the threshold, they don’t receive the grant for that year. If they move substantially all of their operations or they cease all operations in the Village, the Agreement would terminate. Right now we are going back and forth a little bit on some other language that the company has requested regarding any sort of action that might happen to them outside of their control that would cause them to stop operations. So we are working on some of that language which is at Section 4, paragraph 3, starting with Notwithstanding on page 5. So we are still working through some of the language but we wanted to get a draft out that everyone could see and comment on and move this forward hopefully for consideration by Council at its next Council meeting.
Chairman Saponaro asked, what’s the reference?
Ms. Calta replied, it’s Section 5.
Mr. Marrie asked, page 5?
Ms. Calta replied, page 5, Section 5, if it printed the same on yours as it did on mine and then if you go almost to the bottom of the third, it says Nothwithstanding? This has to do with the payback. If they substantially move all of their operations out of the Village, we left them the ability for the Village to have the right but not the obligation to seek repayment of the grants that were provided. This is where they’re trying to say, well if there’s some sort of act of nature, we can’t operate, we don’t want you to come back and ask for those grant payments to be repaid. I don’t see the Village doing something like that. If somebody can’t operate because of some sort of natural disaster and they have to move their operations out of the Village, I don’t see that happening but that’s what they’re asking to clarify.
Chairman Saponaro stated, so different from they didn’t meet their threshold and they’re moving out and they want to still somehow receive this abatement which would not happen. They’ve met it in year 1, they’ve met it in year 2. In year 3, something beyond their control happens and they’re saying we don’t want the Village to come back and ask us for years 1 and 2 back which I don’t think that’s the intention, from my perspective.
Ms. Calta replied, right. I would say we are probably just working through the language so that there aren’t any loopholes either way.
Mr. Jerome asked, any other thoughts on the non-compete County issue that P&Z talked about?
Mr. Esborn replied, I think that was actually CEDC in March if I’m not mistaken and I think the consensus we had is that I would deliver to the company in writing sort of the message or the statement please take the, find an opportunity when the timing is right for your company to inform your current city that you are seeking to relocate. I think we thought that was best because we don’t technically have to comply with the protocol since they have fewer than 25 employees, but we still wanted to sort of comply with the spirit of it.
Mr. Jerome stated, okay, I must have missed the 25 employee threshold. That makes more sense. I think the overall goal of the non-compete is for us not to drive out to Solon and knock on their door and say, hey come to Mayfield Village. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Saponaro asked, any other questions on this? There were none.
- Additional Furnishings at Community Room
Chairman Saponaro referred to the memo received from Diane and Mr. Marrelli regarding the approval of the remaining furnishings, specifically the benches, the concrete furniture and the area rug.
Mr. Marrelli stated, these furnishings were picked by the Committee and by the architect and designer. We chose concrete benches and concrete furniture and an area rug to finish off the furniture on the building. You can see what’s what on there. I am not an expert on furnishings but these were picked out by the Committee and they have been vetted probably two or three times so this was the final approval. At this point we need Council to approve the expenditure so we can go ahead and order the material.
Chairman Saponaro asked, does anyone have any questions on this? When you say they were approved by the Committee, specific items?
Mr. Marrelli stated, the Community Room Committee.
Chairman Saponaro stated, I remember which Committee, but I thought we deferred these.
Mr. Marrelli stated, I recall sitting through at least three meetings picking out colors and dishes and furniture.
Chairman Saponaro stated, sure, but I mean for the area rug and all of that. I just wanted to be clear. We don’t have to assemble a Committee meeting to deal with this, but I don’t think that the Committee specifically picked out the final pieces here.
Mr. Marrelli replied, they did. Every piece was voted on. I am sure you remember the bid for the 10x14 rug came in at $10,900.
Mr. Jerome stated, we saw that.
Chairman Saponaro stated, I remember.
Mr. Marrelli stated, that was rejected.
Chairman Saponaro stated, we remember that being rejected and I remember the concrete furniture but I certainly don’t remember getting us to a final where we voted and picked out any of these items.
Mr. Marrelli stated, I can’t argue with that either way. I don’t remember exactly.
Chairman Saponaro asked, can we, besides the invoices, can we get pictures of what these items look like?
Mr. Marrelli replied, I think so. Do we have these?
Mrs. Mills stated, they are on the back. The benches.
Chairman Saponaro stated, well, there’s the area rug.
Mrs. Mills stated, oh, the area rug.
Mr. Jerome stated because we picked out an original area rug and obviously because of the expense they went back and looked and found something. So I guess we have no idea what the new one looks like.
Mayor Bodnar asked, Ted, aren’t there samples in the office?
Mr. Esborn asked, do you want me to go grab them? The samples?
Mayor Bodnar asked, of the rug? Yes. Are they on the Caucus agenda also?
Mr. Esborn replied, yes.
Mayor Bodnar stated, we can look at them then. We do have the samples here.
Chairman Saponaro stated, okay. Does anyone have any other questions on this one?
Mr. Marrie asked, just one question. Concrete, is this so no one takes them? Is that the whole reason for the concrete?
Mr. Marrelli replied, for durability. They are going to stay out summer and winter so nothing can happen to them. They are weatherproof basically.
Mr. Marrie stated, thank you.
Mr. Marquardt asked, are they comfortable enough for people to sit on?
Mr. Jerome stated, they are going to have pads.
Mayor Bodnar stated, there are going to be cushions, yes.
Mr. Marrelli asked, we have to cushion them?
Mayor Bodnar stated, I think there’s a sample of that fabric also.
Chairman Saponaro asked, any other questions? There were none.
- Request for additional contingency funds – Mayfield Village Community Building
(ThenDesign – not to exceed $50,000)
Chairman Saponaro stated, this is a letter that we received from ThenDesign, TDA to John and Ron. Ron, are you covering this one?
Mr. Wynne replied, yes. I will cover the financial aspects of the job if you have questions as far as what we spent the money on to date, which is on the back of that sheet. The project had an initial contingency of, I believe it was $93,000 which was $80,000 discretionary and $13,000 for the utilities. Typically with our projects, any project that we do, and I think Tom, with your road project it’s the same way, we always factor in a 10% contingency. This project we only factored in 4%. If you recall, when we went out to bid initially, we had to reject all bids because it came in significantly above what we had initially thought. When we went back out to bid, one of the items we reduced to make sure that the bids we received back were covered was we reduced the discretionary allowance from 10% down to 4% in the hopes that when we started digging across the street that we wouldn’t find too many things buried in the soil and any more issues that we would hope to expect. Well, up to this point in time, against that $93,000 we have about $3,000 left. Since that letter was written, we had an issue that developed Thursday or Friday?
Mr. Marrelli replied, Tuesday.
Mr. Wynne continued, that I can’t speak to the details, but it has to do with the routing of the stormwater sewer and sanitary sewer across the street which was an unforeseen situation and is going to cost around $25,000. At this point, we are even looking at increasing it to not to exceed $50,000-75,000. The hope is that we won’t have to touch the $50,000, but there’s still a lot of digging to do over there and we want to be able to continue going. Right now the project is stalled as far as the stormwater and sewer lines for about the past week trying to figure out exactly what the issues are over there and what the costs were going to be. So we don’t want to be coming back and forth every time something develops that needs to be improved out in the field. We want to keep the project going so that it is completed on schedule. The $50,000 doesn’t relate to anything specifically. If we increase that $50,000 to $75,000, we know what $25,000 of it is now because we just received a detail of it today but the request is to increase that contingency allowance so that we have the flexibility in the field to approve things that need to be approved to keep the project moving forward and on schedule.
Mr. Marrie asked, did you want to go to $75,000 then now?
Mr. Wynne replied, yes, I think we need to just to be safe.
Mr. Marrie stated, I don’t remember specifically but when you set up this contingency fund, the $93,000, did you say that was the 4%?
Mr. Wynne replied, yes. The project cost us about $1.8-1.9 million, so the $80,000 kind of worked out to be about 4%.
Mr. Marrie asked, okay, but originally it was set up higher?
Mr. Wynne replied, when we went to bid initially it was set up higher and then we brought that contingency number down to project the cost down to make the bidding process a little bit more guaranteed when we went out the second time.
Mr. Marrie stated, okay. Thank you.
Chairman Saponaro asked, any other comments or questions?
Mr. Jerome stated, I guess some of my questions were some of the items I guess why they weren’t, I mean I know it’s just contingency for a reason, some of the items why they weren’t figured into, like undercut the footers, what?
Mr. Marrelli replied because they encountered –
Mr. Cappello stated, soft ground.
Mr. Jerome stated, okay, I remember that now.
Mr. Marrelli stated, cave-ins and a lot of extra concrete had to go in the ground.
Mr. Jerome stated, so some sewer work, we talked about the door issue, main room cabinets and countertops. What was the original design that we changed that?
Mr. Marrelli replied, we added some more.
Mr. Jerome asked, we added more cabinets?
Mr. Marrelli replied, yes.
Mr. Jerome stated, ansul system, I know it was something we didn’t figure in. We just decided we wanted to do it.
Mr. Marrelli replied, the ansul system and the Fire Department connection were not part of the original program.
Mr. Jerome stated, yes, that’s correct. Cabinetry revision, the last item?
Mr. Marrelli replied, added for the sound equipment, I believe.
Mr. Jerome stated, okay. That answers my questions. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wynne asked, John, can you just speak a little bit to what happened last week and where we are at today?
Mr. Marrelli replied, yes, I will try to keep it simple. We are reusing the old sewer from the old building. When it got cut open, it turned out that it was blocked and we think that it got blocked at the street. We brought the County out. They repaired it. To go forward, elevations were shot to find out that the stormsewer where it plans to go and the sanitary sewer where it’s planning to go were going to conflict so we had to go back to the engineers and go into a redesign which is causing manholes and catchbasins and a whole bunch of things to have to be altered. And so with the delay, with the repair, with the redesign and profit margins, et cetera, we are looking at about $22,000 to get this project back on the road, to get these sewers to clear. That’s it in a nutshell.
Chairman Saponaro stated, thank you.
Mr. Jerome stated, I guess the only thing I would say is we kind of knew we would have some of these issues because the project we are doing with keeping one building working while we are bringing in the other.
Mr. Marrelli stated, right and we wanted to, we tried to save a few dollars by reusing the old sanitary which is still a good idea, but who knew that the storms and the sanitaries were going to be right at the same elevation. It’s pretty hard to know that.
Mr. Jerome stated, I think the $75,000 would seem like a far number since we already know we are already at $25,000.
Mr. Marrelli stated, and we still won’t hit our 10% that’s the usual customary.
Mr. Marrie stated, right.
Chairman Saponaro stated, all right. Very good. Any other questions on that?
Mr. Wynne stated, I just wanted to say, from a move forward standpoint, they are on hold across the street so I don’t know if we are able to, and it’s a question for the Law Director, at the Caucus if we can straw poll that at Caucus or maybe we will just have to straw poll Council tomorrow morning to get the okay so we can approve this $22,500 and get the project back on track.
Chairman Saponaro stated, we will have to address that. Anybody else? Any other comments? There were none.
- Bid Results – Installation of Diesel Exhaust Ventilation System
(Hastings Air Energy Control, Inc. - $60,892.69 – Straw Vote Approved 4/26/16)
Chairman Saponaro stated, the bid results came in on the installation of the diesel exhaust ventilation system and it was Hastings Air Energy Control was the winning bid. We then went out to get a straw vote which was approved on April 26th. Hastings came in at $60,892.69 and it was approved by Dr. Parker, Mr. Marrie, Mr. Jerome, myself, Mr. Williams. Anybody have any questions or comments on this one? Do you need any information on it?
There were no comments.
Chairman Saponaro stated, let’s just proceed on it so that it gets approved through the normal course and action, okay? You can talk about the project and all that on Caucus floor.
Chief Carcioppolo stated, okay, thanks.
- Annual renewal fee – Hillcrest Technical Rescue Team (HTRT) and Hillcrest Mobile Air Unit (HMAU) (City of Mayfield Heights - $5,000)
Chairman Saponaro stated, there is also a resolution. The resolution is in support of the diesel exhaust ventilation system. This is an annual fee. Does anyone have any questions for the Chief on this?
There were none.
Chairman Saponaro stated, so we will move that on to Council so we can vote on that. Thanks for your memos. They were very good. They explain a lot of information. I appreciate that.
PARKS & RECREATION:
- Parkview Pool Filtration/Heater Room (MELD Architects - $22,200.00)
Chairman Saponaro stated, we received in our packets a proposed Ordinance regarding awarding the Agreement to MELD Architects. Before I comment, what are the comments on the floor regarding this matter? Anybody?
Mr. Thomas stated, I had planned to have extensive discussion at Caucus.
Chairman Saponaro stated, okay. Is it dealing with the financial aspect of it? Because if it is, you should have it here.
Mr. Thomas replied, well, that’s our recommendation, MELD Architects at $22,200.
Chairman Saponaro stated, okay. Does anyone have comments on this? The only comment I would make is I had asked for additional bids just to see where we’re at and to have the bids broken down between what was the actual design amount and the going out to bid amount. I have not received anything on that, so I’m not really sure. I know that Dr. Parker had requested additional information as well so we had deferred action waiting to receive additional information on that to go out to other architects and as far as I know unless you tell me otherwise, I don’t think we’ve done any of that.
Mr. Thomas replied, correct.
Chairman Saponaro asked, we have not done any of that?
Mr. Thomas replied, I did check with O.P. Aquatics and they do not have an architect on their staff and they would do the same thing that we have done, gone out and gotten bids from individuals that we have worked within the past. Those three are who we pursued.
Chairman Saponaro asked, did we get a bid from TDA who we work with? Did we go out to them since we are working on a project with them?
Mr. Thomas replied, no.
Chairman Saponaro stated, so we went out to bid for three.
Mr. Thomas replied, correct.
Chairman Saponaro stated, one did not come back to us. We got two. There’s been questions about the cost of it.
Mr. Thomas stated, I am hoping that those can be answered tonight. I do have MELD coming tonight for Caucus.
Chairman Saponaro stated, but beyond MELD coming, we asked why aren’t we getting more bids out there? How does the process work? It’s not our function to tell Administration or any of you how to do it. We are just grasping for more information and we are asking why we are not going out to other architects and that’s really been the question so I am not really sure why we are still kind of in the same place where we don’t, I know O.P. Aquatics, you and I had that conversation, they don’t have anyone on staff, but they are experts. Who do they utilize? Who do they recommend? Who have they used?
Mr. Thomas replied, and again, they would do the same thing. They don’t have anyone specifically so they would go out just like we did to find three quotes. We only got two
Chairman Saponaro stated, we didn’t get three quotes and I know that was part of the issue.
Mr. Thomas stated, there was a liability issue that that architect had.
Chairman Saponaro stated, I understand that. So I guess that was the question. A lot of these questions we are trying to address them which is why aren’t we going out to other architects and making sure that we’ve got the best bid that we can get and why can’t we get these bids broken down so that we understand between what’s the design amount and what is the cost to go out to bid?
Mr. Thomas replied, that was broken down in the memo that we received from Mr. Parker. I think that was dated April 15th.
Mayor Bodnar asked, Joe, is there a question as to the legality of what we’ve done? I know that at Council –
Chairman Saponaro replied, I have no legal question. We just, as a Committee we keep asking for more. We want to go out to have more architects. I think that’s really what has been, that’s the thing that I have seen on here. Can’t we go out to other architects? How do we decide on these two or these three? Only two responded and it was done informally. $22,000 has been brought up as a lot of money so before the Committee is comfortable with saying this is exactly what we need to do, and I am not going to go out, it’s not our place as Council to go out to get architects to say why don’t you bid on it because that’s not our place. That’s why we are asking you to do that.
Mayor Bodnar stated, I think it’s our job to comply with what our ordinances say that we need to do and to go to people that we feel we are competent with and I don’t think we have not complied with what we are supposed to do. But like I said I think we should address that at Caucus because our legal counsel will be available and he can address those issues.
Chairman Saponaro stated, it’s not a legal issue though. It’s a finance issue. And the finance issue is we would like to see more bids. $22,000 is a lot of money and we want to see more bids and that’s really been the only thing that we have asked for. There’s nothing legal about it. It’s simply asking for additional requests to go out to look out and have a comparison on it. There’s only one other party to compare it with and unless I am speaking out of turn here and the rest of Council can step up and say that they’re perfectly fine with this then that’s fine, but certainly I know Dr. Parker had expressed concerns to me and so did Mr. Jerome and others may have raised questions on it but the floor is open.
Mr. Marrie stated, I do have a question. Isn’t it normal though that we only ask three people to bid?
Chairman Saponaro replied, I don’t know what’s normal.
Mr. Wynne stated, the process as is defined in the Charter or Codified is that for anything over the Mayor’s spending limit but under the $25,000, we are to get several bids to bring to Council for comparative purposes.
Mr. Marrie asked, several is usually around three?
Mr. Wynne replied, we typically do three. When we can get three. Anything over $25,000 is what goes to competitive bid, the advertised bid process through a newspaper.
Mr. Marrie asked, okay, Joe, if they went and got three and one said no obviously from what you are saying, then why was that not proper to go ahead and accept one of the two that did bid?
Chairman Saponaro stated, people were questioning the amount. It’s $22,000. That’s a lot of money, so we said, if we didn’t get that third person, go out.
Mr. Marrie asked, you want another bid?
Chairman Saponaro replied, yes, that’s what we have said from the very beginning. All we are looking for is to go out for other bids. All it will do is shore up the position that this is exactly where it needs to be. That’s all we were looking for.
Mr. Wynne stated, the process we went through is similar to what Doug did with the tree planting for this year. He went out to several three nurseries, gave them specifics of what we wanted to purchase and plant. One met all of your specs, one met some and one wouldn’t even respond. It was a similar situation where we went out, asked for three quotes, got one and a half back and then Council made a decision off of those.
Mr. Marrie stated, but we did approve it based on what you just said.
Mr. Wynne stated, yes.
Chairman Saponaro stated, right, because how it was explained to us is that there is not a lot of bidders out there. There’s just not a lot of companies that do that. That was very much more specialized. There are certainly a lot of architects out there and if we go to people that we have utilized, I guess that’s my whole point, why aren’t we going to others just to make sure that we’ve got the best bid, especially if there’s been questions on the floor?
Mr. .Thomas stated, we did go, Doug worked with a gentleman and Tom Cappello worked with somebody and we pursued the individual that is working on the Community Room to begin with. Those are the three that we went with.
Chairman Saponaro stated, I understand that, but even on the Community Room, it was TDA that was the architect on that. The individual has a different company at this point, but TDA was the company. So at a minimum we should have gone to them and gone to this other person and whoever else, but I am just saying from my perspective if we are going to use that as reasoning, I don’t know why we wouldn’t go to both.
Mayor Bodnar stated, I think that’s a little bit conclusory saying at a minimum we should go to these five different people. I think we left it in the hands of Bill who then considered who we had worked with, who some of our other employees had worked with and who they respected and thought were capable of getting the job done. I don’t think we should say that we were remiss in not going to additional people. There’s a point in time when you need to cut it off.
Mr. Marrie stated, I just kind of thought that it was followed if you call it rules or regulations or procedures that he went out for three and he got, well, two said yes and one said no but that’s happened before. I realize trees and pools are two different things, but the fact is though you are still talking the same, not the exact same, but you are still talking over the Mayor’s budget and that was approved. I am just confused why that was and why this isn’t.
Chairman Saponaro stated, because there are questions on the floor as to the cost. $22,000 for architectural fees.
Mr. Marrie asked, it was challenged on that, you mean?
Chairman Saponaro stated, it was challenged on the price to make sure, so can we get another bid to see where someone else would be coming in at. That’s what we were asking for. It wasn’t about they didn’t go to the right people. It was about there was question as to the amount and the number of people or is there someone that is going to come in and the bid’s going to be exactly the same or less than that. I don’t know, but that’s why we just asked for more information. I know Dr. Parker had asked for more information. I know that Mr. Jerome did and all that we have done is we have asked for it. Bill has been wonderful in providing us with the information that he has, but we are just asking for another architectural bid. So that’s to clarify that part of it, that’s what that is.
Mayor Bodnar stated, we know that MELD was the lower of two bids that came in.
Mr. Thomas stated, correct.
Mayor Bodnar stated, and Dr. Parker isn’t here now, but I imagine he is coming to Council, do we know?
Chairman Saponaro stated, I can’t speak for Dr. Parker.
Mayor Bodnar stated, if he does come to Council he will have the opportunity to voice whatever concerns he has there so I would suggest tabling this whole discussion until Council Caucus where we can look at the big picture and go into it at that time.
Chairman Saponaro asked, does anyone have any other comments?
Mr. Jerome stated, I have a couple. The one way I would like to look at it is this whole project is going to cost a couple hundred thousand dollars. So I know that we are above the $5,000 Mayor’s spending limit but below the $25,000 for going out to bid. If you look at the whole gambit, we are well above that. I know we try to avoid doing this, splitting it up to avoid these questions, so that’s part of it, to say, okay it’s only $22,000, well, it’s more like a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. Thomas stated, we are going to go out for bid for all of that work.
Mr. Jerome stated, I understand that.
Mr. Thomas stated, the architect is going to be doing all that planning and getting those bids.
Mr. Jerome stated, my concern was separating it like this, we are avoiding the big picture. Since we are going to be going out to bid anyways, why are we going right below the $25,000? Does that make sense what I’m asking?
Mr. Marrie stated, I don’t understand.
Mr. Cappello stated, I think the thing, this is not, we are not going to bid for construction services. It’s requests for proposals for design services.
Mr. Jerome stated, but it’s all together. You can’t do one without the other so I don’t understand why you are separating them.
Mr. Cappello stated, when we hired URS, we had requests for proposals to do the Greenway Trail.
Mr. Jerome stated, correct.
Mr. Cappello continued, so we had a bunch of firms come and give us proposals for the cost. Then they ended up picking URS or approving URS’ proposal. Then they prepared the plans that went out to bid on a $1.3 million project. It was separate.
Mr. Jerome asked, was the original over $25,000?
Mr. Cappello asked, the proposal from URS to do the Greenway Trail? Oh yes.
Mr. Jerome stated, so it still had to go to some sort of bid.
Mr. Cappello stated, there was no bid. Engineering services you are not bidding. It’s a statement of qualifications. It’s actually, you don’t necessarily have to take the lowest number.
Mr. Jerome stated, so we didn’t have to go out to bid process like we do for other projects with that is what you are saying?
Mr. Cappello asked, with what?
Mr. Jerome replied, with the Greenway Trail.
Mr. Cappello replied, the Greenway Trail, the construction, yes.
Mr. Jerome stated, but the engineering aspects we did not.
Mr. Cappello stated, Joe and Diane may remember this. There’s a specification if your design fees are over a certain amount of money for specific projects or whatever you go out and have to get statement of qualifications and you review them and there’s a table. It doesn’t have to be the lowest necessarily
Mr. Jerome stated, I know that.
Mr. Cappello stated, I think that’s what I am just trying to make sure we weren’t bidding, I think we were getting qualifications and proposals in and then we accept it. It’s a little bit different than going out to bid for construction. Maybe I am speaking out of turn, Ron, is that true as far as the $25,000? The $25,000 was a trigger for design fees, also construction I would imagine also, right?
Mr. Wynne replied, I think what Steve’s getting at is, let’s use the police station as an example. We had a $4 million budget and we had multiple companies come in and present to us their ideas.
Mr. Cappello stated, that was a design build.
Mr. Wynne stated, it was a whole design build thing for $4 million and that company took care of the architectural services and stuff like that so I think that that’s what he’s getting at. I don’t know if it makes sense in this case because of that $200,000, how much is the filters?
Mr. Thomas replied, $103,000.
Mr. Wynne stated, $103,000 of it is equipment versus the actual structural costs.
Mr. Jerome stated, okay. One of my thoughts is the letter we had gotten, I will call it a letter of recommendation from the gentleman in Mentor who has had to do something like this and I don’t know why this wouldn’t work, their structure didn’t have walls. It had a roof over it. They built some sort of a wall to represent a fence and then they had fences on two ends of it so I don’t know why that might not be a possibility to save some money.
Mr. Thomas stated, that’s a question for the architect tonight. This is an open meeting on that for discussion.
Mr. Jerome stated, just something else that I thought about and the guy from Mentor.
Mr. Thomas stated, the only thing I am concerned about is it needs fresh air and I don’t know if there still could be chemicals that could be coming into that with an open building. You are saying a roof over it.
Mr. Jerome asked, isn’t that exactly what Mentor did?
Mr. Thomas replied, they do.
Mr. Metzung stated, what he’s saying is you are going to put in a fenced in area with a roof on it. Obviously you are going to have lots of fresh air. I don’t know if that’s something you want.
Mr. Thomas stated, I don’t know.
Mr. Metzung stated, a $4 million pool.
Mr. Jerome stated, you’ve got a guy from Mentor who gave us an example of this same problem that we are saying we are having and that’s what they did. That’s why I just figured to throw that out there as an option from a financial standpoint.
Chairman Saponaro asked, does anyone else have any questions or comments regarding this?
Mr. Marrie stated, no, no more.
ANY OTHER MATTERS
Chairman Saponaro asked, is there anything else that we need to address for Finance?
There were none.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 16, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Conference Room at the Mayfield Village Civic Center.