Special Council - September 8th 2015

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL
Mayfield Village Civic Hall
Tuesday, September 8, 2015 – Immediately Following Caucus

The Council of Mayfield Village met in Special Session on Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at Mayfield Village Civic Hall. Council President Marrie called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Mr. Jerome, Mr. Marrie, Mrs. Mills, Dr. Parker, Mr. Saponaro and Mr. Williams

Also Present: Mayor Rinker, Mr. Wynne, Mr. Diemert, Mr. Cappello, Chief Edelman, Chief Carcioppolo, Mr. Marrelli, Mr. Metzung, Mr. Thomas, Mr. DiNardo, Mr. Esborn, Ms. Wolgamuth, and Mrs. Betsa

Absent: Mr. Marquardt

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was given.

OPEN PORTION:

3 minute limit imposed by Chair. Those who wish to speak must first state their name and address.

There were no comments.

  • Motion to authorize expenditure in the amount of $296,596 to Motorola Solutions for purchase of MCC 7500 IP Dispatch Console.

This motion was removed from this evening’s agenda. It will be placed on the agenda for consideration at the Regular Council meeting scheduled for September 21, 2015.

  • Motion to accept bid of Seitz Builders, Inc., to authorize the Mayor and Council President to enter into an Agreement with Seitz Builders, Inc. and to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $2,024,000 for the Mayfield Village Community Room project.

Mrs. Mills, seconded by Mr. Jerome, made a motion to accept bid of Seitz Builders, Inc., to authorize the Mayor and Council President to enter into an Agreement with Seitz Builders, Inc. and to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $2,024,000 for the Mayfield Village Community Room project.

Council President Marrie asked, any discussion?

Ed Parker from ThenDesign was in the audience. Mr. Saponaro asked, Ed, if you just want to highlight it. You don’t have to go into all the details. The information you provided, coupled with the memo Diane provided was very good.

Ed Parker
ThenDesign

We went out to bid for the Community Room and the first bid came back over the projected budget. The budget listed was not necessarily the real budget of the building. As we were designing, a lot of things came up that were good ideas and made sense to do now and not wait until later. A couple of the items are, site lighting.

When we were first hired, it was to renovate the existing Community Room. It was a good budget but at that cost we could get a new building and highlight the town square idea. We went through the process of renovation versus a new building. The only reason I bring that up is that when we budgeted the new building, we were doing an apples to apples comparison of here is the existing building, here is the new building with everything the existing building could have but not the site lighting for example or some of the exterior site improvements.

Over the course of about a year, we went through the process of designing the site and the building. There was some extensive research done to the traffic to see exactly how we could be good neighbors with Center School and really share the site as far as vehicular access being of a peak at different times. Through that process, we have developed the site plan. We are going to be eliminating one of the access drives off of SOM Center which should help the flow for both the Community Room and Center School.

As we were designing, ideas were brought up that were part of the Village’s visions such as pervious paving and being green. When I said the budget of $1.75 million was kind of a published budget, there was a little bit of an understanding that every time we added something, saying that’s not in the budget. As we had the discussion, it made sense to still figure out exactly how much this was going to cost because it’s never cheaper to build and then come back and build again.

When we started site planning, Jim McKnight shared with us the overall vision of accessing the nodes. You have already started phase 1 of it, which is done now. That was pervious paving; sidewalks that would connect to the community center across the street. We included all of the suggestions that made sense into our first bid package.

The bids came in over the published budget by about 22%. Because of the timeline of the school’s having to be complete with the full project by next August to not disrupt the school, we just went right back out to bid. We raised the budget so that the published budget would fall within the 10% of what we anticipated.

We didn’t just raise the budget. We also cut back some of the design and explored where we could save some money. It’s called value engineering. We looked at the interior lighting package. It’s the same design but we just explored how we can achieve the same design, like quality and aesthetics, but for less money.   The interior lighting package was one that changed. The exterior doors were originally an aluminum storefront type door which is really a custom door and it’s a more commercial type of door but when I say commercial type of door I mean like CVS, the high abuse type door. We looked at the use of the building and stepped back from the custom aluminum doors to a fiberglass door which is still a commercial product, it’s just not the high abuse. The idea there is that it’s like the community’s house. The intent of it is to be rented. You are not going to have traffic coming in and out regularly to go shopping or something that a regular commercial business would do. We cut the door package back which saved a significant amount of money. It also changed the hardware package which added to that.

We took a look at doing alternates. One of them was a deduct alternate to try to combine everything the Village wanted with the site but cutting back some of the suggestions with the idea they can be provided in the future. We put that one as a deduct alternate knowing that ultimately the committee wanted the site plan as it was designed. The other one I mentioned was the lighting package, the site lighting. When I say site lighting, I am talking about all of the lighting that is not connected to the building. The building does have a significant amount of light attached to it which will obviously splash out from it but this is for the overall safety of the parking and really bringing the site up to the 21st Century as far as accessibility and safety.

We went back out to bid and the bids came in extremely tight other than Seitz who was actually the third most bidder in the first round. We got 7 bids. Six of the bids were within $20,000 of each other. It shows you that we actually did save just in the sense of making people more competitive. It did save some money to go right back out to bid.

Last week we presented to the committee the bids we collected and selected the alternates to come up with the total number. In the $2,024,000, $93,000 is contingencies. $13,000 of them are already allocated. They were allowances. One was a projector. One was a projector screen. The other was CEI services. Knowing we were going to have to pay for the electrical connection but not knowing how much it was, we had $10,000 in there. Since we went out to bid, we know that that as an example is going to be $6,000. As an allowance, the $4,000 left over from that will come back to the Village. Then there’s an $80,000 construction contingency. This is for unforeseen conditions. As an example, if we start digging foundations and run into a gas storage tank; I hope that’s not the case, but we can’t see under the ground. We did do soil borings to investigate as much as possible but we can’t hit every inch of the site. Ultimately, if things go well, I would say $50,000 of the $80,000 is very likely to come back to the Village.

Mr. Jerome asked, you mentioned about Alternate 1?

Mr. Parker replied, in the process of being good neighbors with Center School, Alternate 1 was to include the improvements of their site. If you look at the building right now, the building actually butts up right to the asphalt. You can actually see right where salt is already starting to attack Center School. Being good neighbors, we had a conversation with them to tell them they would probably save money if we do this together. The school did pay for the engineering side of their work. Alternate 1 is their side of the site improvements. We have a meeting with them next Wednesday, September 16th, to go over whether or not they want to accept –

Mayor Rinker stated, that meeting is the School Board meeting. I will be attending that with Diane and you.

Mr. Parker continued, if that’s not approved, just so everyone knows, we are not going to just have a hard line cut and no improvements happen to our site. The base bid included sealcoating and not a full asphalt but basically patching their existing asphalt to make it a seamless transition. Alternate 1 included a significant amount of curbing and drop off lane to help their site. Just to be clear, everything with Alternate 1, the school’s site, is for them to make.

Council President Marrie asked, any further discussion?

Mayor Rinker stated, we have gone through extensive, Council’s aware of it, but for the record it’s important to recap a few things especially in light of the fact that we are looking at not an insignificant change in what ultimately is the budget that Council had been looking at at the earlier part of this year that would require amendment for this project.

Historically, this was a salt shed built post-War. Harry Truman was in office when Center School was built. The facility that is today’s Community Room, I think everyone who knows anything about activities in the Village knows that the Community Room has just been an incredible workhorse. We have used that term before. What once was a salt shed, we had all Village facilities concentrated there. We still had a gas station where the gazebo now sits. As time has marched on and things have changed, we have had various buildings back from those days that have been cycled, recycled, re-recycled and the Community Room is no exception.

We were all very mindful of the fact that the size of it, the location of it, have always made sense in terms of what we do within the Village and there’s kind of a nice low profile aspect to it that I think resonates with most of us that is sort of symbolic of the Village, that we can do a lot but we don’t have to be extravagant. But the challenge we face with this is over time that whole site now has been pretty well cleared but for this building. It may now have a focal point, a town center, in this Northwest Quadrant. In the meantime, you know that the school has struggled with just how to address changes with the Center School property. Over the years, we have had our property in the middle of a parking lot and it’s almost been informal, if not altogether informal, reciprocal parking between the two and yet we still have traffic circulation issues that have been complex.

The other part of this project is once we decided that we really could do a new building, were we going to be put it in the same spot? Could we, as we have chosen to do, push it into a location where it really is the community’s room. It’s more home-like. It’s going to have a front yard, a side yard, and by doing that we are able to open up the parking field more directly between the two structures as the space in-between. So, aesthetically, parking will be screened much better than even today. We have done our traffic study. By changing the curb cut flow, we think this will greatly improve the safety of the bus traffic especially and the connectivity. When parents come to pick up kids and you have buses coming through there, they still have to cue up right by that front door area. This parking field and part of the last component to be discussed, is designed to make pedestrian movements not as conflicted with the traffic movement in there.

At the end of the day, we are making a facility’s improvement not only for Village purposes for a Community Room use but also for Center School which obviously is another community facility that we need to pay attention to. Out of all of this, we have a building that committee members will agree because we have vetted the finishes, the materials, the square footage, the layouts and we have heard from just about every quarter for people’s likes and dislikes for kitchen, concession area, meeting rooms. This has been very very thoroughly discussed by a lot of players that have a lot of hands-on experience dealing with it. The impetus for this really began in Council with a desire to make the Community Room space one that would endure for a long time, be of good quality, be very very functional, and I think we would all agree in all respects it’s going to be a much better site utilization than we have ever had before, a larger structure but nothing over top, but to do a quality job and one that’s going to be durable. This is a good project.

We had asked around about Seitz Building. I remember the name. It rang a bell with me. On the Metroparks, the West Creek project we did in Parma, we used Seitz on construction. Sean McDermott, who was our Chief Project Engineer, had nothing but rave reviews. He said they are of high integrity and high skill. When they say they want to get on the job and get it done, they want to be able to have the site under control to be weatherproofed in advance of winter. So time really is of the essence. We have to deal with keeping the current Community Room open which is challenging for site operation and site management and we have to be able to time the hard construction when Center School is in recess. There are a lot of variables this project has taken into account, separate and apart from the fact that we are looking at the actual structure and site layout. TDA, Ed Parker, has done a phenomenal job with his colleagues working with all of us. I think this is something we are going to look back on as a very solid decision to go forward with. Thank you.

Council President Marrie thanked Mr. Parker. Any other comments or discussion? There were none.

ROLL CALL:

AYES: All
NAYS: None

Motion Carried. Bid Accepted. Expenditure Approved.

Council President Marrie asked, are there any other matters? There were none.

ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Mills, seconded by Mr. Saponaro, made a motion to adjourn.

The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2015 at 8:00 p.m.