Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 03-13-1989 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: March 10, 1989 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT MARCH 13, 5:30 P.M. MEETING The Council has scheduled a 5:30 p.m. meeting to discuss various community center issues. The meeting will take place in the City Council Chambers commencing promptly at 5:30 p.m. Dinner will not be provided. A memorandum is attached identifying the agenda for the 5:30 meeting. Beginning at 7:00, a public information meeting will be conducted regarding the widening of County Road 6 from 101 to I-494. Public information materials will be supplied at the meeting. JW:kec 0 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: March 10, 1989 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER - WH RE DO WE GO FROM HERE? The Council's action on February 27 to select BWBR, in association with Barker, Rinker, Seacat and Partners, as architects for the proposed community center completed the first phase of the planning for the facility. Jerry Sisk in his memo of February 23 (Exhibit A), reporting on the recommendation of the Architectural Selection Committee, made additional recommendations with respect to the community center. He believes it appropriate for us to begin discussions with the winning architect to develop a draft architectural services contract "for additional schematic design and architectural services." He suggested "the Council should consider the scope of the community center project in terms of building elements, the cost of such a building and the resulting financing require- ments." Based upon those suggestions, I believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider the following questions dealing with the community center: I. Whether or Not to Proceed - Does the Council desire to proceed immediately with further planning for the construction of the community center? 2. Community Center Components - Based upon the public comment, concept designs submitted by the three architectural firms, as well as the Council's preferences, what should be included in the community center? a. Each of the designs submitted by the architectural firms responded to a broadly based list of components. These components are more specifically identified on attached Exhibit B. Does the Council still believe these components should be included in further design development for the project? b. Are there other features which the Council believes should be included within the community center? Indoor soccer has been suggested, as has additional seating in the ice arena, as well as a "teen center." 0 PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? March 10, 1989 Page 2 3. Project Costs and Financing - The BWBR concept plan addressed all the building elements requested by the City for the design competition and included them within a building of ,rust over 120,000 square feet. The building cost estimate contained within the BWBR submittal is just over $9,400,000, not including site development, contingencies, furnishings and fees. If all those items were included based upon the estimates of BWBR, the total price would about $12,500,000. a. Source of Financing. The Council has previously indicated its intent to appropriate $8,000,000 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund to assist in financing the community center. The $8,000,000 figure is contained within the CIP based upon the 1984 community center proposal. If the Council is prepared to proceed with the community center generally as outlined in the BWBR preliminary design, it is apparent that the building costs alone will require an additional $1.5 million, not including other project expenses. The Council could use funds which are currently available within the PIR fund for this purpose. Exhibit C updates the 1988 fiscal projections for the Infrastructure Replacement/ Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. These projections demonstrate that the PIR fund has the capacity to finance the community center in the amount of $10,500,000, $800,000 for Fire Station I improve- ments and an increase in the public safety building in 1992 from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. b. Project Staging. The project could be staged so as to defer construction costs over a period of years while additional financing could be obtained. In order to achieve signif- icant savings, it would be necessary to delete one major feature. Based upon the BWBR proposal, the following major components carry the estimated costs noted: 1) Leisure Pool $2,095,000 2) Gymnasium $1,015,000 3) Ice Arena $2,358,000 The 1984 community center concept building plan prepared by BRW was estimated to cost $7,444,000. The building contained approximately 119,700 square feet. The estimated building cost at that time was $62.20 per square foot. Since that date, construction costs have obviously increased to a point where those same cost estimates today would PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? March 10, 1989 Page 3 reflect the square footage building cost of about $78.50 per square foot or a project cost of nearly $9,400,000. It is important that this fact be considered because if one or more of the large components of our current planning were to be deleted, it would have to be recognized that the cost of construction in the future would be substantially greater than the current estimated construction cost. 4. Architectural and Construction Management Services - Once the Council has determined the scope of a project, as well as the estimated program budget, the architectural services contract between the City and BWBR should be negotiated and executed. This agreement is vitally important as it will establish not only the fees to be paid the architect, but also the total responsibilities of the architect throughout the project. In this regard, the Council should determine whether or not it desires to hire constru- ction management services during the design and/or construction phases of this project. If it does, the scope of the architectural services agreement should be written so as to neither conflict nor duplicate other construction management work efforts and a constru- ction management agreement would need to be negotiated with a qualified firm. We have been contacted by several already. I believe such services should be retained as soon as possible if the process is to continue. 5. Operating Cost Analysis. The costs of owning and operating a community center must be thoroughly explored. ferry Sisk in his memo of February 23 suggested that the matter of operating costs and revenues be deferred until such time as the Council determines what the community center would include. I believe that is a sound recommendation. Once the Council has determined the scope of the project, we will then be able to prepare rough operating and revenue projections. These projections would have to be further refined once schematic drawings are completed and prior to the time the Council approves the preparation of final plans and specifications for the project. These data are to be shared with the public at a meeting to be held for this specific purpose. We could have these data prepared by staff within a month. 6. Next Architectural Step -. The architect should be charged with preparing schematic designs based upon the Council's direction in order that a building design can be further developed and more accurate cost estimates prepared. Once this step has been completed and the Council is satisfied with the design and estimated project budget, the architect could be authorized to proceed to develop final plans and specifications for competitive bidding. PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? March 10, 1989 Page 4 7. Role of Architectural Selection Committee. I believe there is merit in a continuing role for this committee during the design phase of the project. The committee will have an opportunity to directly share thoughts and concerns of the Council and PRAC with the architects and construction manager, and provide a good communi- cations link between those respective parties. If the Council concurs, it should provide appropriate direction to the committee. There are obviously numerous decision points which the Council has to reach before the community center project can proceed to actual contract letting. I believe it is important for the Council to use this memorandum as the departure point for discussion at the March 13 special Council meeting. I believe the Council should continue the active planning for the community center in order that it can proceed through design development and ultimately to construction. With that thought in mind, I recommend the adoption of the following resolutions: I. A resolution authorizing the allocation of funding for the projects noted in Exhibit C. This resolution in effect sets aside $10.5 million for the community center, $800,000 for additional funding to complete the remodeling and upgrading of Fire Station I and 3,000,000 for the public safety building. 2. A resolution authorizing the manager to negotiate an architectural services contract with BWBR Architects for the design of the community center project. 3. A resolution directing the City Manager to recommend to the Council a construction management firm to assist the City in the overall project management of the community center. 4. A resolution directing that the City staff develop operational expense and revenue projections for the community center based upon the building contained in the BWBR design concept. These operating costs and revenues will serve as the basis of presenting to the Council and ultimately to the public an idea of the estimated general fund support required to assist in financing the overall operations of a community center. 5. A resolution continuing the role of the Architectural Selection Committee through the design development phase of the community center project. OW:kec EXHIBIT A 3/10/89 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: February 23, 1989 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: ferry Sisk, Chair - Architectural Selection Committee SUBJECT COMMUNITY CENTER - RECOMMENDATION OF ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON DESIGN COMPETITION 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Council determination of a "winner" of the community center design competition. 2. SUMMARY: The Architectural Selection Committee has completed its review of the three community center concept plans submitted by the Architects. The Committee split 3 to 2 on its recommendation of the winner. Committee members Ricker, Blank and Moore voted to select the association of BWBR Architects and Barker, Rinker, Seacat and Partners. Barbara Edwards and I voted to select Daniel F. Tully Associates. The "winner" is to receive $15,000 for their design and the other two firms $10,000 each for their designs. 3. BACKGROUND: The Council appointed the Special Community Center Architectural Selection Committee last November. Following our designation, the Committee met and interviewed six architectural firms who had indicated interest in designing a concept plan for the community center. Following our December 10 meeting, we recommended Hastings and Chivetta/Ellerbe Becket; BWBR/Barker, Rinker, Seacat and Partners; Daniel F. Tully Associates be selected for the design competition. The Council confirmed that recommendation on December 19. On January 19, the Architectural Selection Committee held a public meeting to solicit additional input from the public with respect to the community center. Representatives of the three architectural firms were present at that meeting and had the opportunity of gaining some appreciation of the public's interest and concerns with regard to the project. All three firms submitted their concept designs on Friday, February 10. Copies of the submissions were delivered to each member of the Council, as well as members of PRAC. The concept plans were on public display commencing Monday, February 13 in the City Council conference room. COMMUNITY CENTER - RECOMMENDATION OF ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON DESIGN COMPETITION February 23, 1989 Page 2 On Saturday, February 18, the Architectural Selection Committee met with each architectural firm who had the opportunity of presenting their concepts in two hour meetings. In addition to committee members, several members of the Council, PRAC and the public also sat in. The press was also invited. These meetings were particularly important as they provided us with an excellent opportunity to probe into some of the design concepts each of the firms employed as they considered placing the ,proposed community center on our site, as well as the philosophy they employed in laying out the space and developing their spacial relationships. We were delighted that each of the firms approached the project from a different site perspective, as well as presented various layouts. This provided us an opportunity to more adequately examine the merits of one concept as compared to that of the other two. This past Monday evening we conducted our second public meeting to solicit public comment with regard to the design concepts. The meeting was not well attended. Those who spoke were supportive of the overall project and several spoke to their favorite design. One speaker reiterated the concern on the part of indoor soccer participants that they would appreciate consideration for separate space allocation in the project. Following the meeting the Architectural Selection Committee met with PRAC members to discuss their ideas and thoughts with regard to each of the three proposals. Following that discussion the Committee members discussed their own preferences. We received three fine submissions! The Committee members felt that the submission by Hastings and Chivetta Architects was not the preferred plan largely because of its proposed siting adjacent to 37th Avenue and its more limited expansion capability. The submission by the other two firms were better received. In the final analysis, the majority of the committee selected the submission of BWBR/Barker, Rinker, Seacat because of its overall layout and siting on the site with particular reference to proximity to 36th Avenue and the City Center. The architectural compatibility with the City Center, particularly with respect to materials was also a factor. Barbara Edwards and I, on the other hand, were more impressed with the Tully submission primarily on the basis of their projected energy costs to operate the building. The Tully design makes effective use of energy recovery from the building operation primarily through the capturing of waste heat from compressors used to make ice and other heating elements in the building. The waste heat would be collected in a heat sink beneath the building for later recovery. COMMUNITY CENTER - DESIGN COMPETITION February 23, 1989 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION OF ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION COMMITTEE ON Your committee has enjoyed working on the project and its lack of unanimity does not represent a problem with the process, but rather an honest difference of opinion with respect to the approach to the project. There is no question that any one of the three firms could design an excellent community center. A majority of your committee believes that BWBR/Barker, Rinker, Seacat would be a better selection than the Daniel F. Tully firm. Following Council selection of an architectural firm as the "winner," it would be appropriate for the City Manager to commence discussions with them which would lead to the development of an architectural services contract for additional schematic design and architectural services. No additional design work would be undertaken until the Council approves a contract. In the meantime, however, the Council should also consider the scope of the community center project in terms of building elements, the cost of such a building and the resulting financing requirements. One task the Architectural Selection Committee has not yet completed deals with developing the estimates of operating costs and revenues for the proposed facility. We believe that this is a vitally important step and one which must be undertaken prior to making any firm commitment to proceed with any final design. We also recognize the need to have a clear picture of what the community center would encompass if that is different from the program developed for the design competition. For that reason, we believe it is advisable to defer attempting to develop those data until the Council has arrived at its own decision with respect to the scope of the community center project. Once that scope has been determined, we will thereafter proceed immediately to develop those data. Finally, we believe the Council should seriously evaluate retaininq professional construction management services to oversee the design and construction of the project to ensure that the most cost effective project results. If the Council believes that there is a continuing role this committee may serve to assist in the planning for the community center, we would be pleased to serve. JS:kec EXHIBIT B 3/10/89 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER INITIAL CONCEPT DESIGN FACILITIES I. PASSIVE ACTIVITIES WING Facilities Description A. Community Room Hidden coat racks area Seat 250 round table dinner 8/table Large dance floor Break into 2/4 small rooms Outside veranda and view of park Inside view of pool/lobby Entrance from senior lounge Lobby, direct outside Direct access to kitchen Storage for tables, chairs, etc. Rest rooms B. Commercial Kitchen Outside entrance for deliveries or elevator entrance from base- ment loading dock area Provide service to social hall Office for meal coordinator C. Two Multi -Purpose 30 people each Rooms Carpeted floor/tile floor Sinks/storage, etc. D. Pottery/Painting Storage space Studio Capacity 30 Kiln Sink E. Crafts Room Capacity 30 Storage and more storage II. SENIOR CENTER A. Senior Lounge B. Game Room C. Offices -Senior Staff III. LOBBY/ENTRANCE View of park/gardens Outside seating Comfortable furniture for 40-50 Carpeted floor Fireplace Coat racks Pool tables Card tables TV Easy chairs 1) Senior Center coordinator 1) Receptionist/information - copy machine 1) Assistant coordinator 1) Outreach coordinator 2) Volunteers to use 1) Nurse/health screening room Meeting room for 10-12 people A. Lobby Space for plants or other display items Views into as many active spaces as possible Handicapped doors Locking display cases Seating , 2) Receptionist/Secretary TV monitors -control B. Office Area (1) Community Center Director - enclosed 1) Supt. of Recreation -enclosed Meeting room -12 people -enclosed Open office for six people Store room/copy machine Offices look into pool/gym/ice/ lobby Registration counter area Staff lounge - may be in other part of building Laundry facilities area IV. GYMNASIUM/FITNESS FACILITY A. Handball/Racquetball/ Three courts Wallyball Glass end walls B. Gym/Gymnastics Area Three volleyball courts Two basketball courts Dividing curtains Wood floor or equivalent Storage Running Track Raised or on floor - banked corners, three lanes C. Aerobics/Dance Room 40 capacity Floating floor Mirrored walls Outside/inside views Storage Sound system D. Weight Room Open to gym/or separate room Glass wall to lobby/hall Mirrored walls Carpeted floor/rubber Exercise bikes One weight circuit set V. WET AREA - FOR 500 PEOPLE Deep pool Zero depth pool Lap pool Water slide/ability to add second slide Wave making ability Spray features Play lagoons for small children Palm trees/plants Food service with seating Underwater viewing Bubblers Hot tubs/sauna component Seating for deck chairs Guard office/lockers Access to outside sundeck and volleyball court area Opening wall system Showers on pool deck Lots of storage VI. LOCKER ROOMS Adult/youth areas Family changing rooms/handicapped Baby changing men's 6 women's Individual shower stalls Maintenance storage VII. ICE 200 x 100 ice surface Seating for 450 Ability to add second sheet Fireplace/warming area Direct access Maintenance and ice resurfacing room Locker rooms (4) Officials room VIII. CHILD CARE Babysitting for 20 Outside play area Pre-school IX. CONCESSIONS Lobby area Seating for 20 DESIGN CRITERIA Good looking roof line (no exposed mechanical) Brick or better on outside facing Plymouth Boulevard minimum Pool and deck south exposure - view of park As much natural lighting in all areas as possible Attractive mall entrance drive -up - trees, flowers, fountains, etc. Lower level service entrance desirable Attitude of energy conservation Lots of plants Outside garden areas Bus parking/drop off area Sound - control sound between active and passive areas Odor - control odors from active and passive areas You are spectator on upper floor/participant on lower floor Keep views open - no hiding places for security/safety Barrier free building - handicapped friendly Ability to change look and feeling Non-rusting components Places for art display Control entry system - how does it work/loo k Access to parking and other buildings, i.e., library Siting of library -2 acres -10,000 sq. ft. -80 cars Indoor playground General coat storage Valuables storage (keys, purses, etc.) Parking city code - 1 space/each 300 sq. ft. minimum n o z) m 0 9 V D b u I A DCN W IM IZW apo, p tl4WOwmkrnC1N I x c M M M M h N N /A N- pnp N W o nWm mm1 N OND Ot W Ot 00 •O-• pt An N O l/l V Q1 O pVPW AK^ R z CN N W v OVI OI tWn IO tp b ISI y n M M II 3 I o n o M N N N M N fir• N N N lb* W M M V y jj p 4 0 V m 1.11 m M 4W7+ 4T ( O ljjt 1 I Z ppO pNt O I 4 3goobOOOOCr G O O P ;I M N K 60 m Nrt r W N R fDN ym Wj p N W N P V C N 1tS4GrtDO dOOpD A A O If a r• Ht pWff {WJ E O N wW01OOtODPOV` co N O II M M N M N N N M M 11 Wpp N N N N O ellVPWG) to N b Ot co W W IO V /pt U1 N C J I N W N V1Np ko !O R M II N I pOpppOD Ot O n T 00 O1 C 4t+ W N W v YM v A N N N N m MA O {O II R C1 IO CD O V N P Ot Np n ti r W to II II G V. V 10 0Lnpp 4 8 ii N cr 44 i N IP• t O PVJ1tn !0 11 C K KNMN O O G M M p1 A DI 0 0 0 V O+ 0 V W O Ji w R v 1111 z O O V1 In IJP Vt ^ Ir 0 (It O O G lb' O . Nii yt O OOOCuU9 II u M 11 D M40 N M Mph M N •+ Op M N pp V s w cn 1 C A y q N Op 1/t CN O1. ppOpp ID IO it O O f'0OWO7 ^ F O O 17t yy O G+ M N N r W 406 b I.n ryh a N C ID O • W P W N 4J pt N R N n 10 C71 to M N N N N N_ M M quq y1 N M M II 6 { ts P P W N N N W W W N 1 IDN f MOUSSLa ODD n uPwNPOOIIJthph ODI. w q o N W N N M N N MN1N Np W b M N 1D Of fO Ot V W y- p T (.+ a N Or F NWV1OmO ICD r N pt A Ip N V QI P O) W 1 D N n Gi aMliMpCcc y I yT Ntr OWpE W O Oo4 iy n a C O Q ii 0 0 p o 0 o c$ g L5 75 25 d p O M M MySV N N ry M pw ISI/ N W to co N ON N O V N N W yytt }y 1/IpppV y+ w ID 1 L p H f I N b Ip UI W t0 m b tt C r N 44 C fO INC r W Vch m 41 lO W W aN N {{pp W {W{p O! W b W 1 N v LD N 1D P w v y Ori 11I 11MhN19MNMMNMMNMWIIIOWV+ T A P W N W lJt V1 Ih I Clo G p .. N V On N Ip O {, P O) W O 11 Td •-+ alit P W Ht IQ NYpp I b W W yt NPV01N V A N pp pp S v Ip A D1 O tl n CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The following members were present: The following members were absent: introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 - PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND - APPROPRIATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established a Permanent Improvement Revolving PIR) fund for the purpose of ensuring that the long-term interests of the citizens are clearly preserved with respect to infrastructure maintenance, construction and replacement; and WHEREAS, the initial planning for the PIR fund contemplated the allocation of 8,000,000 to assist in the financing of a community center and $2,000,000 to assist in the financing of a public safety building; and WHEREAS, the City has recently completed a design competition with respect to a new community center, the estimated cost of which could total $12,500,000; and WHEREAS, the City Manager in his report dated March 10, 1989 has recommended that additional funding for the community center as well as the remodeling/upgrading of Fire Station I and the construction of the public safety building be increased and said report contains fiscal projections indicating the feasibility of such increases; and WHEREAS, the City Council has met and reviewed the City Manager's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it endorses the recommendations contained in the City Manager's memorandum of March 10, 1989 with respect to the additional funding of the community center, fire station and public safety building; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following sums from Fund No. 403 are hereby appropriated to the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund in the amounts noted to assist in the funding of the respective projects along with the interest accruing thereon effective with the establishment of such fund: a. Community Center Project $10,500,000 b. Fire Station I Project $ 800,000 c. Public Safety Building $ 3,000,000 Resolution No. 89 - Page 2 The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. thereon, the u CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The following members were present: r The following members were absent: introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 - COMMUNITY CENTER - CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City Council has selected the architectural firm of BWBR as the "winner" of the design competition for the community center; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to proceed with the design of said community center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the City Manager is hereby directed to negotiate an architectural services agreement with BWBR Architects in association with Barker, Rinker, Seacat and Partners Architects for the design of the community center, and submit said agreement to the Council along with his recommendations thereon. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The following members were present: The following members were absent: introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 - COMMUNITY CENTER - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICE DIRECTION WHEREAS, the City Manager in his report dated March 10, 1989 has recommended that the City Council hire a construction management firm to assist in the overall management of the proposed community center project; and WHEREAS, the Council believes that construction management services are needed to ensure the overall efficient and economic development of the community center project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the City Manager is hereby directed to interview and recommend to the City Council a firm to provide construction management services for the proposed community center project; and FURTHER, present to this Council a proposed agreement for such services along with his recommendations thereon. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The following members were present: The following members were absent: introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 - COMMUNITY CENTER - PRELIMINARY OPERATING EXPENSES AND REVENUE FORECAST REQUEST WHEREAS, the Architectural Selection Committee has previously recommended that the need to develop reasonable operating expenses and revenue forecasts for the proposed community center is essential; and WHEREAS, the development of such data depends directly upon the nature of the project to be developed; and WHEREAS, the City Council has recently selected a "winner" in a design competition for the community center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the City Manager is directed to prepare his best estimates of operating expenses and revenues for a community center based upon the design concept submitted by BWBR Architects on February 10, 1989; and FURTHER, that said projection of operating revenues and expenses shall be fully documented as to all assumptions used; and FURTHER, that said report be presented to the City Council not later than May 1, 1989. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of , 19 The following members were present: The following members were absent: Introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89 - COMMUNITY CENTER - ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION COMMITTEE ROLE WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established an Architectural Selection Committee whose purpose was to assist the Council in developing alternative design concepts for a community center; and WHEREAS, that task has been completed; and WHEREAS, the City Council now plans to proceed further with the planning of a community center and has indicated its intention to retain architects for such project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the Architectural Selection Committee be directed to work with architects selected by the City Council to further develop and refine a design for the community center and to provide such other assistance to the City Council with respect to the community center project as the City Council may from time to time direct. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.