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.