10-03-2005 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

essentially identifying the increased cost from the “do nothing option” to replacing the Groveland Building. Two such costs that were identified were the demolition costs and plan and specification costs. These costs have been or will be incurred, regardless of what option is selected. Since the City will need to remove the Groveland building at some point in time regardless of whether it is replaced - should the demolition costs be removed from the overall costs? The demolition cost is estimated to be $8,000 to $10,000 and the cost to develop the plan and specifications amount of $19,600 has already been expended. Need to look at what items are needed The Commission went through an exhaustive review of the proposed building to see if there were items that could be eliminated in an effort to reduce the overall cost of the building. The restrooms were discussed. The question was raised -- ”Is a restroom needed?“ Lambert does not have a restroom. However, it is also not being used to any great extent. When looking at shrinking /eliminating amenities in this building, the Commission also looked at the impact of the usefulness of the building. The Commission recommended that the building continue to retain restrooms. The question of whether the building should be heated was raised. With the recommendation to retain the rest rooms, it was also unanimously recommended to heat the building. The Commission looked at the need to have two restrooms. Could one unisex restroom be created? This is a possibility. The plan would be to simply not include the fixtures and retain the second bathroom as storage. To eliminate the room would require a redesign of the building plans. The Commission discussed that it could be included as a bid alternate. However, it should be pointed out that the removal of a toilet and sink may not be that great of an overall cost savings. Reducing the building’s overall square footage was reviewed. This is a fairly basic space. It was suggested by the Commission that the proposed building retain the space as planned to be used for its current functions. It was also stated that this is a public building – not private. Because of this, there are additional requirements such as restroom floor space that need to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Commission recommended unanimously to maintain the planned floor space. There is double door to the mechanical room. Is there a need for this second door and is there a savings to reduce to one door? It was determined that the opening could be reduced to require one door. However, it was also determined that it is beneficial to retain the double doors and that the reduction to a single