My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-03-2005 WS
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
10-03-2005 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:20 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 1:35:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/3/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/3/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
door does not represent a cost savings due to the additional cost of material <br />needed to fill in where the second door would be. <br /> <br />The firm of TKDA was contacted to get their recommendations for reducing <br />costs. TKDA stated that this is a very basic building and that there are no real <br />“extras” on it. When asked if lower quality materials could be used, TKDA stated <br />that the materials specified are the “middle of the road” and they would not <br />recommend lesser material in a public building. <br /> <br />There was a consensus from the Committee not to change the plans and lose <br />any amenities in the building at this time. The Commission felt that this is a very <br />basic building without any unnecessary amenities but would still serve the public. <br />A comparison was made to New Brighton’s buildings, which have fireplaces, <br />knotty pine walls and ceiling, dividers, very nice restrooms, etc. <br /> <br /> <br />Masonry construction versus “stick construction” <br />The Commission asked, “Would TKDA need to start over with plans and specs <br />with a stick building?” It was determined that TKDA would not need to start over <br />since there are many shared design construction features of the two. However, <br />how much re-work of the plans is needed to develop a stick design is uncertain at <br />this time. <br /> <br />The line item bid list that was submitted by Unicorp, Incorporated showed the <br />Concrete/Masonry line item to be $59,800. This cost would include a concrete <br />floor, which would also be specified in a stick building construction. Also, <br />considering that wood material would need to be added to the bid list, there <br />doesn’t appear to be that great of a savings for substituting stick construction <br />over masonry. Given the minimal cost difference, the overall durability, the <br />increased longevity and maintenance reduction cost, the Commission <br />recommended that masonry construction be considerer. <br /> <br />As a note, the existing Golf Course Clubhouse was constructed in 1995. It is a <br />“stick” constructed building with a total square footage of 1380 sq. ft. The total <br />cost to construct Golf Course Clubhouse including construction, inspection, and <br />engineering was $231,657.98 in 1995. The ENR Construction Cost Index from <br />July 1995 was 5484. As of July 25, 2005, the ENR CCI is 7422. Therefore, to <br />convert a project cost from July 1995 to July 2005, the 1995 cost should be <br />multiplied by 1.3534. Doing this the current estimated cost to construct the Golf <br />Course Clubhouse is $313,525.91 <br /> Groveland Clubhouse <br />Total Cost $330,300 $313,525.91 <br /> <br />Square Footage 1217 1380 <br /> <br />Cost per sq. ft. $271.41 $227.19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.