Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> �I <br /> ** Peter made a motion that every item on the suggested deletions , <br /> except 8 , 9 & 13 be deleted from the project and every item on the <br /> suggested alternatives list no longer be part of the basic bid <br /> package . Merry Sue seconded the motion . <br /> Discussion: <br /> teve definitely does not agree to accept the alternates . His preference <br /> s to not make that decision now. Let he architects return with some other <br /> dditional cuts. This is too easy a way out for them. <br /> anice and Joe agree. Janice said the alternatives list is effecting the <br /> igh school program. She would rather see the motion for 1st page <br /> eletions only and then the Committee can vote to prioritize the <br /> lternatives . <br /> eter said they have to be cut from the base program first. <br /> ** Peter amended the motion to say the Committee will then go forward <br /> and prioritize the items to be added back in . <br /> iscussion : <br /> teve said again , he does not agree . <br /> aul said the major item for discussion is should SMMA go back and fix it . <br /> d asked what constitutes a fix? <br /> aul agreed that the Committee has to tell SMMA what they want fixed . <br /> eter said the architects already gave the Committee a list, which they put <br /> lot of thought and effort into . You either accept their list or you <br /> on 't. <br /> teve thinks the list was arrived at too easily . <br /> anice said Chartwell ' s spot check of the estimate could cause some <br /> hanges , cut off a little more? <br /> an said perhaps a little . <br /> aul does not want to get too deeply involved in page 2 (alternates) until <br /> he Committee sees Manny Tavares ' figures and the estimate is more deeply <br /> eviewed by Chartwell . <br /> teve said he does not think all the items , that would be acceptable to <br /> ut, are on that list. Significant architectural structure stay, while <br /> ajor functions of the school go . <br /> d said the Committee has to reach consensus if they want a change . <br /> teve suggested areas to be re-visited : <br /> shape of the library and overhang . Is there a legitimate savings to be <br /> ad by simplifying it. <br /> entryway overhang, eliminate it <br /> service side of the building - make it simple masonry, don ' t carry the <br /> color scheme , do away with features . <br /> - attack the cafeteria wall - have only glass above and below , not full <br /> height . <br /> steve said he really likes the library design , but he is not willing to <br /> give up the fields for it. <br /> Merry Sue said she does not want those changes and would vote against it. <br /> Should the architect be spending time on that if it is not the consensus of <br /> the Committee? <br /> Ed said the implications of the cafeteria glass , overhang and block, would <br /> delay the job by about 1 week . The shape of the library and overhang could <br /> 9 <br />