Laserfiche WebLink
Peter made a notion that every item on the suggested de1etions <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 b i d <br /> package . Merry sue seconded the motion . <br /> Jscussiori: <br /> t eve definitely does not agree to accept the alternates . ' <br /> �� 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 <br /> for them. <br /> an i ce and Joe agree . Janice said the alternatives list i s effecting t <br /> igh school � � <br /> program. <br /> She would rather see the motion for l s t page <br /> eletions only and then the committee can vote to prioritize the <br /> lternatives . <br /> eter said they have to be crit from the base ' <br /> progra.m first,, <br /> rst <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 /> Leve said again , he does not agree , <br /> au l said the major or i tem for discussion is should SMMA o back and fix ' <br /> d asked what constitutes a fix? <br /> � � t . <br /> au l agreed that the committee has to tell SMMA what they want fixed . <br /> iter~ said the architects already gave the committee a list which the <br /> lot of thought and effort into � � but <br /> You either ther accept their list or you <br /> Dn It, <br /> teve thinks the list was arrived at too easily', <br />,in i ce said chartwe 1 l ' s spot check of the estimate could cause some <br /> panes cut off a little more? <br /> in said perhaps a 1 i tt l e . <br /> iul does not want to get too deeply involved in page 2 (alternates) until <br /> le committee sees MannyTavares figures and the estimate is more deeply <br /> 3viewed by Chartwell . <br />-eve said he does not think all the items , that at would be acceptable to <br /> it, are on that list. si nificant architectural structure stay, ' <br /> while <br /> for functions of the school go <br /> f said the committee has to reach consensus if they want a change . <br />,eve suggested a.reas to be re-visited: <br /> shape of the library and overhang . Is there a legitimate ' <br /> savings to be <br />�d by simplifying it. <br />,ntryway overhang , eliminate i t <br /> service side of the building -- make it simple masonr ' <br /> � don ' t carry the <br /> l <br /> or scheme a do away with features. <br /> attack the cafeteria wall - have only glass above and below, not full <br /> fight. <br /> eve said he really likes the library design , but he is n ' <br /> � � of willing to <br /> ve up the fields for it, <br /> rry sue said she does not want those changesT and would vote against i <br /> t � <br /> ou 1 d the architect be spending time on that if It is not the consensus of <br /> e Committee? <br /> said the implications of the cafeteria1 ass overhang <br /> � r and block , would <br /> lay the job by about 1 week . The shape of the library and overhang could <br /> 9 <br />