Laserfiche WebLink
3.2 Discussion of Resident Comments from Town-wide Mailer <br /> The Committee reviewed the resident comments. Following discussion, it was <br /> determined that several consistent themes were apparent in the responses. These <br /> included: <br /> 1. Residents strongly support the integration of sustainable' features in the <br /> new Town Hall. Passive and active solar technologies, photovoltaic power <br /> generation, and rainwater harvesting were specifically identified on response <br /> cards. <br /> 2. Residents want the cost of the new Town Hall project kept to the identified <br /> budget. <br /> 3. Many residents did not want a metal roof on the new Town Hall. <br /> 4. There was a high degree of crossover among residents who favored the <br /> Craftsman and Rural styles. Numerous ballots were disqualified in the <br /> counting process because both styles had been selected. <br /> 5. Residents want a Town Hall that is consistent with a residential feel and <br /> would blend into the neighborhood. <br /> At the conclusion of this process, the Committee agreed that the most consistent <br /> comment in the response cards had been the expression of appreciation that had been <br /> voiced by the residents for being included in the process. <br /> The Committee focused on the next step in the design process for the new Town Hall. <br /> Following discussion it was determined that Chairman Kerr would contact the four <br /> architects that had participated in the style renderings and ask if they would be interested <br /> in being considered in the architect selection process. <br /> PASSED BY CONSENSUS: The Committee agreed that the following should be <br /> requested of the architects in their proposals: <br /> • Credentials and references <br /> • Fee structure—including hourly rates, not to exceed rates,percentage of <br /> construction costs. <br /> • Policies regarding change orders <br /> • Policies regarding construction management and supervision <br /> • Architect availability to perform detailed design work in the near future <br /> • Timeline for the design process <br /> PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Architect responses would be due no later that April 30, <br /> 2003. The Committee would review the proposals at their next scheduled meeting of <br /> 2 <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> Special City Council Meeting April 15,2003 <br />