Mayflower Nixes City’s Request for Bike Path Easement
When the Mayflower retirement community came before the July 22 Commission seeking final approval for plans to expand their facilities and services, most of the discussion centered not on the expansion, despite substantial changes to the version that received preliminary approval in 2018, but on the City’s request for an easement along the western border of the property where it could maybe, someday, build a 15-foot wide path for bikes and pedestrians. The City wanted to create a route that removed bikes and pedestrians from the dangerous motor traffic on Lakemont Avenue.
In January 2018, the Mayflower received preliminary approval to add a new three-story health care center and a one-story memory care center, a one-story club house and four separate three-story residential buildings. Conditions of approval were that the Mayflower would “explore” a bike path, install buffer landscaping for adjacent properties and come up with a storm water plan approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
A year and a half later, in addition to the new club house and additional residences, the Mayflower wanted to combine the health care facility with the memory care center in a single four-story structure to make room for a fifth 24,000-square-foot residential building. The plan presented to the Commission displayed easements along the western border of the Mayflower property for the bike path. The easements are indicated in red and blue on the map above.
Sprinkel Has Heartburn
Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel pointed out that when the original request came before the Commission in 2018, the Mayflower was asked to “explore” a bike path that would serve as a northeast connector trail, but the path was not a condition of approval. “We have not, as a Commission, even approved this bike path,” said Sprinkel.
Turns out the bike path easement was a staff recommendation, which City Code, Sec. 58-90, “Conditional Use,” allows the City to impose. Code says that if an applicant brings for final approval a project in which the height has changed by more than one foot and the floor area has changed by more than 250 feet, the City can re-open all negotiations. Planning Manager Jeff Briggs cited the intent of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to get cyclists and pedestrians from Lakemont up to Palmer, and said staff believed there was an opportunity for that along the western border of the Mayflower property, as had been discussed in 2018.
Seidel Suggests a Sunset Date
Commissioner Greg Seidel stated while an easement is no guarantee the City will build the bike path, the Mayflower’s failure to grant the easement would guarantee it won’t be built. Seidel suggested establishing a 10-year “sunset date” on the easement – if no bike path is built there within 10 years, the easement will cease and the property will revert to the Mayflower.
Connectivity Plan “Accepted” but Never “Adopted”
The connectivity plan for bikes and pedestrians goes back to the Bikes & Peds Board before it was renamed the Transportation Advisory Board. The Bikes & Peds Board submitted a plan for connecting bike and pedestrian paths through the City, which Mayor Steve Leary said was “accepted” by the Commission, but not “approved.”
Mayflower Project Has ‘Substantial Change’
Addressing Commissioner Spinkel’s ‘heartburn,’ Commissioner Carolyn Cooper pointed out that since the Mayflower came back for final approval with a project that was substantially different from the one that received preliminary approval, “. . .we can start all of these conversations all over again. . . . Alternatively,” said Cooper, “the Commission also has the right to ask the developer to revert to the original plan, since the substantial changes have not received preliminary approval by the Commission.”
“Winter Park is a Big Dead Zone”
Commissioner Todd Weaver addressed the concerns of the Mayflower residents for their own pedestrian safety on the property. He pointed out that between the fence and a 50-foot landscape buffer separating the proposed bike path from the Mayflower property, the residents would not even see the path, let alone encounter bicycles. Weaver recounted a recent Metroplan meeting at which a map of the inter-connected greenways in Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties showed a big ‘dead zone’ at the center — Winter Park. “It is City staff’s mandate to complete our Comprehensive Plan, and part of that is our mobility,” said Weaver. “This connectivity plan has been 10 years in the making, and we are 10 years behind every other city in our area.”
We Are Asking for the Opportunity
Weaver went on to explain that the City had neither planned nor funded the actual path, that it was simply requesting an easement for the opportunity to do so at some future date. He stated that there would be no design and that no plans would be made without including Mayflower residents, surrounding neighbors, City staff and the Commission.
Everyone Wants Trails – Just Not In Their Back Yards
Public commenters criticized City government for its failure to come up with a well-defined plan for greenway connectivity. Citizens hastened to assure Commissioners that they were not against bike and pedestrian paths, as long as they are far enough away from their property.
Attorney Tripp Cheek, who is a member of the law firm representing the Mayflower, Winderweedle, Haines, Ward & Woodman, PA, but who spoke as a private citizen, cited a case in which the St. Johns River Water Management District required a developer to improve a wetlands property he did not own in return for granting him a permit to develop his own property. The developer successfully sued the District, claiming the wetlands improvement had nothing to do with his own development and should not be used as a condition for approval. Cheek cautioned the Commissioners against asking for the bike path easement, warning they were “asking for a problem” in the future.
Cheek’s remarks drew a sharp response from Seidel. “I don’t appreciate it when people threaten me with a lawsuit over something I’m trying to decide,” said Seidel. “That is not going to sway me one way or the other.” Seidel said he would defer to the City Attorney.
Ardaman cited City Code, which says the Commission has three options. One, the Commission can decide the Mayflower’s changes are not significant. Two, they can find the changes are significant but acceptable. Or, three, they can decide the changes are significant and unacceptable, in which case the applicant must amend the plan to conform with the original conditional use and resubmit it to the Commission.
The Problem is Lakemont
A significant hurdle to the decision is the City’s failure to adopt a connectivity plan. One by one, each Commissioner admitted that where the ball had been dropped was right in their laps. “We didn’t do it because we couldn’t,” said Sprinkel, “we didn’t have agreement up here. Now we need to do something about this.”
“I know that our Advisory Boards have worked hard on this issue,” said Cooper. “They’ve done planning, but their plans have been ‘accepted,’ not ‘adopted.’ I’m glad [City Planning Director Bronce Stephenson] has a different impression about this plan.”
Weaver asked if people in the audience would favor using the “complete streets” treatment on Lakemont that has been employed on Denning. A cheer and a show of raised arms arose from the back of the chamber. Weaver then asked how many of those people would agree to have their taxes raised in order to pay for an improved streetscape on Lakemont. Again, a strong show of support.
Leary Stands by the Mayflower
Before calling for a vote, Mayor Steve Leary stated that in the nine to ten years he has been going to the Mayflower, he has made a commitment. “If the Mayflower doesn’t support this, I’m not supporting it,” said Leary.
The Trick Box
When the vote was called, Seidel offered an amendment requiring 15- to 20-foot wide easements at the western border of the property, with a ten-year sunset, for the purpose of building the path for non-motorized transportation, and the City would bear the cost of any improvements required to construct the path. The amendment passed 3 – 2, with Leary and Sprinkel dissenting.
Before calling the vote on the final approval, with Seidel’s amendment, Leary offered the Mayflower the opportunity to pull or table the application prior to the final vote.
At least half a dozen lawyers headed for a huddle at the rear of the chamber, with attorney Cheek at the center of the pack.
The Mayflower attorney returned to the podium to report that the Mayflower would agree to a part of the easement at the southwest corner of the property, provided the Commission would approve their plan with the four-story building as presented. The Mayflower offered the easement marked in red at the lower left corner of the map at the top of the article.
In a confusing turn of events, Seidel withdrew his original amendment for the expanded easement, which had already passed, and offered a new amendment that granted the Mayflower’s request, which passed on a 4-1 vote. The main motion, to approve the Mayflower’s plans as presented and with only the smaller easement, then passed on a 5-0 vote.
You think Winter Park is sleepy during the summer? Think again. In July alone, there will be 23 public meetings.
The Voice has received requests for notifications and schedules, so we’ve compiled a list of standing boards and task forces and will post monthly meeting schedules. You can also see the schedule, schedule changes, agendas and lists of board members on the City website at https://cityofwinterpark.org/government/boards/
City Commission — 2nd & 4th Monday Each Month
Of the 23 July meetings, two are Commission meetings. These are held the second and fourth Monday of each month, beginning at 3:30 pm, in the Commission Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. They go until they’re finished – typically until 5:30 to 6:30 pm unless there is a controversial item on the agenda. In that case, they’ve been known to go as late as 10:30 pm, but under the current administration that is the exception.
Nineteen Advisory Boards
Nineteen citizen boards advise the Commission on topics ranging from Police Officers’ Pensions to Lakes and Waterways and Code Compliance. A full list of these boards and board members can be found at the above link.
All advisory boards are formed of citizen volunteers who bring their experience and expertise to the business of running the City. They operate in a strictly advisory capacity, offering guidance to the Commission, the policy-making body of the City. The boards make the recommendations; the Commission makes the decisions.
Most advisory boards meet once a month. There are a few, including the Commission, that have workshops for the sole purpose of discussion among board members. While the public is invited to observe, at workshops, there are no decisions, no votes and no public input.
Three Task Forces
In addition to the standing advisory boards, there are currently three task forces, which are formed for a single stated purpose with definite beginning and ending dates. Ending dates, known as “sunset dates,” are, of course, flexible. The three currently active task forces are described below.
Charter Review Advisory Committee
This task force is formed every 10 years for the purpose of updating the Winter Park City Charter. The Charter is our City’s ‘Constitution,’ its primary governing document. Some major issues are under discussion, making these meetings interesting and relevant.
One is the question of whether we will continue to vote ‘at large,’ as we currently do, for mayor and commissioners, or change to a voting method based on geographic districts. There is still time to get in on this discussion, as the question was tabled until the full task force is present (which hasn’t happened yet).
Other topics include increasing compensation for Commissioners and who should have the authority to appoint Advisory Board members.
Meetings are held at the Community Center from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. The first hour is devoted to public comment, so best be on time. This task force began April 23 and will run through September 24. The next meeting is Tuesday, July 23.
Orange Avenue Steering Committee
The purpose of this task force is to decide the parameters of a zoning ‘overlay,’ which will establish guidelines for the redevelopment of that stretch of Orange Avenue reaching from 17-92 to just north of the corner of Denning and Fairbanks.
The discussion is informative and the outcome will directly affect the sizable population that lives in the western part of the city. City Planning Director Bronce Stephenson wants everyone involved, and you are encouraged to attend. Meetings are held twice a month from 5:30 to 7:30 pm in the Commission chambers. The next meeting is Wednesday, July 24.
Old Library Reuse Task Force
This group is charged with recommending to the Commission the proper disposition of the current library facility. The task force meets once a month in the Commission chambers at Noon. The next meeting is Wednesday, July 17.
Not only do we have official commissions, boards and task forces, we also have informal gatherings with the Mayor and Commissioners where you can let them know what you’re thinking and find out what they’re thinking. Except for the Mayor’s, which is at the Welcome Center across the street from City Hall, all Coffee Talks are 8:00 to 9:00 am at the Winter Park Golf and Country Club, 761 Old England Ave.
The Coffee Talks with the Mayor and Commissioners will be on the following dates.
Mayor Steve Leary – July 12 – at the Welcome Center on Lyman Ave.
(All others are at the Winter Park Golf & Country Club.)
Commissioner Greg Seidel – August 8.
Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel – September 9.
Commissioner Carolyn Cooper – October 10.
Commissioner Todd Weaver – November 14.
Here’s What’s Left of the July Lineup
Look for August when we get closer. Note: the Chapman Room and the Commission Chambers are on the second floor of City Hall.
Axe-Throwing Venue Slated for Old Booby Trap Property
Two local doctors plan to breathe new life into the 0.6-acre property at 2600 Lee Road, site of the double-domed Club Harem – variously known as the Booby Trap, Club Harem, Club Rio and Christie’s Cabaret — an adult entertainment venue with a lurid history.
The contract to purchase the land from the City for $950,000 was approved by a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Carolyn Cooper casting the dissenting vote. Local vascular surgeons Dr. David Varnagy and Dr. Manuel Perez Isquierdo plan to build an axe-throwing facility where the Booby Trap once stood.
A popular pastime in Canada and a feature in lumberjack competitions, axe-throwing is now gaining popularity in the U.S. According to Wikipedia, indoor axe throwing is a sport in which the competitor throws an axe at a target, attempting to hit the bulls eye as near as possible. Today there are commercial locations in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom where participants can compete, similar to dart throwing. For a video of axe throwing, follow the link below.
In 2015, the City purchased Club Harem at 2600 Lee Rd. for $990,000, an amount well above market value. Then-Mayor Ken Bradley pushed for the purchase in order to “eliminate alleged illegal activity” at the location. Stories about the building with the breast-shaped roof line include a 2008 undercover police investigation at Club Harem, which led to a lawsuit by its owners against the City. The case was quietly settled in 2011 when the City issued a check for $250,000 to the aggrieved parties.
Explaining her vote against the sale, Commissioner Cooper noted that since 2015, the City has invested around $1 million in the property. She said she thought the City should hold out for a better price. She pointed out that property values in this area have increased by 14 percent in the four years since the City’s purchase. City Manager Randy Knight acknowledged that the City was “not hurting for money” and that there was no pressing need to sell at this time. The City’s broker, Bobby Palta, suggested the City could counter the doctors’ offer with a higher price, but the Commission chose to do neither.
Is Axe-Throwing Conducive to Better Behavior?
In his remarks, Commissioner Todd Weaver wondered if an axe-throwing venue that plans to serve beer and wine was “conducive to better behavior than what was there before.” Even though he expressed concern over mixing alcoholic beverages with axe-throwing, he did vote in favor of the project.
At the time of publication, neither Dr. Perez Isquierdo nor Dr. Varnagy responded to requests for comment.
The planned Canopy project may be the largest public works project ever undertaken by the City of Winter Park. Approved in 2016, the Library, Events Center and Parking Garage referendum garnered a slim majority of 214 votes, out of over 10,618 votes cast.
Campaign Literature in 2015-16 Promised Cost Levels
New Events Center:
(demolition, design/engineering, landscaping, site work)
Library Board to Raise: $ 2,500,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 29,914,311 with a promised 15 percent contingency
Three years later, why does the public continue to be skeptical about the chances for success?
Why is public trust in this project, funded by taxpayer dollars, continuing to falter? The answers to these questions are not difficult. Look at the project track record over the past four years. Promises were made, then discarded. Trust evaporated. The trend line below speaks for itself.
$29.9 million project with a 15 percent contingency
50,000 square foot library
LEED-certified building including solar energy capacity
Multi-deck parking garage to ensure easy access, safety and security for patrons
Footprint that takes no more than 1 percent of MLK Jr Park acreage
A site suitable to build upon with no extraordinary contamination or soil stability issues
Storm water plan that could be addressed without taking more parkland
A transparent process open to public comment, with all commissioners kept in the loop
Project focus is a world class library and a community events center
Robust community fundraising support assured
CRA funds unlikely to be needed and should be reserved for other city priorities, like the purchase of the Post Office property.
The Path Forward
Price tag increased to $40+ million and is tilting toward $50 million Note: Taxpayer dollars restricted to the original $30 million bond limit
Greatly reduced contingency fund resulting from a challenging construction environment
Library size reduced to 34,400 square feet with no LEED certification
No parking garage, requiring consumption of more park space for parking lots
No traffic study of Morse & Harper to address congestion and safety issues Note: Plan proposed to model the entire Orange Avenue MLK Park region
Continued flooding of Morse and Harper with no approved storm water plan Note: Lake Mendsen is currently at capacity, per St Johns River WMD
Complex site issues with debris buried to 30-35 feet and muck. Note: Building site has been shifted west to avoid muck pockets.
Trees removed without public notice or involvement. Note: There is a moratorium on future tree removal.
Consumption of MLK Park acreage now in excess of 15 percent of park space, and
Lake Mendsen could be further expanded by taking 1-2 more park acres. Note: There is some effort to dial back the size of the project footprint.
Lack of Transparency — the last comprehensive public forum on the project was the April 9, 2018 City Commission Meeting approving Schematic Designs.
Tourism as priority pitched to Orange County Tourist Development Council (TDC) — our own “I-Drive.”
One commissioner was not informed of TDC meeting and the request for $6 million.
Fundraising from the community still not accounted for, though the deadline was April 2019.
CRA funds will likely be tapped to bail out this project.
Martin Luther King, Jr: still has not been honored as the namesake of this park.
What if This Were Your Own Health?
Citizens have not been presented with a satisfactory explanation for this list of discrepancies. This is the chance for the commission to step forward and demonstrate leadership.
If this project were a medical patient, we could say we have seen the X-Rays and indicators of a potential complication are all there.
If we wait seven more months, until January, when construction pricing comes due, we then face a crisis decision of whether to administer chemo or radiation or both. Why not take preventive measures now? Get a second opinion? If your health was at stake, what would you do?
Maybe change medical providers?
Can We Afford This Project?
For many, the fiduciary handwriting is on the wall: we cannot afford this project.
No wonder the citizenry is concerned.
Cost estimates and overruns will not diminish. Instead, they will likely increase. Change orders will become a major concern. Our Central Florida construction market is robust but stressed, increasing pressure on construction costs. That context has already been established with the I-4 Ultimate, Orlando Airport’s New South Terminal and the building boom.
Commissioners Need the Chance to Talk to One Another
At the June 10 Commission meeting, Commissioner Carolyn Cooper requested a workshop so the Commission as a whole could discuss various budget issues, including the Canopy and the CRA, without having to go through the City Manager. She was dismissed by Mayor Steve Leary, but her suggestion deserves reconsideration.
Recommendation: Give Us the Benefit of Your Shared Vision
Hold a Workshop.
Put the questions on the table and explore some answers together.
Educate a very concerned public.
How Much Can the Camel Carry?
In the case of the Canopy, it is reasonable to say that a $1,000 per square foot public works project is unacceptable. So, what is acceptable? $700 per square foot? $500 per square foot? $350 per square foot? That guide star needs to be established — or at least discussed – and the public needs to hear the discussion.
If we cannot attain that acceptable price per square foot, alternative scenarios need to be explored. When a project moves beyond 60 percent design, the time and money already invested make it increasingly difficult to say “no” or even to change tack.
Think Big: Where is Plan B?
The goal is to maximize all our assets to make this project the best it can be. For this reason, the process deserves heightened public involvement, heightened communication and heightened stewardship by our elected leaders.
Are our taxpayer dollars being wisely spent? If so, show us how.
As Part of Planning Process for Orange Avenue Overlay
What do we do with 54 and one-half acres of valuable, under-developed business/commercial parcels — land along the segment of Orange Avenue that runs from 17-92 up to Fairbanks? The area contains 103 parcels, more than 90 percent of which are less than an acre. The largest is around 6 acres.
What’s an Overlay?
One thing we can do is a Zoning Overlay. An overlay is basically new zoning district that sits atop the existing zoning map, one that adds special restrictions and incentives to make a discrete, identifiable district, a district that can create cultural consistency and equilibrium and avoid piecemeal development.
According to the Center for Land Use Education (CLUE), “. . . regulations or incentives are attached to the overlay district to protect a specific resource or guide to development within a specific area. . . .Potential uses might include: Create a walkable community, connect pathways; Preserve and enhance a special district; Encourage economic development; Protect the quality of surface and groundwater and manage storm water. . . .” www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/
‘Blight’ on Orange Ave?
According to Planning and Community Development Director Bronce Stephenson, the Orange Avenue corridor has been economically stagnant for a number of years. Those of us who make the daily drive up and down Orange Avenue have become accustomed to the vitality of disconnected stretches of it, like Designers’ Row and the area around Foxtail’s and the Brewstillery. Interspersed among these hubs of activity, however, are parcels that have produced little more than weeds and first responder training facilities since the 2008 recession.
Big Three Stakeholders
Most of that unlovely, under-used land belongs to three large landholders. The Big Three are Demetree Holdings, Holler enterprises and the City of Winter Park. Although most of us wouldn’t call Orange Avenue “blighted” – it’s ours, we’re used to it — Stephenson brings a fresh pair of Okie Eyes (Bronce hails from Tulsa) that see an exciting opportunity for redevelopment that will integrate redevelopment with the culture, spirit and ambiance of Winter Park.
Creation of a Third Place
Toward that end, Stephenson has formed a steering committee where citizens from across the political spectrum will come together, find common ground, and proffer recommendations for a reactivated community that will form a new “Third Place” in Winter Park. For the sake of discussion, a First Place is your home; the Second Place is your work place; the Third Place is where you go for recreation and social interaction. It’s your Fun Place. Stephenson wants to put that place on Orange Avenue.
Give Some to Get Some
A recurrent theme at the first Orange Avenue Overlay Steering Committee meeting was the perceived necessity for the larger stakeholders’ redevelopment plans to include infrastructure assistance for the many existing smaller stakeholders. In return for some increased density, large stakeholders would be expected to provide enhanced storm water retention. Many of the smaller businesses along Orange Ave. experience damaging flooding when there is a significant rain storm. This is caused by inadequate storm water management which, because of the size of their holdings, the Big Three have the opportunity to mitigate for the entire area. Another contribution the major landowners could make would be shared parking and what Stephenson calls “meaningful greenspace” – space everyone can use.
Stephenson sees the Steering Committee as a useful tool to create a community-driven project instead of a developer-driven plan. “This will not be a project where everyone gets every single thing they want,” said Stephenson, “but the hope is that we will have enough people involved who feel like they have a voice and that everybody gets some special part of this . . . . To have an opportunity like this in a built-out city like Winter Park . . . is a unique opportunity and if we don’t get serious and do this now, we may miss the opportunity.”
Opportunity for Public Input Still Exists
Unique to this project is a robust page on the City website devoted entirely to the Orange Avenue Overlay. There you will find a 16-question citizen survey where you can share your thoughts. In addition, the Steering Committee meetings are posted on the City website under ‘Boards and Public Meetings.’ June meetings will be held in Commission Chambers at 5:30 pm June 12 and 26. Public participation is encouraged. https://cityofwinterpark.org/search/?q=Orange%20Avenue%20Overlay
Steering Committee Members
To assist the Planning staff with this project, Stephenson requested the formation of the Orange Avenue Overlay Steering Committee. The mayor and each commissioner appointed one member. In addition, a representative from each of 5 Advisory Boards and the original Winter Park Visioning Committee were asked to participate.
Bill Segal – Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB)
Jill Hamilton Buss – Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)
Laura Turner – Planning & Zoning (P&Z)
Lambrine Macejewski – Community Redevelopment Advisory Board (CRAB)
Bill Ellis – Keep Winter Park Beautiful and Sustainable Board (KWPB)
Bill Sullivan – WP Visioning Committee
Lamont Garber – Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel appointee
Michael Dick – Commissioner Carolyn Cooper appointee
Phil Kean – Mayor Steve Leary appointee
Stephenson has set an ambitious timeline for the Planning staff and the Steering Committee, though he cautions the schedule is fluid. March and April were devoted to the initial public input meetings. Based on the input received, the team will use the summer months to draft plan documents, perform mobility studies and create renderings.
Fall 2019 should see introduction of draft documents for public review and comment. Draft documents will also go to various boards for their review and recommendation.
In late Fall 2019, the team hopes to bring the final draft of the Orange Avenue Overlay to the City Commission for a vote.
As the Commission voted 3 to 1 Monday night to move the Canopy project to the next phase, the discussion surrounding their decision raised more questions than answers.
Guaranteed Maximum Price Due in October
The Canopy project will move from the Design Development phase into the Construction Documents phase. This phase will conclude in October, when the design team will come back to the Commission with construction drawings and a guaranteed maximum price.
Weaver Wants to Slow Down
With only four commissioners present – Commissioner Carolyn Cooper was absent – Commissioner Todd Weaver tried to persuade the other three to ‘push the pause button’ on the project until the full Commission is present and has all the information necessary to move forward. After a heated exchange with Mayor Steve Leary, Weaver concluded his remarks but stopped short of making a motion to table the project.
Seidel Offers Conditional Support
Commissioner Greg Seidel seemed ambivalent about the decision. “So, I don’t want to make a decision not knowing what the cost is going to be,” said Seidel. “I’m okay to move forward to the next phase . . . and if we’re pretty close in dollars, it’s going to be hard to say no. But if it comes in at $50 or $55 million, we are going to have to have some more discussions . . . .”
Was There ‘Proper and Public Notice’ of Project Changes?
During public comment, former Commissioner Phil Anderson weighed in with a series of pointed questions to Commissioners, City Attorney, Bond Counsel and City Manager about whether “. . . they could guarantee that proper and public notice had been given to residents, bond holders and each commissioner” regarding the following five issues.
The “material change in scope” eliminating approximately 14,000 square feet from the library;
The “change in use” . . . emphasizing international convention tourism adjacent to the expanded Children’s Library program;
The reduction in green space of MLK Park by approximately 2 acres;
The “material changes” in the Total Construction Budget and Operating Expenses and that the City Manager has properly budgeted and reserved sufficient contingency and has a sufficient funding plan for the project in place;
That qualified, licensed civil and structural engineers have approved the drawings and specifications and have certified that the design as budgeted . . . fully meets the existing . . . soil conditions, storm water and parking requirements; and that the City Manager and staff have opined as to sufficiency of those certifications?
Anderson suggested “postponing further action until the City Attorney and City Manager have confirmed the notice of and the content of these questions.”
How Much Will It Cost to Go to Construction Documents Phase?
The final question, posed by Commissioner Seidel, caused the most consternation. The question was, how much will it cost for the design team to create construction documents and come back to the Commission with a guaranteed maximum price? In other words, how much will it cost to go to the next phase?
City Manager Randy Knight said, ‘off the top of his head,’ he didn’t know. Seidel turned to the audience, where representatives of the architectural firm, the construction company and the owner’s representative were sitting, causing considerable back-and-forth among them, but none of them could come up with an answer either.
‘That Number Exists Somewhere’
Mayor Leary got the meeting back on track when he stated, “That number exists somewhere, so why don’t we move forward while you guys get us somewhere in the ballpark.” With that, Leary asked the City Clerk to read the roll. Leary, Seidel and Sprinkel voted in favor of moving forward to the Construction Documents phase, with Weaver casting the sole dissenting vote.
City Manager Randy Knight later confirmed the cost of going to the Construction Documents phase is $640,000.