Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06B_07/12/2001 ._ � , Y � ' ^ � F f r'� r ' � VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA `�' Post Office Box 3273 • 250 Tequesta Drive • Suite 300 a �� o Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (561) 575-6200 ; � Fax: (5G1) 575-G203 • � , �� P c y MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR TEQUESTA VILLAGE CENTER May 29, 2001 � I. Call to Order and Roll Call The Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee for Tequesta Village Center held their first meeting in the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida on May 29, 2001. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chair Gary Preston. Acting Village Clerk Betty Laur called the roll, and the following members of the Committee were in attendance: Chair, Director of Public Works and Recreation Gary Preston, Assistant Police Chief Robert Garlo, Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., and Director of Community Development Jeff Newell. II. Approval of Agenda � Village Manager Couzzo made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Assistant Chief Garlo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. III. Approval of Minutes Village Manager Couzzo made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2001 and May 14, 2001 minutes as submitted. Assistant Chief Garlo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Recycled Paper � Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 2 IV. Communication From Citizens There were no communications from citizens , V. Presentations by Six Architectural and Engineering �rms: Chair Gary Preston explained the purpose of this Committee and the procedures that would be followed during the presentations to be made at this meeting. Mr. Preston explained that thirteen proposals had been received as a result of the RFP, and on May 14 the Committee had narrowed the list to the six firms who would make presentations to the Committee today. At the end of the presentations the Committee would choose three firms listed in order of preference to provide site analysis, needs assessment and design. The procedure would be 20 minutes for the presentation, 10 minutes for questions and answers, and 10 minutes for questions from the audience, and at the sound of the bell there would be no further questions. Presentation by Stergas & Associates Jim Stergas, Ster�as & Associates, introduced the team that ; David Woodsack, Mechanical, Electric, Plumbing Engineer; Tim Messler, Civil Engineer; and George Gentile, Landscape Architect and Planner. Each team member gave a short background of their firm and their relationship with Mr. Stergas. Mr. Stergas indicated he was very knowledgeable regarding the history of the proposed Village Center, and had been involved in the charrettes held on this matter. Mr. Stergas presented two schemes, one for a 17,000 S.F, building, and one for a 8,000-9,000 S.F. building. Mr. Stergas indicated that although site work for the existing Village Hall site would be more costly because of the wellfield, a solution could be found for either site. Questions from the Committee: Mr. Couzzo indicated there would be two - � . ( Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 3 phases of work, first, the site analysis and needs assessment; and second, design development of construction drawings for bid, and inquired how long the first phase would take. Mr. Stergas indicated phase one would take 4-6 weeks and phase 2 roughly 8-12 weeks, plus the bidding process would take another 3 weeks, depending on whether things were held up by the Village. Mr. Couzzo » indicated it was important for staff to know who the contact person would be from each firm. The contacts were indicated as Mr. Stergas, a staff engineer from Mr. Shafer's firm, Mr. Woodsack, Mr. Messler, and both Mr. Gentile and Emily O'Mahoney from the landscape architectural firm. Mr. Stergas would oversee the day-to-day construction. Assistant Chief Garlo asked if Mr. Stergas had been involved in getting feedback information, to which Mr. Stergas 'responded he had been at the charrettes and heard input from residents and property owners, which he had taken into account when developing the conceptual master plan, and that he envisioned continuing that involvement for this project. Mr. Garlo asked if the issues associated with the present site could be mitigated to make it a possible site. Mr. Stergas explained that there was physically enough space but more information was needed on the other issues. Mr. Newell asked whether in evaluation of both sites there could be a fair assessment of each. Mr. Stergas responded that in analysis of the present site the well and dedicated green space would have to be analyzed for impact on the building, and that because the public safety facility was the major function of the site it would have to be determined if a Village Hall could be worked into the remainder of the site. Mr. Preston asked if the existing site was large enough to accommodate a 17,000 S.F. building. Mr. Stergas responded that there was enough acreage but since it was not a clean site like the downtown site he did not see how the property could all be useable. Questions from the Audience: Harold Taylor, 13 Chapel Court, asked if Mr. Stergas could provide a virtual presentation, to which Mr. Stergas responded that could be outsourced and that scale models could be provided. Mr. Taylor asked if the Village abandoned the wellfield if that would make the site a lot rnore viable. Mr. Stergas responded it would open a large portion of the site,; Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 4 however, the dedicated green space and the fountain would still have to be considered. Mr. Taylor expressed his opinion that the Village Green and the fountain should not be touched and that if there was a dedicated deed it should be honored. � The presentation ended at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Couzzo made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Garlo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The meeting reconvened at 10:00 a.rn. The roll was called and indicated that all committee members were present. Presentation by REG Associates Rick Gonzalez, REG Associates, explained that six people from his office would be involved and reviewed his team, which included Connie Roy-Fisher, Keith Jackson with Shalloway, and Stephen Sinclair. Mr. Gonzalez reviewed projects the firm had completed in the past including Northwood Community Center, Abacoa, City Place in downtown West Palm Beach, Mara Lago, Vedado Park Community Center, and Bill Bone mixed use building in West Palm Beach. Other public jobs included the Lake Park Fire Station, the Juno Beach Marine Life Center model, and the West Jupiter Community Center. Mr. Gonzalez suggested a workshop to get everyone to determine the best site, indicated that the downtown site would be better located on Tequesta Drive than on Bridge Road, suggested placing the clock tower in the middle of the traffic circle, and suggested that a smaller Village Hall could be placed on the current site although parking might need to be shared with the shopping center. Mr. Gonzalez indicated his team was extremely qualified, and that there would be a team approach to the project. Questions from the Committee: Mr. Garlo questioned REG's involvement in the workshop process. Mr. Gonzalez indicated that the workshop could be held Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 5 � when the design was ready to confirm the opinion of the public or could be held as a Saturday charrette. Mr. Garlo questioned if all three sites--either of the parcels downtown and the existing site—were all viable, to which Mr. Gonzalez responded that one option for the existing site did not encroach on the wellfield but took 1/2 or 1/3 of the green space, and suggested the possibility of exchanging green space with small pocket parks. Keith Jackson indicated the zone of influence of the wellfield, and advised that these issues would have to be worked out. Mr. Newell stated his questions had been answered. Mr. Couzzo asked for an estimate on timing. Mr. Gonzalez estimated groundbreaking at the end of this year and opening in 2002, but suggested prequalifying contractors as was being done for the public safety facility to save time. Mr. Gonzalez indicated that he would be the key contact person for day- to-day operation ,. Questions from the Audience: Harold Taylor, 13 Chapel Court, questioned if a virtual presentation could be done. The response was affirmative and that study models could also be built, plus photographs showing good architectural examples could be provided ,both for workshop meetings and a charrette. Betty Nagy, Shay Place, asked how if work began in July that would affect the November referendum, to which Mr. Couzzo responded that this was just the process of finalizing the firm and the overall plan would be developed by the Village Council. The presentation ended at 10:32 a.m. Mr. Garlo made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Couzzo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The meeting reconvened at 11:00 a.m. The roll was called and indicated that all committee members were present. Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 6 Presentation by Stephen Bouroff Architects & Planners, Inc. Stephen Bouroff introduced his team, which included Philip Luchner, Architectural Manager, Larry DeRose, Engineering Manager, DeRose & Sloby, and George Gentile, Landscape Architect and Planner. Phili� Luchner, Architectural Manager, noted the necessity for a needs assessment in order to choose the appropriate site, and discussed site issues such as vehicular and pedestrian access, utilities and electric, how a new building would impact the as built environment, existing conditions that must be dealt with, impact that a new building would bring (people and traffic) , as well as security and noise issues. Items that needed to be considered in programming the building included uses, parking, circulation, exposure to sun (conservation), orientation of the building to existing roadways, and architectural and engineering concerns. Mr. Luchner advised that no judgements or preconceived ideas would be made without total involvement of Village staff and the community. George Gentile suggested providing a newsletter to residents and holding public forums, and indicated that his firm had participate in every charrette in the Golden Circle. In order to weigh the sites fairly, basics would be considered such as transportation issues, available road networks, ease of access, and visibility. At the existing site, impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods would be considered. Mr. Gentile noted that security was very important and there would be a tremendous amount of security at a location next to the public safety facility. Mr. Gentile also commented that if the Village Hall was not built downtown that site would becorne just another shopping center. Mr. Luchner discussed design issues such as safety issues, ADA requirements, accessibility. cost of design issues, egress to and from the building, visibility to the public for a governmental building, and making the building as risk free as possible. Mr. DeRose indicated standards and codes must be met, aid conditioning must be designed to meet both higher and lower occupancy levels, and electrical, voi�e, data, security and computer networking systems must be state-of-the-art. This firm would work with CMS Cost o � Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 7 Estimators to provide ongoing cost estimates so the Village could see how their decisions impacted costs during the development of design documents. Mr. Luchner recommended prequalifying a list of low bidders, and indicated that the delivery system of construction manager at risk would also be appropriate. Questions from the Committee: Mr. Newell commented he liked the firm's approach on site evaluation using a study of transportation systems, the impact on surrounding neighborhoods and other areas, and security of the complex , and noted his questions had been answered. Mr. Couzzo requested the firm's experience in municipal and government work. Mr. Bouroff indicated that the firm was currently involved in 15 projects with Palm Beach County and had had a relationship with the County since the early 1990's. The firm had a current contract with Boynton Beach, had done past work for North Palm Beach, and had a project with the State of Florida. Mr. Luchner was designated as the project manager and Mr. Bouroff as the office contact. Mr. Couzzo questioned Mr. DeRose as to advantages or disadvantages of using a prequalified contractor and utilization of a construction management company. Mr. DeRose explained that a construction manager would be hired by the owner early in the process based on qualifications alone, and that construction rnanager would be at risk because he would be required to bring the project in at a guaranteed price. The construction manager would evaluate progress drawings and the owner could pick and choose various items with this process, and it was possible for the construction manager to get bids from several subs for specific items. The owner would close with the construction manager for a guaranteed maximum price. Mr. DeRose indicated this process had been used successfully on other projects, and it gave governmental agencies and municipalities an opportunity to work out individual purchasing and work things out to their advantage such as deferring sales tax to save 6%. Mr. Couzzo inquired as to the anticipated time line for the project. Mr. Luchner detailed the process ,which he estimated would take 8-10 weeks for site analysis and programming the building; 6-28 weeks for architectural designs through permitting, 6 weeks for the bidding process and negotiating the contract with Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 8 the general contractor, and 8-10 months for construction of the building. Mr. Garlo asked if the construction manager process had been used successfully in city government projects. Mr. DeRose responded affirmatively, and explained that the construction manager would be hired, there would be a preconstruction process of getting bids and prices from subs, and when the team saw the costs they might defer something and keep the project manageable according to the budget. The construction manager process would advance the time of delivery of the building at least 2-3 months because by the time a permit was pulled all the subs would already be in place. Questions from the Audience: Harold Taylor, 13 Chapel Court, asked if this firm could provide a 3-D presentation and produce a model. Mr. Bouroff responded that they had the capability to do 3-D presentations and 3-D models, as well as providing renderings, and would do whatever was necessary to convey the impressions to the Village. Mr. Couzzo thanked Mr. Gentile for his continued involvement in the presentations. The presentation ended at 11:33 a.m. Mr. Garlo made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Newell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4- 0 vote. The meeting reconvened at 2 p.m. The roll was called and indicated that all committee members were present. Presentation by Borrelli & Associates James Borrelli, Principal described the company's history and indicated the team would include H. J. Ross & Associates, Martinez Kreh & Associates, that the proj ect manager would be Stuart Grant, R.A., and assisting Mr. Grant would be Jim Borrelli, Helene Conway, Jorge Borrelli, Jeremy Sinclair, and Hania Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 9 Deppe. Mr. Borrelli displayed examples of comparable project experience which included the Miami Beach City Hall, Miami old City Hall which was a historic restoration, Miami Beach Judicial Center, City of Miami Fire Garage Administration Building renovation and expansion, Avon Park Police Administration Building, and Miami Beach Regional Library. The project approach would be to hold community workshops with the Village Council, residents, and civic organizations, and listen, report, and refine. Considerations in the site selection process included visibility and identity and a Village Center, green space, landscaping, and location that wouid complement existing and planned projects; accessibility, proximity of residents, public transportation, street access, parking, size and shape of the land, amount of acreage, flexibility of building confiiguration, environmental concerns and site conditions such as the existing wellfield, impact to engineering areas such as storm drainage, economic issues, cost of land, ease of construction, and cost over building life. The decision making process would deterrnine issues/concerns, evaluate importance, rank each choice or option, and generate a score based on agreed upon criteria. The approach to the building would be to meet building and zoning code requirements, conduct facility programming to meet community expectations, and meet Village administration requirements, budgetary requirements, and space requirements. For the Village Council chambers, items to be considered would be meeting schedules, audience size, acoustic/noise control, dias to be fixed or portable, audio visual and communications systems, and lighting control. Existing site conditions that would be considered at the downtown site would be a downtown site analysis, circulation patterns, pedestrian circulation, service access, vehicular circulation, and parking requirements. At the Village Green site consideration wouid be given to Police and Fire and the Village Center sharing whatever could be shared, pedestrian circulation, services, vehicular circulation and parking. Closing comments included the unique yualifications of the team, their experience in site evaluation and programming, their experience with municipal facilities and city halls, their track record for completing projects on time and within budget, and working with community groups on similar projects. Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 10 Questions from the Committee: Mr. Couzzo questioned the estimated cost per square foot to which the response was an estimate of $110 to $120 per S.F. including environmental and technical costs. Mr. Couzzo questioned the effect of recent changes in the construction market. Mr. Borrelli indicated the changes were favorable because a year ago no one wanted to build but with the economy slowing it had made companies more eager to accept jobs. Mr. Garlo asked who would be the contact at this firm. Mr. Grant indicated he would be the contact and that e-mail would be used to keep everyone constantly informed. Mr. Garlo questioned how the firm would obtain community consensus. Mr. Grant indicated that surveys and as many workshops as needed would be utilized. Mr. Newell asked how negative aspects of the site would be handled in the site evaluation. Mr. Borrelli explained they would prefer to talk about the positive aspects of each site and why one was better than the other, and since they were from out of town they could look at the situation in a rational way. Mr. Grant commented that the technique used was one employed by many manufacturing plants.. Mr. Preston commented residents living near the Village Green might be upset that the Village Hall might be so close to their homes. Mr. Borrelli commented that many things could be done with landscaping and structures to Iimit flow from the site to adjacent properties, and that landscaping could limit sound. Questions from the Audience: Harold Taylor, 13 Chapel Court, asked if the firm could provide a 3-D presentation to the general public at a workshop. Mr. Borrelli indicated they could provide 3-D presentations and scale models after obtaining ideas at the first meeting. The presentation ended at 2:32 p.m. Mr. Garlo made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Newell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The meeting reconvened at 3 p.m. The roll was called and indicated that all committee members were present. Presentation by Wade-Trim-STH Architectural Group, Inc. Michael Burda with Wade-Trim and Mike Rossin with STH presented Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 11 background information for each firm, indicated they had experience in Palm Beach County and had a strong commitment to budget and schedule as well as quality, and had a unique project approach. Examples of project experience similar to the proposed Village Hall project were outlined, including Palm Beach County new administrative offices. The project approach was done in five phases: site selection, Village Hall office space, facilitation of public discussion, design of site plan and Village Hall, and preparation of construction documents to work with the contractor selected by the Village and to provide unbiased professional advice on which site would be the best location. Mr. Rossin listed some issues which would apply: HVAC, engineering, indoor air factors, a totally flexible telecommunication system, security and fiber optics technical considerations, natural light coming into the building, selection of proper glass, direct/indirect artificial light, importance of lighting levels, exterior cost effective long-lasting materials, roofing, and durable finishes. The Port St. Lucie City Hall was shown as an example of a similar project, along with other exterior design examples. Mr. Burda commented their team helped communities find solutions to issues and build relationships. Ouestions from the Committee: Mr. Garlo requested a time line for this project, to which Mr. Rossin responded 1-6 months for community consensus, and less than 18 months until the end of construction—that design and bidding would take less than 6 months. Mr. Garlo asked if these firms were willing to build consensus in any way requested by the Village. Mr. Burda responded that they were. Mr. Newell asked in the site evaluation phase what elements would be evaluated to determine the best site. The response was that the well site and environmental issues would be addressed as well as working with the community. Mr. Newell questioned whether traffic circulation, utilities, and proximity of homes, would be a part of the site evaluation, which Mr. Burda acknowledged, and commented that public buildings must be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Couzzo questioned who would be in charge. It was indicated that Wade-Trim would be the senior member and that would not be a problem. STH would be used as a basis, and attending meetings would not be a problem. The construction administrator or superintendent on the job would be out of the STH office. Mr. Couzzo asked if in today's construction market this was the right timing for this project. Mr. Rossin indicated it was Minutes of Meeting of the � Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 12 half-way between right and wrong, that bids were now coming in lower and things had impr�ved; people wanted to bid now and this was not bad timing. Mr. Couzzo requested a rough cost per square foot, to which the response was that the Port St. Lucie City Hall came in at $100 per S.F., which was a fair place to start, but that the amount of site work necessary would impact the building cost. Questions from the Committee: Mr. Preston commented that it had been stated the design came in on time 98% of the time, and asked what problems could arise. Mr. Rossin responded that things which impacted the budget most were rnore severe technology needs , unforseen conditions such as in soils, and walls adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Mr. Burda commented the biggest impact on scheduling was adding something during construction and it was very important to spend more time on the front end building consensus to save time and money. Mr. Couzzo questioned the team's experience with change orders. Mr. Rossin indicated that they had a quality control program in their office and that 1%-2% change orders was not a problem—the industry average was 4%-6%. Ouestions from the audience: Harold Taylor, 13 Chapel Court, questioned whether the team had the ability to build physical models or to provide 3-D CAD presentations. Mr. Rossin indicated they preferred the 3-D presentations, but could do both. The presentation ended at 3:29 p.m. Mr. Garlo made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Newell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. The meeting reconvened at 4 p.m. The roll was called and indicated that all committee members were present. Presentation by 5ong + Associates Young Song provided a presentation which included descriptions of the ability of their professional personnel, past performance/related projects, project understanding, approach/method, site #1(downtowm) design concept, and site #2 (existing site) design concept. Ms. Song explained that the personnel needed Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 13 to care about the project. The following team was introduced: Principal in Charge: Young Song; Peter Gilstad, Project Director Quality Assurance/Quality Control; Kermit White, Project Manager; Ruben Blanco, Construction Administration; Programming, Debbie Wilkinson; Interior Design, Paulina Hurley; MEP Tony Shahnami, P.E.; Structural Engineering O'Donnell Naccarato Mignogna, Bill Mignogna, P.E.; Civil Engineering LBFH Consulting Engineers, Inc., Thomas McGowan, P.E.;and Landscape, George Gentile, Gentile, Holloway, O' Mahoney & Associates. An overview of past performance experience included government/civic projects for City of West Palm Beach, Town of Jupiter, City of Boynton Beach, City of Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Palm Beach Water Utilities, Palm Springs, Department of Management Services, Department of Conections, and Department of Juvenile Justice. The firm had served public clients for 13 years, and had 90% repeat clients. Related project s were shown: American Orchid Society, Palm Springs Town Master Campus Plan, Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department, West Palm Beach City Hall, and Town of Jupiter Master Plan. Ms. Song noted their understanding of the project was that two sites were under consideration, that assessment for long term was needed,and the building program would include Administration and support staff, Council Chamber/Community Room, Water Department Customer Service, Community Development and support, Finance, and Storage area. Each site was reviewed, which would be analyzed to determine which would be best. The project approach would include site selection analysis and programming/needs assessment which would result in a preliminary design/concept budget for approval by the Village. Following approval, schematic design, design development, construction drawings, bidding and negotiation, and construction administration would be done. A site analysis of the West Palm Beach City Hall was presented, and preliminary concept designs for site #1 and site #2 were discussed. Ms. Song indicated that the downtown site could be completed in 24 months but it would take 6-12 months longer for the existing site. Questions from the Committee: Mr. Newell complimented Ms. Song on the depth of the presentation, and questioned the method of community input. Ms. Song responded that in workshops 3-D presentations would be made, that the site plan would be modified in front of the residents, and that Song + Associates Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village �enter May 29, 2001 Page 14 would listen to the people to obtain their input. Mr. Couzzo commented that two site plans had been presented, one with a 6,000 S.F. footprint, and asked if that was a 2-story building. Ms. Song responded that was just one idea. Mr. Garlo commented that community consensus was a big issue and information would need to be presented in a clear, understandable format to the public. Ms. Song explained how presentations had been made in other communities. The proposed time line was discussed. Ms. Song explained that a quick schematic design would be created which would be approved by the owner before proceeding. The estimated date to submit for permitting was January 1, 2002. Ms. Song reviewed the normal scheduling and showed how it could be changed with items combined to fast track the project. Mr. Preston noted that according to the information provided, it would take 6-12 months longer for the Village Green site. Ms. Song discussed the site work differences in the two sites, that the downtown site was much more ready to accommodate building while the existing site issues of the wellfield and the Village Green must be worked out. Ouestions from the Audience: There were no questions from the audience. The presentation ended at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Couzzo made a motion to adjourn for a ten-minute recess. Mr. Garlo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VI. Ranl�ng by the Committee The meeting reconvened at 4:40 p.m. The roll was called and indicated that all committee members were present. The ranking process was explained by Mr. Preston. Mr. Couzzo clarified that the Committee would only rank three of the six firms that made presentations, and each member should show points on their ranking sheets which would be tallied by the Acting Village Clerk. The No.1 position would receive 3 points, the No. 2 position would be the firm receiving 2 points, and the No. 3 position would receive 1 point. The following firms were ranked by the Committee in order of preference: Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 15 No. 1 Song + Associates No.2 Wade-Trim/STH No. 3 Borrelli and Associates Mr. Couzzo thanked Chair Preston for conducting the work of this Committee so efficiently. Jim Humpage asked what would happen to the Committee at this point. Mr. Couzzo responded that the work of the Committee was done and according to State Statute 287 would now be disbanded. Mr. Couzzo explained that the next Committee would be the Negotiating Committee and would consist of himself, Finance Director JoAnn Forsythe, and Utility Engineer Tom Jensen. This Committee would negotiate with Song + Associates, and if agreement could not be reached they would go to the second ranking firm, etc. Mr. Garlo thanked Mr. Couzzo for implementing this process. The Chair thanked the people who participated at today's meeting for their time and effort and noted that coming in second and third was a wonderful accomplishment. VII. Motion to Disband the Committee Mr. Couzzo made a motion to disband the Architectural and Engineering Se�ection Committee for Tequesta Village Center. Mr. Newell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. VIII. Adjournment Mr. Newell made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Mr. Couzzo seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. Respectfi�lly submitted, Betty Laur Acting Village Clerk Minutes of Meeting of the Architectural and Engineering Selection Committee For Tequesta Village Center May 29, 2001 Page 16 Date Approved: