Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-06 ad Hoc - Library Landscape Committee MinutesRECEIVED orw 'TOWN CLERK Town of Reading READING, MA. 5t Meeting Minutes 2024 MAY 28 AH 8.42 Board - Committee - commission - Council: Ad Hoc Library Landscape Committee Date: 2024-05-06 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Public Library Location: Conference Room Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Session: Open Session Purpose: General Meeting Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Genady Pilyaysky, Chair; Cherrie Dubois, Vice -Chair; lake Soucy, Secretary; Elaine Stone (remote); Andrea Hogan (remote); Members - Not Present: Cappy Popp; Desiree Zicko Others Present: Meaghan Clemente, Library Administrative Assistant; Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: lake Soucy, Secretary Topics of Discussion: I. Call to Order 7:01 pm. It. Public Comment No public comments were made in person or remotely. III. Report Updates on Prior Action Items Dr. Pilyaysky and Ms. Zicko have compiled a list of local organizations to contact regarding future fundraising. Mr. Soucy has briefly discussed the project with several neighbors but will postpone flyer development and distribution until the Committee has a more defined scope and cost of the project. Dr. Pilyaysky hopes to meet with Library Director Amy Lannon and Activitas representatives to discuss potentially reducing costs by changing or eliminating specific design components. The meeting will discuss concerns regarding the pergola structure's warranty and electrical components. Ms. Dubois suggested that exploring alternative materials may also reduce costs. IV. Discussion of the Activitas Report The Committee reiterated their desire to reduce costs for the project, which came in much higher than generally expected, and discussed the possibility of presenting the landscape design to other firms for bidding on the implementation. Although Activitas expressed interest in implementing the design, alternative bids from different firms would provide additional cost estimates for comparison purposes and may even result in new ideas for materials or other design components. Ms. Dubois and Ms. Hogan confirmed that Activitas' presentation to the smaller Activitas Working Group contained the same designs presented to the full Ad Hoc Library Landscape Committee in March. Ms. Dubois noted that requesting bids from other companies would clarify the money needed to implement the design in one stage. This could help determine the project's overall feasibility and guide fundraising efforts. Separating the project into multiple stages may help reduce some costs. Mr. Soucy reviewed key elements of the Activitas design, such as the pergola structures, retaining wall, light bollards, pavers, and stage area. Seeking a complete redesign for the project may be costly. Rather than completely redoing the plan, soliciting alternative quotes to implement these design elements may clarify costs and feasibility. Ms. Hogan agreed and noted that multiple contractors often provide quotes and estimates for residential remodeling projects to give homeowners a better idea of project possibilities, costs, phases, and timelines. Ms. Stone cautioned the Committee to be careful about how ideas from the Activitas design are presented to other companies bidding on the project. Establishing a fair opportunity for all interested parties, including Activitas, is important. Ms. Dubois suggested checking with Town Hall on procurement ethics and procedures. Dr. Pilyaysky noted that desired priorities for the project should be identified in the designs while noting other items the Committee feels could be eliminated. For example, a shaded seating area was identified as a priority in the survey results and was incorporated into the Activitas plans with a pergola structure near the main walkway. Mr. Soucy suggested that a paved stage area could also be established in the initial phases of the project so that underground electrical work could be completed during the excavation. Costly stone seating on the hill could be implemented at a later point. All phases should be aligned with project priorities, with add-ons that do not require further excavation or major work potentially being postponed. Mr. Soucy suggested extending Wi-Fi coverage on the building rather than within light bollards. The Committee could reduce the number of add-on features in the pergola structures. Dr. Pilyaysky noted that removing the stone seating would generate significant cost savings. Other elements could also be removed, but certain line items like general conditions, contractors' overhead and profit, project contingencies, and other soft costs may be unavoidable. The Committee discussed the possibility of recovering project contingencies, although it is impossible to anticipate potential project setbacks. Mr. Soucy noted that the Library grounds were excavated during the building renovations and that electrical work would not require deep digging. The Committee debated the meaning of the line item for laser -grade topsoil. At first, it was assumed that the soil would be shocked with lasers to eliminate seeds and minimize weeds. However, Ms. Stone clarified that laser -grade topsoil relates to the slope of the grounds and likely includes labor and tools. The Committee discussed the possibility of using different types of paver stones, as unit pavers are $25 each, and concrete pavers are $12 each in the proposal. Cost savings may depend on the square footage of the anticipated area. Long-term durability is also a concern, as the cost of replacing lower -quality items may be an issue in the future. Ms. Hogan noted that the proposed Umbrieno (Summer Wheat) pavers will retain their color and are easily washable. Additional details and specifications on alternative options would be needed to make an informed decision. v,g 1 2 Dr. Pilyaysky noted that the project cost budget was unclear to the Committee or Activitas when developing the informational project proposal. Dr. Pilyaysky suggested focusing on a project wish list of broad design concepts rather than getting bogged down in the details. Presenting this wish list to other companies that are more knowledgeable about alternative implementation may be a viable path forward in reducing costs and conducting further due diligence. The Town may have previously worked with other landscape architectural firms. However, it is important to consult with Activitas regarding less costly alternatives. Dr. Pilyaysky suggested the possibility of checking with the Town Manager and Department of Public Works (DPW) about possible assistance with removing existing grass and laying down new sod, deeper and higher quality topsoil, and grass seed for an improved lawn area. Assistance with ongoing maintenance may also be helpful. Clover could also be considered an aftemative, as it can be more cost-effective. Ms. Hogan noted that she had previously visited a library in western Massachusetts with Ms. Zicko that had simple but nice landscaping with mulch, planters, trees, and more. Similar landscaping at other public buildings in Town created a sense of unity and continuity. Ms. Hogan noted that the garden beds near the Reading Public Library's parking lot have room for improvement and space that can be filled with perennials. For fundraising purposes, the Committee should establish an estimated budget for the project. Something in the range of $750,000 to $1,000,000 would be feasible, especially if the stone seating is eliminated. However, the proposal notes a 4% annual increase in its escalated opinion of probable project costs due to the inflation of necessary material and labor costs. It is important to emphasize to the public and potential donors that the project will be privately funded through donations and will not use municipal taxpayer dollars. The Committee briefly discussed the possibility of grant funding. The project needs to strike a balance between durability and affordability. When requesting altemative bids on the implementation of the project, potential wish list items should be identified and provided in an informational packet along with a rough budget and relevant conceptual drawings from the Activitas proposal. An image showcasing the enlargement of the preferred option was identified as a possibility. Mr. Soucy suggested noting hillside seating as a possible altemative, which could be implemented differently than the costly stone seating proposed by Activitas. Ms. Stone clarified that the doorway near the top of the tiered seating is not handicap accessible and should be made clear when presenting the conceptual drawings to interested bidders The main pergola structures for the shaded seating area are essential in meeting the public's needs, as identified in the survey. However, the pergola may not be used often during storms despite the potential for automatic roof covering and other special features. The potential for electrical power needed to plug in laptops and other devices may be desirable, as well as extended Wi-Fi coverage across the Library grounds. Maximizing shaded seating with tables, chairs, and benches along the edges of the planters is key. Permanently installed seating is essential for safety and durability. In March, the Committee favored eliminating a separate pergola structure over the performance stage area due to reduced audience visibility and seating concerns. However, a shaded performance area may be beneficial for performers. Past programming held on the Library lawn will be examined in terms of timing and shade in the area. The orientation of the building in relation to the timing of sunshine on the School Street side of the building was discussed and will be further investigated and observed. Page 1 3 V. Approval of March 20, 2024 Meeting Minutes Motion: To approve the minutes of the March 20, 2024, Ad Hoc Library Landscape Committee Meeting as presented. (Dubois / Soucy) Vote: Approved 5.0 VI. Future Agenda Items and Action Items The Committee plans to meet on Thursday, May 23, to further review project priorities. Updates on action items will also be reported. Ms. Dubois will collaborate with Ms. Clemente and Ms. Lannon to develop a prioritized draft list of proposed items to be requested in future project estimates that the Committee will review before being presented to other landscape professionals. Other options for landscape architects will also be explored. Mr. Pilyaysky will contact the town manager regarding potential collaboration with the DPW to improve the law while alleviating costs. Grants may be a possible source of funding in the future. Dr. Pilyaysky welcomed additional suggestions for agenda items ahead of the next meeting. VII. Adjournment Motion: To Adjourn at 8.27 pm (Soucy / Hogan) Vote: Approved 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, aJaL Sroucy, Secrer� Page 1 4