Body: Council Type: Minutes Meeting: Regular Date: August 13, 2018 Collection: Agenda Attachments Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Item Attachments/Agenda Item/2019/February/Minutes of Meeting held August 13, 2018/Minutes of Meeting held August 13, 2018.pdf)


Document Text

Minutes of the Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting August 13, 2018 A meeting of the Administrative Building Design Task Force was held in the Bud Clayton Memorial Room, County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Wednesday, August, 2018 at 12:30 pm. Present: Councillor Vandewal, Chair Councillor Dewey, Vice Chair Councillor Inglis Councillor Nossal County Staff Present: Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Farrell, Manager of Continuous Improvement/GIS Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk, (Recording Secretary) CRCA Members Present: Geoff Rae, General Manager Rob McRae, Manager, Watershed Planning and Engineering Donna Campbell, Assistant to the Chair and General Manager Max Kaiser, Councill Greater Napanee Bert Herfst, Loyalist Township Gary Oosterhof, City of Kingston Ross Sutherland, Township of South Frontenac Tom Beaubiah, Manager Conservation Lands Also Present: Robert Wood, 8020 Info Inc. (Facilitator) 1.

Call to Order

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. 2.

Adoption of the Agenda

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Dewey Councillor Nossal

That the agenda for the August 13, 2018 meeting of the Administrative Building Design Task Force be adopted. Carried

3.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

There were none. 4.

Adoption of Minutes a)

Minutes of Meeting held July 18, 2018

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Nossal Councillor Dewey

That the minutes of the Administrative Design Task Force meeting held July 18, 2018 be adopted. Carried 5.

Deputations and/or Presentations 

Reports a)

Next Steps to Validate Potential Partnership and Co-location of Administrative Offices

Mr. Wood reviewed with the Task Force and guests, the work done to date as noted in his report. The emphasis now would be to validate the case for a shared facility or not as well as determine whether to further validate the initial concept in a next step. After discussion, there was consensus that in order to determine any validation, a dollar figure needs to be known. The key factors in determining whether this partnership(s) proceeds will be:    

Location Total costs and potential cost savings Brand Identity Who’s in and who’s out

An initial informal quote for the cost for architectural fees for delineating 3 identities would be around $12,000; however it was suggested that an upset limit of $20,000 be provided. Mr. Wood’s report included a recommendation for approval to proceed with a joint budget to engage architectural and engineering expertise for a joint administrative building for each partner to take to their respective Board/Council in which a few minor Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting Minutes August 13, 2018

Page 2 of 3

amendments were made, including amending the upset cost to $20,000 and that the reporting back deadline be extended to December. Whereas, on the basis of the partners’ initial discussions and high-level assessment of the potential for savings and other benefits by sharing administrative offices on a common site, Be It Resolved That that a combined budget of $20,000 be allocated to engage appropriate architectural and engineering expertise to confirm these assessments and provide a report by the end of December enabling the partners to make a final decision on pursuing a shared development project, or not. Costs of this assignment are to be shared equally among the participating partners. And Further That the scope of the assignment, including life cycle costs include:

  1. architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment,
  2. preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plans to meet partner needs,
  3. options for potential configuration of common spaces for best efficiencies,
  4. implications for parking, water & similar services, building code etc,
  5. potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and
  6. initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options.

Communications 

Other Business 

Next Meeting

At the call of the Chair. 10.

Adjournment

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Dewey Councillor Nossal

That the meeting hereby adjourn at 2:04 p.m. Carried

Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting Minutes August 13, 2018

Page 3 of 3

Help support independent journalism
If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.
Buy Me a Coffee