Marsh Lake Building Committee Meeting November 17th, 2003

 Present: Blair Corley, Lucy Skuba, Donna Larsen, Mike Larsen, Ray Magnusson, Lisa Snyder, Tiffanie Tasane, Wolf Schall, Perry Savoie, Tim Turner-Davis

Call to Order: 7:04 pm

Introductions

Tim presented a topographical map to the committee. Judas Creek playground is NOT on the lease land. Donna will check to see if there are two separate leases for the skating rink and the playground. A section of the presented map had not been 'topo'd' due to instruction from a committee member who was on-site during the survey. Discussion amongst group re: direction given to contractor, buildability of this section, and aesthetics and cost of site analysis. Tim could not answer the question of how much it would cost to complete the map. Group agreed that that section of land was not buildable and discussion completed.

Tim presented the subsurface review by sub-contractor EBA. This review zeroed in one area (east) of the land parcel as it is "acceptable for the construction of conventional foundation systems and the construction of an on-site sewage disposal system …..ideal for either a strip and spread footing or monolithic thickened slab foundation system." The review recommended that "the structure be located slightly up-slope of the base of the saddle to ensure positive drainage away from the foundation elements. As well, this will also allow easier construction of an absorption field for on-site disposal." Tim also pointed out one other feasible building spot between the skating rink and the lake.

The next stage of the assessment is to do an inventory on factors affecting the site i.e power lines, sun, wind, trails etc. As well, Tim will begin to move ahead on the building program. For this he needs the committee to present our idea of what the physical building space will be.

The first question raised concerned the desired occupant load. Tim discussed NBC (national building code) requirements for different occupant loads and defined what that meant and how it influenced cost and planning. The group set the occupant load at 100 with no opposition from anyone present.

Discussion on what the committee wants and how the survey fits into the plan. Donna presented survey results.

Discussion on the differences between a hall and a gym and how that will affect things like height of building, acoustics, ventilation, lighting, O&M costs, etc.

Roundtable on individual's vision of the building. Points mentioned: (note: this was a discussion on each individual's ideas. The following is a list of all the different possibilities presented.)

• Hall with the option to add on 
• Hall with capacity for sports
• Office space
• Computer lab
• Workshop rooms
• Different entrances
• 2 stories
• outside veranda
• wheelchair access
• emergency shelter during community crisis
• revenue generator
• live-in suite for maintenance/security
• alarm
• slab heating
• energy smart
• CAT6 cables
• Public office equipment (photocopier, fax etc)
• Concern that it may be 'under built'
• Important to consider the youth's needs
• Space for weight equipment
• Daycare/pre-school area

Discussion about gym sizes. A small gym could measure 50 by 80 feet. (400 sq. ft)

Tim explained how any building used as a care facility i.e. school or daycare, had more stringent building codes which would dramatically affect the overall cost. The group had a discussion on codes, sprinklers, care-setting facilities, mechanical rooms. Donna presented some history on the education survey and recent letter to Pat Rouble and John Edzerza about a satellite school from Golden Horn.

Presentation by Tim of other community centers architectural plans. (Hay River and Carmacks) The group reviewed the two plans and discussed benefits, downfalls, options etc.

Tim raised the issue of building types i.e. wood framing vs prefabrication. His recommendation is that we would be better off with wood framing and wood lam trusses. Mike raised the issue of having a building that is 'fire smart'. Discussion on what that means to aesthetics and cost. Tim suggested that this is an item that can be brought back to the table during the architectural planning stage.

Tim asked the group for a projected estimate on what our budget might be for construction costs. The group agreed that $2M was a reasonable projection. At a current estimated cost of $200/sq.ft., $2M would build a 10,000 sq. ft. building. The group discussed the possibility of building in phases or leaving options for add-ons.

Several suggestions were brought to the table concerning additional means to seek funds: EMO for support with emergency shelter, YTG or RCMP for satellite offices.

Discussion on the costs of the two suggested site locations. It could be advantageous to use the slope when considering the space needed for tankage.

Tim will generate a site analysis which incorporates all the architectural aspects. He hopes to be able to provide a preliminary site analysis for the general meeting on the 26th of November.

A tentative date was selected for a public meeting on December 8th at the Firehall.

Adjourned 9:27 p.m.