Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Facilities Library topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks for tighter timeline, more site due diligence on proposed library design contract
Summary
Library director Dana Giroux presented a recommended architect and fee schedule for a new Spring Hill library. Board members supported moving forward but asked for a shorter schedule, earlier schematic concepts for review, and preliminary geotechnical/civil due diligence before committing the full lump‑sum fee.
Library Director Dana Giroux presented results of an RFQ process and recommended WBA/HGA as the preferred architectural team for a new Spring Hill library. The packet included a proposed fee and schedule (a lump sum of approximately $351,000 covering community engagement, landscape, civil, interior and architectural services).
Board members and library trustees said they support building the library but raised concerns about the proposed timeline and deliverables. Several members requested that the design team provide interim concept drawings earlier in the schedule (a schematic concept for board review before final concept delivery), and asked staff to reallocate effort toward early civil and geotechnical due diligence (to confirm foundation, grading and building‑pad feasibility) rather than front‑loading landscape and interior finishes. Vice Mayor Linville asked for the city’s capital budget picture (expected in September) before authorizing the full commitment; several members asked staff to return in early October with revised scope/timeline that better stages the work and provides preliminary site due diligence.
Alderman Hartwell and library board members urged moving promptly so the project does not stall; several elected officials asked for clearer definitions of community engagement elements and assurances that community input would be directed at programming and siting (rather than late‑stage interior finishes). Staff (Dana) said she will take the board’s feedback to the recommended firm, seek a revised schedule with earlier schematic deliverables and confirm the cost and scope of preliminary soils/geotechnical testing that could be performed before the larger design contract begins.
The board gave staff direction to return with a revised proposal that shortens the public‑engagement timeline, increases early civil/geotechnical analysis, and clarifies how community input will be collected and used; no contract award occurred at the meeting.
