LITCHFIELD SCHOOLS BUILDING COMMITTEE
OCT. 2, 2003
LITCHFIELD
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY ~ 7:00 P.M.
J Healy called meeting to order at 7:00pm.
Present:
Absent: J Mullen, P Sapiro (alternates)
Approval of Minutes: The 9/18/03 Meeting
Minutes were approved.
The 9/25/03 Special Meeting
Minutes were approved with the correction that
Public Comment: No member
of the public wished to speak.
Communication: J
Rod
from Kaestle Boos Associates called J Healy to
express interest in interviewing to be architect for the project.
Received
another email from
Recovered a document dated 5/29/02 that outlined the number of classrooms at the schools and how they were distributed at the time.
G Waugh brought an article from the Hartford Courant that listed endangered architectural sites – LIS was listed among them.
Discussion
about EDO49R Submission:
·
O&G and Herbert S Newman & Partner Updates: In order to meet the 10/31 deadline for
filing the EDO049R Richard Munday advised that the
committee should meet with Herbert S Newman & Partners once a week until
that date.
·
Herbert Newman & Partners passed out a “Project Summary for ED049R
Submission,” that included an outline of
the changes that will need to be made in the original three grant applications
in the current ED049: one grant
application for LIS, one for LHS and one small one for Central Administration. See hand out for details.
·
R Munday reiterated that the project must
stay within 10% of the EDO049R dollar amount.
It’s not a problem to bring the scope down later, but it would be very
difficult to bring up again if needed. B
Buckley said the committee should consider setting the dollar figure at $30MM
to ensure that if the project cost does increase by 10% it will still meet the
$33MM limit.
·
J Zullo asked R Hoben from O&G if the
Grant Application #074-0035 (The Intermediate School) would be classified as
Renovate as New or Targeted Alterations?
R Hoben advised committee will need to decide
and then it can be priced out.
R Hoben advised that
because there is a separate application within the ED049R for each school the
committee must be comfortable with the price tag it assigns to each
school. Once the committee identifies
what it wants at each school, O&G will estimate cost, then the committee
will have flexibility within $1/2MM - $3/4MM.
·
J Zullo asked what if the committee decides not to do anything with the
Central Administration application? P
Perusse to check with
·
Motion: B
·
Discussion: R Blazek said we should get
public input. K Gilyard said we were
elected by public to do this. The public
has right to be here. We should schedule public hearing at the end of the
process when we have something to present to the public. The main thing is to keep the project under
budget – that is what the public wants.
M Bramley agreed saying we’re not committing
to building a $33MM project, we’re preserving allocation from the state. Once EDO49R is submitted then we begin the
process. J Zullo warned that past committees have been criticized for poor
communications. A hearing would be an
opportunity to let the public know what is going on. J Healy moved the question.
·
All voted aye, motion to add 2 special meetings approved.
·
Motion: B
·
Discussion: Brief discussion on the importance of having
matching agendas with the BoE. Motion called.
·
All voted aye, motion to co-convene with the BoE
on 10/9, 10/16 and 10/23 carried.
·
Brief discussion of Tour of LHS to be given to building committee
members Friday, 10/3. B Buckley warned
that if five members of the building committee come together they have a quorum
and must issue a public notice (not enough time to do so). However, only four members, R Blazek, L
Chapman, K Gilyard and S Kavle plan to attend.
·
Motion: J Zullo made a motion, and B Buckley
seconded, that The Building Committee endorse the Board of Education document
entitled, “Ed Spec Rethinking” as a priority that we will endeavor to use as a
criteria for inclusion of the
·
Discussion: J Zullo said these are
wide-open statements that leave a level of interpretation with regard to budget
and the Ed Specifications. They are not
ranked by priority.
·
All voted aye, motion to use BoE document “E
d Spec Rethinking” carried.
·
M Bramley asked R Hoben
if using 30% as an average for a reimbursement rate is correct? R Hoben replied
that the reimbursement rate is 41.5% - HOWEVER, that rate only applies to
“eligible” portions of the project. Renovate as New items would be 100%
eligible. Targeted renovations might be 25-75% eligible depending on what the
committee decides to do.
·
B Buckley stressed the importance of including bonding costs and making
sure we carry short-term borrowing costs and still stay under the $33MM
cap. Bonding can be up to 6% of the
cost. J Zullo agreed, short-term
borrowing costs and bonding costs need to be included. R Hoben pointed
out that typically O&G carries cost of bonding but in the 110 projects he’s
worked on they’ve NEVER carried short term interest; that cost is normally
covered by the town. He recommended that
the short-term interest not be included as part of the project since it would
impact the project negatively. S Kavle
said we should discuss this with the BoS and BoF.
·
Feedback from Committee Members to
·
G Waugh said that for the past 5 or 6 years 3 or 4 different studies
have been done. All agree that LIS is
structurally worthy of long term investment.
He expressed concern about the structural longevity of LHS. R Munday replied
that the only way to obtain the educational objectives of this town with this
budget is to renovate both schools, leave the current grade configuration of
each in tact. Use the approach of making
the most of what’s already there. Can’t build two new buildings for this
money. J Zullo mentioned that JCJ had a
differing point of view about LHS. Said
that when you compare the cost of renovating as new to building a new
building it made more economic sense to
build new. R Munday
agreed but said that’s why
·
J Zullo was concerned with JCJ’s report,
especially the section regarding water damage to the beams. Fifty years of inadequate roofing and 50 year
old beams are reason for concern.
·
G Waugh said there are several strong voting constituencies – some are
concerned with music, some art, there is a strong advocacy for athletic
facilities since off-site fields pose safety issues. B Buckley agreed but said that G Waugh’s and
J Zullo’s concerns are covered in the BoE
document. He again reiterated that the
committee must allow a big contingency for architect and construction
management fees (16%). Must bring this
project under budget so it will pass.
·
M Bramley said he would love to see a
challenge put out to the community to see if another group could finance a
playing field for instance. S Kavle
agreed saying that the fields are set apart.
What is done with the fields won’t impact the building s. Perhaps they can isolate certain items that
might be able to be tackled later or financed by community groups or
corporations. K Gilyard said he’d rather
see the money focused on the buildings because the art and music facilities and
the science labs really seem to be lacking.
L Chapman reminded the committee that there are energy grants and other
grants available. The committee should
make sure that this is researched. S
Kavle asked that
·
J Zullo said that he thinks the decision about items like fields,
tennis courts, etc. need to be made now and not after the 10/31 submission
date. B Buckley disagreed, saying better
to keep them in now, and take them off later if you need to. R Munday said the
decisions should be made now. You can’t go
to the state with a $40MM project that is carrying a $33MM price tag. J Zullo said we need an ED049R with as much
flexibility to meet as many of the mutually conflicting constituencies as
possible, but we have to make decisions on fields now. J Healy reminded everyone that
R Munday advised that H
Newman always tries to design buildings so that they can be expanded later.
· G Waugh mentioned that air quality issues are extremely important at LIS. Improvements in that area would be well received by parents.
·
J Zullo expressed concern that there is not enough money in this budget
to meet these Ed Specs. Important to
determine if we build items like the track and field, how that will impact
building things like science labs. Need
to discuss with BoE.
·
R Hoben clarified that if this were a one
building project there would be more flexibility because if, for example, you
budgeted $5MM for site work, $20MM for additions, and the balance for
renovations, later you could revisit these figures and make changes. What’s critical here is the allocation
between LIS and LHS. What’s important to
determine now is how much you will spend at each separate building (for each
separate application). (i.e. will you
have a new auditorium, how big will the additions be? What will the art
facilities need? Etc.)The project is no longer program driven, it’s dollar
driven. Have to modify the program to
fit the $s.
·
M Bramley
pointed out that the BoE should make the programming
decisions. J Zullo said this should be a
collaborative process between the BoE and this
Building Committee.
Discussion of Project
Schedule:
·
J Zullo presented a document entitled, “Litchfield School Building
Committee, Preliminary Project Schedule.”
·
S Kavle noted that item #13 on the schedule “Building Committee Project
Information Sessions with Public Hearings” should start sooner than Jan. 11th.
·
Discussion about
Communication with the Public:
·
Motion: B
·
Discussion: General view was
that it was in the best interests of the committee not to respond to the
letter, but rather go forward with press releases every other week which would
outline the committee’s progress.
·
K Gilyard said committee should try to appear on Cable 5 once a week as
part of a public outreach program. J
Zullo agreed and said the committee should use the radio as well. He stressed the need for a continuous,
precise and clear communication strategy.
·
S Kavle agreed, and said the committee should think about enlisting the
aid of volunteers to coordinate the communication effort. Especially important to bring the committee
to the people all over Litchfield, Northfield, and Bantam.
·
L Chapman mentioned there is a school website that the committee should
use as well.
·
G Waugh stressed the importance of the neutrality of the people
disseminating the information. He
mentioned the League of Women Voters as a neutral group.
·
Motion called. All voted no,
except for B Buckley who voted yes.
·
Motion to rebut letter to the editor denied.
·
Motion: J Zullo made a motion for the Building
Committee to create a communication strategy which will involve: 1. The chair
sending bi-monthly letters to the editor to the Litchfield Enquirer, Litchfield
County Times, Waterbury Republican and
Torrington Register Citizen updating the status of the committee. 2. Identifying additional media outlets and
methods to advise the progress of the Building Committee and develop a unified
plan of informational communication.
·
Motion called, all voted aye, motion carried.
·
Motion: B Buckley made a motion and M Bramley seconded it, that the committee should invite the BoS and BoF and all the
candidates running for the BoF, BoS
and BoE to the 10/9, 10/16, and 10/23 meetings as
well.
Motion called, all voted aye, motion carried.
Discussion of Qualification Statement Requests:
·
Motion: B
·
M Bramley amended the motion to: “ to be
received no later than Oct. 23, 2003.” J Zullo seconded the amendment.
·
Motion called, all voted aye, motion carried.
·
Motion: M Bramley made a
motion, seconded by B Buckley, to hire
All voted ‘aye’,
motion carried.
Discussion of Financial Items:
·
J Healy asked J Zullo to put together a budget for the committee for
the next regular meeting – 10/16/03.
·
J Zullo advised that the town treasurer, Financial Director, BoF, BoS and a Financial Advisor
need to be involved in the decisions of what kinds of bonds should be purchased
and how the cost of bonding should be accounted for.
·
M Bramley reminded the group that O&G
needs a short term bonding figure on 10/16.
·
G Waugh expressed concern that R Hoben of
O&G mentioned that in 110 projects he’s worked on, none had short term
bonding included as part of the project total.
·
M Bramley asked who determines what the $33MM
should include? J Zullo said it was not explicitly written that short term
bonding is included. B Buckley said that
·
J Healy said that this
·
J Healy asked M Bramley to research bonding.
Discussion of Committee Procedures:
·
J Healy reminded the committee that all outside communication should be
given to the chair so that it can be disseminated to the entire group, ensuring
that everyone receives the same information.
·
J Healy also reminded group that emails are public record.
·
Communication with R Hoben and O&G should
go through the chair.
Additional Business:
·
B Buckley moved to table discussion of D Wedge’s answers to email until
next meeting, since a new email of answers to a second set of questions had
just been received that afternoon and committee members did not have time to
review.
·
B Buckley brought up the concern that three members of the committee
were appointed by town boards. What will
happen in November if and when new people are elected to these boards? R Blazek said according to the BOS the new BoS will have to vote to decide. J Zullo said that the call never says the
appointee has to be a member of that board.
He advised that the BoF discussed this at
length and did not believe that the appointee had to be a rep of the BoF. K Gilyard
believes that the committee appointee should be a rep of the board.
B Buckley said needs to be clarified because it is a
point of controversy.
Future Agenda Items:
·
Letter to
Meeting adjourned at 10:10pm.
Chairperson
Minutes Recorded by: