minutes

Corrected MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA

SPECIAL MEETING

OCTOBER 27, 2003

A special meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Monday, October 27, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Litchfield High School Cafeteria.

Present were: S. Kavle, K, Gilyard, B. Buckley, J. Zullo, M. Bramley, L. Chapman, P. Sapiro, voting as full member, J. Mullen, alternate member

Also Present: Tim Callahan, Architect of Herbert S. Newman & Partners, J. Tindall-Gibson, Superintendent, P. Perusse, Business Manager, Diane Knox, BOE Chairman, BOS Members: Harold Fairchild; Don Falcetti and John Noone, J. Zinn, First Selectman, State Senator Andrew Roraback, Representative Craig Miner, Tim Breslin, Principal LHS, Public and the Press.

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman S. Kavle

Members of the School Building Committee Introduced themselves to the public.

Presentation

S. Kavle gave a brief introduction about the submission of the ED 049R with the cap of $33,000,000 and reviewed what the Committee has been working on he passed two months.

Tim Callahan made a presentation to the public which included the following:

Committee’s work is still early on in the process; Committee has defined parameters; Committee is currently only responsible for getting the ED 049R to the State; Submission of ED 049R so flexible enough to have room to work with project to be able to manipulate size, scope and use; Need public input on what components are important; Looking at affordable REUSE of existing facilities; Submission Deadline is October 31, 2003 and State approval around December 2003 with Referendum in February 2004.

Review of the Committees Priority Summary:

Construct, Alter and Renovate Building Area to Meet Education Needs

Stabilize the Existing Buildings (Safe/Functional/Sound)

Optimize Reimbursement

Limit Site Development to Safety and Security Issues

and BOE Priority List

1. Stabilize Infrastructure

2. Technology Infrastructure & instructional opportunities

3. Expanded & modernized science labs

4. Expanded fine arts & performing arts capacity

5. Improved athletic fields

6. Improved traffic & safety

7. Communication & security

8. Interior finishes and classroom learning environment upgrades

9. Staff work areas

10. A plan to manage the minimizing of the disruption to the

learning process throughout the renovation process

and Flexibility

with New Construction (i.e. the LIS and LHS Auditorium)

with Existing Alterations (renovate as new or Target renovations)

with State Reimbursement

Channel Alterations down the right path

New Construction

Program Renovations

Energy Conservation

Code Updates

Mechanical Upgrades

Hazardous Material Abatement

Rebates

Private Funding

At Litchfield Intermediate School two issues are: New Cafeteria and New Media Center & Library

Committee has selected Target Renovation for both schools. At LIS 5,000 SF of program renovations. At LHS 12,000 SF of program renovations.

Also working on how to reuse buildings more effectively with the greatest reimbursement:

Some projects that can be 100% Reimbursable

New Constructions

Program Alternatives

Energy Conservation

Code Updates

Mechanical Upgrades

Hazardous Material Abatement

Issues for State Filing:

Define amounts per school

Grade enrollment per school

Address and Define Scope of Targeted Renovations & new construction

How to reuse LIS & LHS - see Architect’s: 074-0035 Litchfield Intermediate School Plans:

Expansion of Existing Auditorium

Reuse of Existing Auditorium

Demolition of Existing Auditorium

Also see 074-0034 Litchfield Middle/High School Plan

The “old” ED 049 was displayed and explained that the new and revised ED 049R will be submitted with new figures with a total of not more than $33,000,000

b. Buckley asked T. Callahan to explain ho w the State determines reimbursability - Current reimbursable rate is 41.43% so when it say 100% reimbursable it mean 41.43% of the figures will be reimbursed. Formula also describes maximum allow space in SF that State will reimburse for . LIS will be above this allowable space (after the addition)

G. Waugh arrived at 7:15 PM

M. Bramley discussed the belief by the Committee that this project is debt service driven and asked the public how many would agree at a 5% increase, 10% increase or 15% increase. Is there a number the Town will accept as to what the Town will pay annually for this project; the stay within the $33,000,000 cap Town would be responsible for borrowing $24,000,0000; Mill Rate from 2007 to 2017 could increase up to 4.19 mills and drop below 3 mill increase after 2017; discuss using untraditional methods to reduce this increase to 2 3/4 mills instead of 4 mills including adding more time to pay off debt and private funding

Public Participation

Kim Beres questioned whey the last project of $37 M was to have generated a 3.16 M increase and why it would be more now with the lower interest rates. - This has to do with the amount that is reimbursable by state and debt service. When you Renovate as New, as was proposed in the last project, more of the project is eligible for reimbursement - Committee is still studying this to maximize reimbursements.

Bill Dranginis asked if changing the Auditorium to a Library and Cafeteria and building a new Auditorium at LHS would mean more reimbursement. - It would be more reimbursement but it doesn’t out weigh the cost of the project and is higher than Target Renovation.

Kevin Creed commented that stretching the Bond out for a longer period of time can help people on fixed income and when newcomers move to Town they will have to pay their fair share.

Bill Dranginis asked why not go with a project of higher gross cost and lower net cost to Town?

M. Bramley stated Committee would present a $33M project but asked if taxpayer should be allowed an alternate project to study:

i.e. $37.5 M. Project - Town cost $23M

$33 M. Project - Town cost $24M

Diane Knox state that it doesn’t make sense to bring anything more than the $33 M to the taxpayers.

K. Gilyard questioned if taxpayers understand that you can build more school and pay less taxes with a higher cost Renovate As New Project. Public comments included “keep it simple” and “can we change the project after the ED 049R is submitted.”

T. Callahan explained that changes can be made within 10%of the figures submitted. It has been filled out to be flexible and at this time Committee may not see what alternative may be and may find something else that is reimbursable later.

B. Buckley clarified that the Committee had picked 11.1M of LIS and 21.9M for LHS so there would be flexibility to increase one and therefore decrease the other and within that 10% margin the LIS figure or 11.1 could be increased to the cost of the “Renovate As New” plan.

Committee would like to have more forums like tonight’s to inform taxpayers of what they are doing and get input form public regarding what you would like to see in that project. Regular Meetings are the first and third Thursday of the month.

J. Endicott suggested that Committee inform public what they will be voting for in February 2004 by sending out brochures as was done last year and questions whether there was enough money in the budget to do this.

J. Zullo explained that Committee has a $50,000 budget and $12,000 was allocated for such a brochure which would first have to be submitted to the State for approval so that it is unbiased. He also stated that public has to be aware the Committee had a $33M cap for project proposal and that the BOS, BOF and Town Treasurer are responsible for Bonding and Mill Rate.

Kim Beres questioned whether the State will allow only 20 year Bonding and J. Zullo explained that State will reimburse if building has 20 year life – 20 year Bonding is not a policy, just a practice.

J. Healy arrive at 8:00PM

Ed Fabbri questioned if Committee is planning fancy entryways and administration offices instead of classroom. Committee stated that they are trying to optimize dollars for kids and Science and Technology is a high priority and commented that Tim Callahan had done a good job trying to deliver a project that Town would feel comfortable with.

Kim Beres questioned whether Herbert S, Newman and Partners who are filing the ED 049R are necessarily going to be the Architect for this project. Committee stated that they will be interviewing both Architects and Construction Managers including Herbert S. Newman and Partners and O & G.

J. Healy reaffirmed that this is just the filing phase right now and the next phase will be the layout of the school programs, classrooms, etc.

M. Bramley stated that for this phase there was a need to hire and Architect and Construction Manager to help with the Ed Specs and assist in how to divide the $33M between both schools.

T. Callahan mentioned that he funding proposed will not include athletic fields, bus loops & drop off.

Doyle Finan commented that the LHS Gymnasium sits off by itself right now and during breaks there is only a small space of people to go to with deplorable rest rooms and asked that the Committee make as part of the project a plan for expansion of this room and upgrade of the rest rooms.

Public also commented about the LIS Auditorium where there are currently buckets for leaks on the stage where the students are practicing for the school musical and remembers that buckets were one the stage in 1969 when he was in school.

The public also asked how the upgrade of athletic fields be paid for. And Committee repeated that the fields are not part of the project and external renovations could not be done with the $33,000,000 cap. M. Bramley felt that Committee should encourage community to do everything they can to raise money and also try to get private funding and it’s not uncommon to find corporate funding.

The public also commented that is important to also have an aesthetically pleasing building.

Submission of ED 049R

Drafts were passed around to the Committee with the following numbers:

LIS $11.1M

LHS $21.9M

Administration Office $0.00

Review and take on RFQ Submissions for the Architect and the Construction Manager.

J. Healy suggested Committee establish a schedule for review RFQs and each member should come up with a short list to the next meeting.

Committee discussed that in order to schedule this Committee should look at an end date and work back from that . For last committee it was a four week process; reviewed; pared down to five f for interviews then two for final interviews. Committee should establish date they want the firms on contract. Referendum in February 2004 so need to have the selection complete by December 1, 2003. Two months to develop conceptuals is a tight time frame. Next Regular meeting is November 6, 2003.

Motion was made by J. Zullo to schedule a special meeting on October 30, 2003 and November 13, 2003 for the purpose of selecting the Architect and Construction Manager for the project. Sec. by B. Buckley

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Committee discussed that member can pick up to five to bring to Thursday’s meeting – looking for common ground and may find only three firms to interview. Asked P. Perusse to provide Easels for next meeting. Prioritize the five selections and the Goal will be to come out of the meeting with a short list to interview.

J. Zullo stated that previous committees have selected just one Architect and one Construction Manager – would this Committee contemplate going forward with two of each to bring a more competitive opportunity to negotiate the project. Committee is not limited in its selection and can select the most qualified and ask that to down size their proposal.

B. Buckley agreed toe select two qualified firms and ask to two proposals and make a selection. We’ll see a net cost benefit.

Task for Thursday night for each Committee to bring Five (5) Architect choices to meeting.

Intent is to hire someone that if Town votes to continue with the project at the February 2004 referendum, we stay with the Architect and Construction Manager.

Motion to Adjourn made by B. Buckley and sec. by M. Bramley at 8:45PM

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kelli L. Green

Recording Secretary