Corrected MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

 LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY

SPECIAL MEETING

OCTOBER 30, 2003

 

A special meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Litchfield Intermediate School Library

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

Also Present: J. Tindall-Gibson, Superintendent, Diane Knox, BOE Chairman, Public and the Press.

 

Meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM by Chairman J. Healy

 

Motion made by M. Bramley to table the approval of the minutes of the October 23TH meeting tot eh next meeting seconded by B. Buckley– Motion Carried.  All votes were in the affirmative.  There were no abstentions.

 

Motion made by M. Bramley to accept the minutes of the October 27TH meeting with corrections, seconded by J. Zullo – Motion Carried.  All votes were in the affirmative.  There were no abstentions.


Public Participation

J. Healy read a letter from W. Spear which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Tom Babbitt, Architect read his letter attached hereto as Exhibit B.

 

Review of Architects RFQs

The following Architects submitted Qualification Responses and Committee Members listed their top candidates who each received the following votes

Antinozzi Associates                                                                   0

Bianco/Giolitto/Weston Architects, LLC                                         1

C. J. Lawler Associates                                                               2

Fletcher-Thompson, Inc. (“F-T”)                                                 6

Friar Associates, Inc.(“Friar”)                                                      6

H. L. Turner Group, Inc.                                                             1

Herbert S. Newman & Partners P.C. (“Newman”)                          9

Jeter, Cook & Jepson Architects   (“JCJ”)                                       7

Kaestle Boos Associates, Inc.                                                      8

Lawrence Associates                                                                  0

Moser, Pilon, Nelson Architects                                                    2

S.L.A.M. Collaborative    (“SLAM”)                                               5

Svigals & Partners                                                                      0

Tai Soo Kim Partners                                                                  5

 

 

 

After the first vote three firms were eliminated: Antinozzi Associates; Lawrence Associates; Svigals & Partners.

Goal is to bring back five for interview.  Each Committee member spoke about their choices and reasons for those choices:

 

B. Buckley -  first went through all of the Responses and eliminated six firms right away which left eight to look over again.  Ranked from 1-8 and top five firms were studied for two categories: 1. firms involved in renovation; 2. firms that had no dealing with project so far; looked at qualifications; he has had experience with a number of firms and a negative experience with one of the firms.  Would like to get two firms to make proposals.

M. Bramley - reducing the firms was good and valuable; eliminated a lot right away; wants firm which realizes that interaction with public was key and eliminated any firm that did not highlight that in their proposal.  Tai Soo Kim’s web page impressed him & S.L.A.M. Collaborative built an addition at CJR under budget.

L. Chapman - experience, familiarity with type of project and public relations was important that they would go out and communicate with the public; also work to maximize reimbursements.  Tai Soo Kim and Kaestle Boos worked in Canton which has approximately same population in schools and same grade configuration and regarded that important.

J. Mullen - experience with building and renovating schools, looked at the architectural pictures and saw some waste of money with fancy designs and curves .

K. Gilyard - Communication with public; stressed air problem; will to work under financial restraint and also did not go for any firms that had pictures of building with expensive curvy lines; looked at firms that worked in area.

S. Kavle - criteria  - looking at architectural pictures and assessing how they would deal with out building; comfortable with modern aesthetic and target renovations; relationship with State of Connecticut; size of firm - need one of larger size to get work on time; picks were: 1. Herbert S. Newman & Partners P.C. was at the top of her list with simple and beautiful designs, 2. Tai Soo Kim was second, 3. S.L.A.M. Collaborative is talented and solutions were interesting and  choose Friar Associates, Inc with respect for B. Buckley’s opinion.

J. Zullo - looked at horsepower or size; make up; experience building and renovating schools; small intimate; how community will react to the decision Committee makes;  chose Tai Soo Kim worked on Canton High School and Middle School which has same grade configurations and same square foot (SF) additions; Newman, Fletcher - Thompson and Jeter, Cook and Jepson all have past experience with this project.

G. Waugh - looked at firms would designed architecture that used a lot of natural light, airy, open setting; renovation cost per SF; noticed S.L.A.M. Collaborative had very good renovation numbers; thought Newman, Fletcher - Thompson and Jeter, Cooks and Jepson are all capable of doing the job and have showed that in the past; need to have firm that has experience with renovations.

P. Sapiro - based upon statement would they be good at public relations with community; project may be more meaningful to smaller firm; aesthetics - we have two unique structures and its important to build upon that; need architect who had vision; what kind of projects and renovation projects firm has worked on in past; had conversation with a retired superintendent who worked with one of the architectural firms (Kaestle Boos) on a school project in Brookfield.

J. Healy - started off with $33M cap and looked for a company who would be willing to work with us and within the $33M cap on renovation project; Newman deserves to be interviewed; experience with Fletcher Thompson in different phase of the project and believes they listen the best; JCJ has leadership and good at communicating with Committee; looked at pictures and decided against firms with pictures of curved walls; need to know what Town wants this time and Architect has to be a good fit with town.

M. Bramley noticed that four or five other firms had principals who started out with SLAM. 

Committee reviewed original vote and discussed the firms with two or less votes:

Bianco/Giolitto/Weston Architects, LLC had one vote.  J. Zullo liked firm because it was a smaller, more intimate group; Dan Weston is a man who certain firms hire to be an expert on reimbursement eligibility and has a good relationship with the State, he wrote the letter in the firm’s packet, however, al lot of work experience was his in conjunction with a different firm - Eliminated.

H. L. Turner Group, Inc. Had one vote and K. Gilyard thought they had interesting problem solving techniques but was bothered that they weren’t local. - Eliminated

C. J. Lawler Associates had two votes - Eliminated.

Moser, Pilon, Nelson Architects had two votes - Tim Breslin, LHS Principal spoke very highly of the firm and about the work that had been done at Farmington High School; attentive and small - Eliminated

New Vote was taken on remaining Architectural Firms::

 

Fletcher-Thompson, Inc. (“F-T”)                                     4                                 

Friar Associates, Inc.(“Friar”)                                          9                     

Herbert S. Newman & Partners P.C. (“Newman”)              8         

Jeter, Cook & Jepson Architects   (“JCJ”)                           7         

Kaestle Boos Associates, Inc.                                          0         

S.L.A.M. Collaborative    (“SLAM”)                                   5                                 

Tai Soo Kim Partners                                                      7         

 

Committee discussed interviewing all six firms or downsizing list to five; time constraints of interviewing all six at one meeting; splitting up interviews may be a problem of all Committee members can not attend both meeting; if eliminating any more might as well do it to four firms; if unhappy with any firms cal in other two at the bottom of the short list.

The interview schedule was discussed and a suggestion of a half hour for each presentation was mentioned; too short; set up interviews on the hour with 20 minute presentation, 20 minute question & answer and 10 minute follow-up and recap; next meeting is November 6 and may want to start the meeting earlier at 6:00PM; Committee prefers to have long interview first and shorter second time; second interview only two firms; should firms come to first interview with some idea of what Committee is looking for?;

 

Motion was made by M. Bramley, sec. by B. Buckley to invite top four vote getters back for next regular meeting for a presentation of 20 minutes, 20 minute q & a and 10 minute recap on their part and hold the other two firms in reserve in the event any of the four firms choose not the come.

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

Firms to be interviewed on November 6, 2003:

 

Herbert S. Newman & Partners P.C.        

Tai Soo Kim Partners     

Friar Associates, Inc.

Jeter, Cook & Jepson Architects                                                  

 

J. Zullo pointed out that committee doesn’t just want to bring one firm back for a proposal instead select two for a more competitive response; get basics of the plan and fax out to the four firms tomorrow with a copy of the ED 049R and give them an RSVP by noon on Monday;  J. Healy can call and if any firm says no he’ll go to the next firm on list which is S.L.A.M.;  explain Committee’s intent is to hire a firm and should project go through at February referendum will to continue to work with same firm; second part of this process should not be bringing back for another interview but for getting proposals with contract with fees;  want two so Committee can compare; can start at 6:00PM next week for that meeting only; first interview at 6:30PM.

Committee discussed whether the BOE should be at these interviews and decided it would be more important for them to be at final interview instead, mentioned that BOE members and candidates are always invited and that the Committee was created to do this job.

 

Should firms be given a list of equivalent questions to come back with responses; list could be created by committee or questions from last committee could be used.  Should Committee direct Architectural firms to what it’s looking for.  Decided to let them make their presentation and if they don’t shown Committee what it’s looking for - cross that firm off the list.

 

Motion was made by M. Bramley and sec. by B. Buckley to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 PM

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

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

Kelli L. Green, Recording Secretary