minutes

MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

A meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the Litchfield Intermediate School Library

Present were: J. Healy, Chairman S. Kavle, K, Gilyard, B. Blazek, J. Zullo, M. Bramley, L. Chapman, G. Waugh, J. Mullen, alternate member

Also Present: Leo Paul, First Selectman-Elect, Bill Dranginis, BOS-Elect, Frank Simone, BOE, Wayne Shuhi, BOE, Public and the Press.

Meeting was called to order at 6:06 PM by Chairman J. Healy

Motion made by M. Bramley to accept the minutes of the October 23, 2003 meeting, seconded by K. Gilyard– Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Motion made by M. Bramley to accept the minutes of the October 30, 2003 meeting with corrections, seconded by K. Gilyard – Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Public Participation

Wm Spears reiterated what he spoke about in letter last week including: his appreciation of the efforts of the Committee; understanding of what hard work it is; his attendance until an Architect and Construction Manager are choose; his support of Herbert S. Newman and Partners (“Newman”); thoughts about the selection process; Newman is well suited to follow through with Targeted Renovation; his interest to see wait Committee will do when interviewing remaining candidates.

Bill Dranginis asked if these are plans that can be studied at this time and Committee informed him that previous plans have some of the work but the designs that was done is no longer what Committee is planning or using.

Committee explained to public that they were considering selecting two firms for proposals and asked a second public participation element should be added to the Agenda after the interviews. Wm. Spears stated that new elected officials were in attendance and hope that they would be able to have public participation after interviews.

Motion was made by J. Zullo to ad an Agenda item, after the final interview, public participation for a limit of twenty (20) minutes, sec. by S. Kavle

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative except M. Bramley who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.

Communication

A letter was received from Evelyn Goodwin, Town Clerk regarding the 2004 schedule of meetings attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Correspondence was received from Mary Loyer who would like to sponsor one or possibly three information meetings before the referendum.

Jack Healy sent a status letter to the local newspapers attached hereto as Exhibit B and spoke with Jeff Zeiner at WZBG and Cable 5.

Paul Sapiro arrived at 6:25PM

Payment of Bills

Motion made by M. Bramley to table payment of bills to next scheduled meeting, sec. by K. Gilyard.

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

Financial Discussion

Motion made by J. Zullo to form a Finance Subcommittee to initiate discussion with BOF, BOS and Town Treasurer with regard to Financial aspects of the project. Subcommittee would include Treasurer of School Building Committee, sec. by M. Bramley.

K. Gilyard was interested in being on the Subcommittee. Paul Sapiro was interested in being an alternate on the Subcommittee.

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

Interview of Architects

6:30 PM – HERBERT S. NEWMAN AND PARTNERS

PRESENTORS: RICHARD MUNDAY, AIA, PARTNER, ARCHITECT IN CHARGE

TIM CALLAHAN, AIA, ASSOCIATE, PROJECT MANAGER

Presentation

This Project is about Renewal; what does this project mean to the Town and how do we approach design for education; try to explores possibilities that exist to enhance lives and daily experience, particularly for students; early experiences are important in forming lives and should be a positive one; when children grow up and return to Litchfield there should be a sense of belonging that includes the school.

Identify front door; gymnasium; the idea of an important building; a setting for social interaction and activity; potential to make schools something special; draw in natural light; different experiences during day and at night – try to embrace qualities that are seen during the daytime;

Slides of former projects were shown including a Yale building, Nathan Hale High School and Harry A. Conte West Hills School. See attached Handout marked Exhibit C.

Saved all existing parts just revitalized; notion of entry is important; principal of creating connections inside school; corridors turned to places of assembly and enjoyment; show students that school is a good place to be; architecture of new and old complement each other; use of color had enormous impact on way students and staff experience school.

Pre-referendum Process

See Inclusive Design Process and Pre-Referendum Services on handout marked Exhibit C.

Design Team and Building Committee gather information; firm understands how Town works better than most; have had referendum experience previously; explore options; be prepared to listen to community; Committee, Architect & Construction Manager come to community as a unified group.

Question and Answer

Q. G. Waugh - Asked about the entryway on each building. Is there flexibility to have portals in both locations effective for bus drop offs? This is also important for a public gathering space.

A. Newman -Very important questions that had not been solved yet nor have all opportunities been explored.

Q. J. Zullo - Litchfield has direct experience with successful renovation and expansion of Litchfield Center School (LCS) 15 years ago. How would Newman utilize that experience and bring this project to a successful referendum?

A. Newman -LIS and LHS are two very different schools than LCS. We would bring out the more positive qualities and enhance those qualities and enhance the experience of natural light. The Critical element is to communicate with the public.

Q. L. Chapman – Where do you think your responsibility lies in the final contract in design changes?

A. Newman – Language is written in contract that limits the number of mistakes Architect can make and over a value the Architect is liable for.

Q. J. Mullen – Do you feel a spending cap limited creativity?

A. Newman – Financial Constraint is not a restriction on creativity. The $33M is adequate to do the work that is needed.

Q. B. Blazek – With regard to the Auditorium Does it meet the community needs in functionality?

A. Newman – Currently does not meeting the community needs, need bigger stage, larger back of house to meet more of the needs for community events. Small amounts of money could leverage greater capacity and usability.

Q. P. Sapiro – With your past work on this project can you elaborate if there are synergies in cost savings for the Committee

A. Newman – Yes, we know the campus pretty well, will be able to design more effectively efficiently, and cost effectively, work quickly through programming effort and have turnaround quickly. The ED 049R phase helped firm get up to sped on project.

Q. M. Bramley – Litchfield depends upon its past for a lot of income, you understand the buildings and the time they were built. Can you comment whether there is an outmodeness to certain parts of this building and where is the “cherish and preserve” line break from the need line? Do you feel constrained by architecture and the Architects?

A. Newman – People have adapted the way they use things, same with these two buildings; simple, solid structures. Renovation will reflect and understand an appreciation of past and understanding of the future. This Architecture and the Architects deserve respect and acknowledgement. We are inspired.

Q. K. Gilyard – Do you think that we can have what was there, with this renovation can we bring it back to what it once was, i.e. the gymnasium.

A. Newman – Building, including gymnasium can be transformed to the source of pride.

Q. Kavle – When you consider the Breuer building, what characteristics would he want to preserve in the LHS building? as well as Johansen in the LIS building?

A. Newman – Transparency, Simple Connections, Structure, brightening of building, understanding character, working and shaping it. They did a great job in the past and we can do a great job again.

Wrap Up - Herbert S. Newman is an important part of the process, he knew Marcel Breuer and brings the spirit if that time to the process. This firm will work hard to bring the spirit of collaboration to include all in the design. We want to join you again to continue the design process started several years ago and can get there within the cost parameters and know how to deliver.

7:30 PM – TAI SOO KIM PARTNERS

PRESENTORS: RYSZARD SZCZYPEK, AIA, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE

TAI SOO KIM, FAIA, DESIGN PARTNER

CRAIG DELONG, AIA, PROJECT MANAGER

JERRY WATERS, AIA, PROJECT ARCHITECT

HOLLY DEYOING – COMMUNICATIONS

Presentation

We were here about three years ago; had information in file and did additional research; 33 people in firm; mostly work in education area; work in open studio atmosphere in office, 3 partners in firm and s present tonight; R. Szczypek in charge of public schools, Tai Soo Kim in charge of design. Perspectives: two very distinctive strong buildings which need upgrades, mechanical and programs; limited table and budget; very similar to the Canton Project worked on; will bring a fresh perspective; has heavy principal involvement; aesthetic sympathy for buildings. Tai Soo Kim walked around buildings; in 1950 and 1960 Litchfield hired big name Architects; some people make think too much concrete but I like the school; LHS site is tight but very well done; will be careful to add on in a complementary way and with respect to buildings; need dialogue to come up with sketch; keeping core idea is important; at LIS propose two story addition on cafeteria side of building without changing exterior too much; at LHS land is tight, possibly two different place to have additions; can solve problems without jeopardizing or changing aesthetic; ultimately create satisfactory learning environment for students.

Principles of Success

Start Early; share with community; be accessible; listen and respond; keep it simple; be credible; use newsletters, press releases, tours of schools, regular meetings and the internet to get information out to public.

Question and Answer

Q. S. Kavle- Who ends up paying for fliers and other informational literature?

A. Tai Soo Kim – Town copies fliers, developed in our office, can be emailed, we will do power point presentation to groups.

Q. S. Kavle- What do you consider are the more important characteristics for a first class learning environment?

A. Tai Soo Kim – the classroom, entrance to buildings, corridors, library, proper lighting, depending upon age range. Elementary school should have small intimate space and good acoustics, Middle School – space should be divided into teams, High School, key is class schedule for space and size.

A. Tai Soo Kim – Building is here, addition is not going to be too large, we will make harmonious additions.

Q. P. Sapiro – How will you add to the process?

A. Tai Soo Kim – We have been doing schools for 12 years, will work with committee to distill project down and get a series of sketches, work with CM on budget.

Q. B. Blazek – With regard to the LHS, where to you see tightness and how would you address it?

A. Tai Soo Kim – Science labs are old and need upgrading, art and music is a very tight space, need to negotiate with limited dollars, gymnasium and tech wing need major renovations, if you spend more money in one place you have to take form another.

Q. L. Chapman – Do you feel one of the company’s strengths in maximizing state reimbursement?

A. Tai Soo Kim – yes and we look at discounting factors: square footage guidelines, age of building, function of space, deferred maintenance v. program and code requirements

Q. J. Zullo – Canton was Targeted Renovations, what reimbursement rate did you end up with.

A. Tai Soo Kim – had new square footage, major renovations areas (gutting) and minor renovation areas (reconfiguring). We ended up with a reimbursement rate within 86% of the total potential of 39.64%.

Q. Waugh – Larger community space is needed. Can we create external space for many community functions? Can you envision it?

A. Tai Soo Kim – [He showed where he can envision this space in his drawing]

Q. K. Gilyard – Given time and financial constraints, how comfortable are you with getting this pulled together by referendum?

A. Tai Soo Kim –will need a lot of working sessions to get up to speed, need assessment to prepare graphics immediately, start meeting with groups right away.

Wrap Up – We hope that we have demonstrated that they know how to do school projects. We can bring a fresh perspective, we have heavy principal involvement, similar aesthetic approach, understand “brutalist” style, understand this project; our work is recognized.

8:30 PM – JETER, COOK, JEPSON ARCHITECTS, INC.

PRESENTORS: JAMES LAPOSTA, AIA, PRINCIPAL IN CHARE

GREGORY SMOLLEY, AIA, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/PROJECT MANAGER

JULIE NORRIS, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGN

DOUGLAS LAJOIE – ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

SCOTT P. CELELLA, BUDGETING/COST ESTIMATING

Presentation

Passionate about Schools; we make sure you meet your budget and get eh most for you with that budget; good listeners; work with the community; understand about existing buildings; will preserve and enhance; introduce lots of daylight; create spaces good for students and staff.. Showed examples of their recent work: on each met or hit the budget; recognized by many associations. Interior Space: finishers, light color, warm and inviting environment is important to how students feel; make additions flow together. Timeline: reviewed what firm has formally done with Town in 4/2001 and 4/2003; want to bring forward to public an item they understand, i.e. schematic designs, reports; work with Committee, administrative staff, teachers and students to come up with plan to convey what they want; figure out wants here and can be used, expanded; brought to code; been here before and have a good starting point. Budget is two fold: 1.Budget Establishment 2. Budget Maintenance; the budget become the format for the group.

Question and Answer

Q. G. Waugh – Entrance problems at LHS and a need to create more of an entrance with space for public gathering space. How will you deliver community space within the budget?

A. JCJ –A lobby can do a lot of different things [and showed an example] open light, display cases, views, office, and community space. We look at traffic flow and make a space that does many of these things.

Q. J. Zullo – Optimism v. Realism. The new ED 049R has a firm cap of $33M. Do you think what we are trying to do is feasible and realistic?

A. JCJ –Scope and Flexibility you can accommodate what you want to. There is a reasonable amount allocated to both schools. We understand the demographics, growth, a desire to main building and endeavor to understand what Town Expects.

Q. L. Chapman – What is your take on getting us up to speed to publicize project in Town?

A. JCJ – We will assist in Webpage, know you have a good underground network, we had the ability to bring the word to the public, and will collaborate with the First Selectman and administrators. We have the ability to prepare information, will present at public meetings and have a graphics staff and electronics.

Q. J. Mullen – What would you do with the LHS exterior and interior?

A. JCJ – Need more electrical capability, plumbing is a big issue as well as air quality, roof leaks, leaks in framing, structural capability in roof in some areas, Auditorium is too small, inaccessible and at the wrong building.

Q. B. Blazek – Can you address the roof, in general the look and functionality?

A. JCJ – Play vertical and horizontal against each other. We need a way to integrate it with the rest of the building.

Q. P. Sapiro – What is James Hoagland’s role?

A. JCJ – Set up of team within the office. His role is design team leader and will be available for some the presentations, will meet with staff and students.

A. JCJ – Do not feel constrained. Have worked with other Architect’s projects before. Stronger works come when you start with something strong. Functional issues need to be addressed. Look at what is best about existing buildings. The forms were ahead of technology, do not engage in mimickery. Find something compatible, sympathetic and something that makes a new whole.

Q. K. Gilyard – Due to budget what are your thoughts on Auditorium?

A. JCJ – If the case can be made, the Auditorium at LHS is important, can be integrated and is a benefit to educational programming.

Wrap Up

JCJ has a detailed knowledge of Litchfield and Schools. We believe our qualifications to be unique in the marketplace and appropriately aligned with the Town of Litchfield’s set of anticipated project needs as evidenced by our:

Experience – having designed over 90 schools across the State of Connecticut over the past seven years.

Understanding – having the ability to understand a client’s needs and challenges and to address them immediately.

Efficiency – being able to leverage existing trust, knowledge and relationships, by virtue of a wide variety of projects in CT maker over nearly seven decades.

Performance – being able to successfully manage and execute the development of educations facilities and consistently deliver assignments on time and on budget, regardless of scale or complexity.

9:30 PM – FRIAR ASSOCIATES

PRESENTORS: BRIAN SOLYWODA AIA, VICE PRESIDENT

SCOTT MADIGAN, PE, M/E/P ENGINEERING

GLEN YEAKEL, PROJECT MANAGER

MIKE SORANO, RA, PROJECT DESIGNER

SYLVIA NEWMAN, AIA, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

Presentation

Recent Experience: Torrington Elementary School – $25.7M, on budget, O & G construction manager

Seymour – passed its referendum, established budget

Bethel – 36M budget

Have your plan and the number. Why not renovate as new? Just from SF cost we think you have enough money to renovate as new. Project priorities: maintain budget; optimize state reimbursement; prioritize needs; review program requirements, simple, functional, integrated design; open communication with BOE, local officials, CM and public. How do we spend that money? Put together a focus subcommittee about what public wants to do; take all information and put together a plan; maintain quality of buildings, put plans into an aesthetic package, easy to understand; communication is key; team effort! M/E/P Engineering: single point responsibility; integration of systems design from onset of project; real time coordination between Architect and Engineer. Code updates: Heating; ventilation (indoor air quality); cooling implications; fire sprinklers; routing of utilities. Public information: examples of handouts; will meet with whatever group necessary; 3-D video; animation; models; website design. Schedule: ready to start work on project immediately; will come up with design and schematic design in next two months.

Question and Answer

Q. M. Bramley – Why do you think we can renovate as new? O&G said we couldn’t do it.

A. Friar – Look at only SF cost and feel you have enough money to do it.

Q. P. Sapiro – What do you think about LHS Gymnasium?

A. Friar – Circulation is terrible, things sticks out like a sore thumb, core facilities are lacking.

Q. B. Blazek – Where would you integrate new construction at LHS?

A. Friar – Gymnasium, we can come up with many different ideas, project needs to be studied.

Q. J. Mullen – IF you tore down gymnasium, what would you put there?

A. Friar – new gymnasium, administration,

Q. J. Zullo – With regard to Renovate As New we tried to fill out the ED 049R to allow flexibility. The renovate as new cost at LIS is $12.2M within the scope of a 10% adjustment of the budgeted $11.1M Conservatism was built into budget.

A. Friar – [explained his SF [square footage] estimations.

Q. G. Waugh – We are boxed in by $33M cap.

A. Friar – Dollars are going to be tight. Need to make sure that public knows what their getting. We do not compromise ED Spec but constantly refine.

Q. S. Kavle – I’m having trouble reconciling your thoughts about Renovating As New.

A. Friar –Its going down and working the numbers

Q. P. Sapiro- How would you incorporate creativity into this project?

A. Friar – Try to complement, not suppress or overpower, we are trying to educate children not build a cathedral;

Q. K. Gilyard – With these monies what are your thoughts on an Auditorium’

A. Friar – It’s a lot of money and state won’t reimburse, could be considered if there was money available.

Wrap up

Single source for all responsibilities; Creative cost; Effective design solutions; All inclusive fee.

Public Participation

Leo Paul liked 1^ST and 3^RD firm’s presentations. Suggested committee try to make sure they get all the information to Town Website, Communicate with all Boards, Door to Door throughout the community with small presentations and an outline of what we need to do. Town needs to know that the First Selectman and the BOS are behind this project. Have Public Services Announcements on Cable 5 and WZBG. Committee discussed that the figures and that there may be the option to Renovate as New at LIS. Believe O&G’s numbers are conservative making sure we stay within the $33M cap. Due diligence has been done by this committee.

Ed Fabbri spoke about his choices: Newman has a lot of baggage; Tai Soo Kim is a new face; Greg at JCJ is good and is willing to back off new Auditorium.

Wayne Shuhi commented that he thought JCJ made the best presentation and have credibility and knowledge and Tai Soo Kim’s component that brought info to the public for the referendum was key.

Wm. Spears stated that when he was the Chairman of the Subcommittee of Design he went to watch the teamwork at Newman. He implored committee to stick with or return to Herbert S. Newman and Associates. Friar missed the boat. Tai Soo Kim has sensitivity and perception of this project in a short time but the learning curve is too great. JCJ has baggage, uninspired, mediocre, lack of integrity.

Discuss Results

Motion was made by J. Zullo for the Building Committee to down select two Architectural Firms to request firm fixed proposals for going forward, sec. by Gilyard.

Committee had a discussion on selecting two and bringing some competitive analysis to the process; understand if two are brought back the financing can not be the sole issue that makes the committee’s decision.; select one tonight and inform them there is another waiting in the wings; by selecting two your showing community that committee has leverage; new firm juxtaposed to one that has experience; merit in having a firm like Tai Soo Kim will be getting the benefit of their conceptualism.

Individual Committee Members Selections

G. Waugh – Tai Soo Kim: perception concern, too small to meet timeline. Newman: impressed with presentation; would do a good job, Friar: didn’t understand or care about the project. JCJ: would do the job well, like that they have an engineer within firm.

J. Zullo – Tai Soo Kim: impressed with what they are doing in Canton; his sensitivity about building. Newman & JCJ: have done enough here to hit the ground running. Herbert Newman has a very strong personality and equates a sensitive approach. JCJ is programmatically and functionally adept at getting this project on its way and getting referendum passed.

L. Chapman – Impressed with Newman, Tai Soo Kim small firm, canton project was impressive, JCJ was polished, knowledge if Architectural style, outreach in better that Newmans.

J. Mullen – 1. Newman; 2. Tai Soo Kim (ideas were similar to his). JCJ – utilitarian. Friar – they didn’t have it.

R. Blazek – the standout was Newman, familiar with project, understand what happens in this community, style good, architecturally sound. Tai Soo Kim – wonder about them staying on budget and coming up to speed. JCJ – not impressed. Friar – how do they answer complex questions with rapid simple answers?

M. Bramley – Friar and JCJ: insensitive, Newman is so far ahead, has already had a project approved in Town of Litchfield.

K. Gilyard – Newman is way ahead of the curve on this one, impressed with knowledge and realism, likes ideas & dedication. Tai Soo Kim – interested in his ideas but unfortunate came in so late in the game. JCJ had a typical polished presentation.

S. Kavle – Newman is far and away the best choice, outstanding firm, the way they work is compatible with these two buildings, understands buildings, pleasure to work with, the hours and commitment of time that they have given Town is incredible, understand that cost is critical. Tai Soo Kim is a weak second. JCJ never once looked at Target Renovation that last time.

P. Sapiro – First choice Newman.

J. Healy – 1. Newman 2. Tai Soo Kim. Tim Callahan and Richard Munday did a great job. To be fair he would like to tour buildings done by other firms.

Motion Defeated 5 -4 All votes were in the negative except M. Bramley, K. Gilyard, J. Zullo, J. Healy who voted in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Committee discussed in regard to hiring Newman. If contractual negotiations break down we’re not going to hire them, they want to do the job in Litchfield and Herb Newman said “we will do anything to get this project.” Rather than select them we can invite them back for a final presentation.

Motion was made by R. Blazek to invite Herbert S. Newman and Partners to submit a fixed fee proposal for consideration by Committee, sec. by M. Bramley

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

Motion was made by J. Zullo that Herbert S. Newman and Partners come to present proposal [in person].

Motion Defeated. All votes were in the negative except J. Zullo and P. Sapiro who voted in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Motion was made by M. Bramley and sec. by K. Gilyard to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 PM

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

Respectfully Submitted,

Kelli L. Green, Recording Secretary