MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 25, 2003

A special meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Litchfield Intermediate School Library.

Present were: J. Healy, Chairman; S. Kavle, L. Chapman, J. Mullen, M. Bramley, K. Gilyard, P. Sapiro, R. Blazek.

Also Present: John Tindall Gibson, Superintendent, Diane Knox, BOE Chairman; BOE Members: Wayne Shuhi, H. Fairfield, Don Falcetti, J. Costa, Frank Simone, T. Reardon, B. Doyle and John Noone; D. Coelho, Selectman, Public and the Press.

Meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by J. Healy

Motion made by M. Bramley to approve the minutes as corrected of the November 20, 2003 meeting sec. by J. Mullen

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

Public Participation - None

Financial Discussion

Prior to the November 20, 2003 meeting the Financial Subcommittee had a meeting with the First Selectman, Town Treasurer, Town Bond Consultant, Representative from BOS & BOF and Diane Knox, BOE Chairman. Spoke about potential financing alternatives, who could apply for grants and strategy to allow financing to become part of project.

Communication

Letter was received from Richard Munday of Herbert S. Newman and Partners regarding a credit of $50,000.00 for Architectural Service Fees for work that was already done.

Discussion: How do we know that we are not paying twice for work that they were paid for? This letter is just talking about the fee. What was done between the time the referendum passed until it was rescinded? Work on programmatic design, worked with superintendent and administrators to come up with right program, full set of drawings, work with O&G to provide cost estimates, looking at the landscape, committee felt it had been given a mandate to go ahead with project and committee’s position was that until voters told committee to stop, we went on with our regular work. We didn’t stop work until the day of the referendum.

S. Kavle spoke with the three Construction Manager (CM) candidates and requested that they submit a proposal by the end of the day on December 1, 2003 and all three companies will be using the same contract.

Discussion of Architects

Contracts are only for Basic Services, as we go forward there will have to be additional negotiations; clarify that we are not accepting either contract, if Architect is chosen tonight it should be subject to successful negotiation of contract.

BOE Comments:

H. Fairchild - Have we figured out where the students will be during the renovations?

Committee - No one had done up a firm proposal but have spoke about building additions first to be used as swing space.

D. Falcetti - I would not make a comment as to either firm, the committee has more knowledge and I will back whomever committee chooses.

Committee - Do you feel either candidate would be better received by the populous because of what has happened in the past?

B. Doyle - If you went with a brand new Architect, it may be better, some baggage comes with the old Architect.

D. Knox - The BOE and Building Committee has to do what is best for Litchfield and its Students and be careful in its selection, I was concerned with what L. Chapman reported last meeting [re: Tai Soo Kim buildings]

B. Buckley arrived at 7:40PM

T. Reardon - Either Architect is fine. Should not be overly concerned with baggage. If public hears more from the people involved in the project, either one will have a better chance for success.

K. Gilyard - Whoever we pick there will be someone who has a problem with our choice. Most people are expecting us to pick the candidate who will do the best job. I don’t feel that there are a significant number of people who want to stop this project.

Wayne Shuhi - I came away with the feeling based on how they presented themselves and their buildings that I saw I do not have a clear idea that one is far better than the other. It’s a hard choice.

Committee - If the Architect has baggage then three committee members have baggage and BOE Chair has baggage. The vote was unanimous for Newman the first time and again they are one of the two final candidates.

K. Gilyard - I came to the Committee with the idea that a fresh Architect would be a good idea. The longer I sat on this committee I realized that wasn’t the case. I walked around with Newman and was impressed.

W. Shuhi - I am more interested in who is going to run the job and in what capacity. The secret is to end up with a lead person so we feel we have a professional involved that will carry our hopes and dreams into the project.

Committee - Contracts, Interviews and visits to the buildings, is there any other information we as a committee need to make a decision?

J. Noone - I would like to hear comments on trips to buildings.

L. Chapman - we went to New Haven to a Newman building, a K-6 school and was very impressed. We went to two Kim school buildings in West Hartford and was not impressed [see notes from 11/20/03 minutes] and in Middlebury which had some problems.

J. Healy - I had a different experience in the Kim Middlebury building, structure was okay, withstood the test of time.

J. Tindall-Gibson spoke with Canton Superintendent who said that Kim took control of the process leading to referendum. They did a pamphlet and website which were good and referendum passed. Project is on time and on schedule. He also liked Kim’s solution to a problem which expanded classrooms.

S. Kavle – After visiting a number of schools by both architects I came away convinced that Newman is the right firm for this job.

Motion was made by B. Buckley to recommend to hire Newman and Chairman and Vice Chair be authorized to completer negotiations and complete contract and bring to back to committee for ratification, sec. by Kavle.

Understand what we are trying to do but if we pass this Motion we are committed to hiring Newman. Motion should be other way around, negotiate then hire.

Motion Withdrawn.

Motion was made B. Buckley that committee authorize Chairman and Vice Chair to complete negotiations with Newman and complete contract with Newman and bring contract back to Building Committee for ratification, sec. By Kavle.

Discussion: Would like to talk to Newman about the credit of $50,000.00. J. Healy would like to be a part of negotiations but there are other members with experience doing this. Subcommittee is called the Finance and Negotiating subcommittee. Are you anticipating Chairman and Vice Chair will negotiate all contracts? Negotiating committee is not needed. J. Healy is willing to do the legwork but want to make sure other people with more experience have a chance to look at contract before going back to committee. B. Buckley commented on parts of the contract that should be reviewed and questioned: 11-5 basic services need to be talked about with CM, if the time isn’t long enough and we go over that time, we get into paying extras; 11.52 payment will be made in so many days, talk to first selectman office, 30 days is minimal, it may be 45 days, talk about late fee; a lot of things not included that Newman is not doing. On last page [of contract] it lists our responsibilities and we need to look that over; we need to marry this contract with the CM contract; we want to make sure drawings of enlargement of LIS back stage is not extra; we need to have an understanding of what is not provided in this contract; each committee member should go through this proposed contract, write down their concerns and give these concerns to Stacey and Jack.

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

G. Waugh arrived at 8:25PM

CM Selection Process

Proposals will be here Monday, December 1, 2003 at 4:00PM in superintendent’s office. Konover was concerned that we hadn’t spelled out the duration of construction. Turner and O&G will use their experience determining this. So duration may be different in each contract. We gave them a construction start date of June 5, 2005. If contract doesn’t have right duration we pay the extras. That part of the contract we’re not accepting, we’ll negotiate that. Does it make sense having them submit a percentage as opposed to a fixed fee? We like to have a firm fixed fee, know what it is going to cost. Typically the Architect’s contract is fixed fee. G. Waugh - I spent time with Turner at Pomperaug. They offered an invitation to anyone on the building committee. They showed me the site, schedule of construction and are on schedule and have 80% union workers

Motion was made by B. Buckley to adjourn at 8:35PM, sec. by J. Mullen.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Kelli L. Green, Recording Secretary