MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY

SPECIAL MEETING

DECEMBER 11, 2003

A special meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, December 11, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Intermediate School Library.

Present were: R. Blazek, B. Buckley, S. Kavle, M. Bramley, J. Zullo, G. Waugh, J. Mullen, K. Gilyard.

Also Present: P. Perusse, D. Knox, BOE Chairman, BOE members W. Shuhi, F. Simone, D. Falcetti; B. Dranginis, Selectman, Public and Press.

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by S. Kavle.

Motion made by R. Blazek to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2003 meeting sec. by J. Mullen.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. M. Bramley and J. Zullo abstained.

Public Participation - G. Oneglia, 24 E. Chestnut Hill Road, Vice President of O&G Industries shared his thoughts regarding deliberation on the selection of the Construction Manager. As a Litchfield resident he has a vested interest in the project and if O & G is selected he would be personally involved. He stated that all principals of O & G were residents of Litchfield as well as twenty-two of their employees. There are many young children of their employees, who would benefit from the projects, and that would mean that O & G would have a substantial stake in the projects. He assured the committee that they would be very pleased with the result. He was involved in Center School project, which had a very satisfactory outcome. He advised the members that whoever they choose to be sure to negotiate the best deal possible. He offered to negotiate a lump sum fee if the committee chose and that O & G would pick up any overages in that type of arrangement. He also stated that O & G is a Connecticut based company and that one of the others is a foreign owned company. With O & G the income stays in Connecticut.

B. Dranginis – O&G should be supported as they have integrity and have financially supported many community activities. There is a lot of mistrust in the town with negativity toward the completion of the project on time. Ninety-nine percent of O&G projects come in on time.

K. Merz, 62 North Street, Secretary of O&G – O&G has a track record for doing what is right and cited the Westleigh Condominium project of 20 years ago. When you live in town and have to face the owners years later, when things don’t go right, O&G steps in and does the right thing.

W. Shuhi, BOE member – School calendar allows window for construction with the summer of 2005 as the initial groundbreaking. Stated that the timeframe was considered when setting BOE calendar.

Communication – G. Waugh said that at the December 9^TH BOE meeting, T. Reardon suggested that no matter who is hired, there should be interviews with the clients to determine the quality of work and the sustainability of their projects before finalizing the contract.

J. Noone – Said he was concerned about residents comparing costs and reimbursements of Litchfield’s project with Regional School District #10. He spoke with one of the heads of the parent groups, the Superintendent did twenty house visits, and the Building Committee attended every gathering and even had a stall at the Harwinton Fair in order to promote their project.

S. Kavle – mentioned that the reimbursement rate from town to town has nothing to do with the type of project – it is SDE driven and is district based.

B. Buckley – The Town said you’ve got $33.0 million and that’s what we’ve got. You do the best you can do with the cap you have.

G. Waugh – He informed the BOE members that they had spoken with the architect and they continue to pursue “Renovate as New”. BOE wants to get as much as they can with $33.0 million.

B. Buckley – Our job is challenging. We need to maximize what we get; maximize reimbursement for the money.

S. Kavle – Stated that they received a letter from O&G that reiterates what was said here tonight. Also a letter from SDE regarding the EDO49RS. Paige Farnham acknowledged receipt of two EDO49RS stipulating a change in scope, which exceeded the middle/high school original form. M. Bramley summarized the letter at S. Kavle’s request and stated that the SDE has some questions that need responses regarding the square footage differences, the change in scope of the two projects and will require revisions to the educational specifications. He also noted that there is a statement regarding the fact that the Litchfield Middle/High School project costs are temporarily classified as ineligible due to the large change in scope and projected costs. He voiced his concern about moving forward with the project withou having assurance of funding.

B. Buckley – Said they have been in the same situation before in Danbury and it has always been approved, not to say it couldn’t happen. He said it is important to consider but they should continue what they are doing.

M. Bramley – Doesn’t think the legislature would turn down but time is a problem, he is concerned about bringing it back to the town without a definite approval and there is a concern when combined with issues related to the courthouse.

S. Kavle – Other towns are in the same position as the process now calls for funding approval even before a project can be filed with SDE.

J. Zullo – We have an approved project with approved funds but with modifications. There is no linkage with the courthouse, this is the State Department of Education.

P. Perusse – Stated that this is exactly what David Wedge in the School Facilities Unit told us to expect. When asked if we needed to revise Ed Specs or submit anything else along with the ED 049Rs, he said that we needed to get the ED 049Rs submitted and then they would write a letter and tell us what else we need. When Dr. Gibson, J. Healy, C. Miner, A. Roraback and P. Perusse met with David Wedge earlier in the year, he explained the process and that there probably wouldn’t be a problem with approval but we had to go through the process and a change of this magnitude would need be included in the school construction list and to go back to the General Assembly for approval.

M. Bramley – Wants to be assured money is in place before a vote.

J. Zullo – We have an approved project. The State needs to approve a change request.

M. Bramley – Wants to ask appropriate legal counsel if the vote can be done contingent upon funding.

B. Buckley – School Facilities is in the business of funding school construction, that’s what they do. Point of order: Letter should be put in record and that it be listed on a future agenda for discussion. Also put on future agenda a report from First Selectman concerning his discussions with the state.

Review Construction Managers Proposals and take action deemed necessary:

G. Waugh asked if anyone had prepared an “apples to apples” comparison of the three proposals. B. Buckley said he had and said in summary that they all, basically, have the same numbers for all purposes and the decision may be based on who makes a serious attempt and who they feel comfortable with. The construction manager and architects must be able to work together. They, basically, start and end at the same time so any of the numbers may change to some degree.

B. Blazek – Asked if it was a correct interpretation of O&G’s comments that they will do the job for a lump sum and pick up any overages themselves. B. Buckley that said he interpreted it the same way. J. Healy and S. Kavle have been authorized to negotiate contract and they will need some lea way for those purposes.

J. Zullo – One difference is that O&G would be willing to accept a lump sum contract and take the risk of overruns or incentive to shorten it’s a pretty good deal.

B. Blazek – The lump sum is important to lower the risk for the Town with a cap of $33.0 million. Firm gave them something to lower the risk to the town, which is good considering the history of the project. O& G is part of the community and have done lots in the community. They have a good record and have come in under budget over and over again.

B. Buckley – Said experience has been that construction managers want to do a good job in towns they reside in and cited Danbury as an example. He said he worked on the Center School project and O&G did a good job. He has not worked with Turner or Konover as Construction Managers but has worked with Turner as a contractor. Having a lump sum and fixed price will be a good thing in this situation.

G. Waugh – Based on presentations it appears that Turner and O&G both had a large public relations department but not Konover. Thought O&G has ownership in project and would do a good job as it’s personal to them.

M. Bramley – Started out with impression that HSNP and O&G would not be right choice politically. Has since changed his mind and feels HSNP is right choice and so is O&G. However, they have a challenge and will have to work very hard. HSNP and O&G will have to assist committee in the process to convince town.

J. Mullen – O&G can do the job and be good for the town but burden if no change. Likes both O&G and HSNP and said that since they have come to this decision it proves that they were the best choice the first time around as well.

B. Buckley – Was looking for a change too. Said he had felt they should distance themselves and start fresh, but, after going through the process again, he is comfortable with HSNP and is leaning toward O&G.

K. Gilyard – Said he is interested in O&G and Turner and would eliminate Konover for their lack of school experience. Turner and O&G are both good companies. O&G working in town could be a benefit. Thought the committee may have a problem with some people in town because they had chosen the same two. Thinks they should both come to the table to show the committee what they would do. Thought all the more reason to go with O&G.

J. Zullo – In reviewing construction managers, no one can accuse the committee of not doing due diligence. Committee has taken a very cautious approach and deep care to review the proposals. In looking at all three proposals and what they can do, he found Turner’s proposal non-compliant with our request, range of time seems to be out of kilter and not clear and would almost consider it not acceptable. It is down to the numbers with the other two and they are essentially the same. O&G lives in town has offered a fixed fee, limited risk and incentivizing O&G on their end and will make decision based on those points.

B. Blazek – O&G is best for less. Thanked B. Buckley for comparison.

Motion was made by B. Blazek to authorize J. Healy and S. Kavle to enter into contract negotiations with O&G to become the Construction Manager for projects, the contract would be subject to ratification by Building Committee, sec. by B. Buckley.

Discussion of amending motion to include language regarding the lump sum but many felt that it might limit the negotiations at this point. Encouraged members to offer input regarding what they would like to see in the contract. B. Buckley, J. Zullo and M. Bramley will be very willing to assist with details.

B. Buckley suggested BOE legal counsel review everything after it is put together. It was resolved that Building Committee would reimburse BOE for attorney charges. Town attorney may also want to review. A town resident has also volunteered to review. B. Blazek said that there is a concern regarding the liability of having an unpaid advisor and Committee should be sure to communicate with Town regarding legal counsel. B. Buckley said Leo Paul has attended Building Committee meetings and has agreed to work with Building Committee.

Motion was made by M. Bramley to move the question. Seconded by B. Blazek. Motion Carried. All votes in affirmative except B. Buckley and J. Zullo. There were no abstentions.

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

Motion was made by M. Bramley to adjourn at 8:45, sec. by B. Buckley.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Peggy Perusse

Peggy Perusse, Acting Recording Secretary