APPROVED 2/17/00
TOWN OF HULL
Minutes of Building Committee
Monday, January 31, 2000
In attendance:
Dr. John Silva Steven Moore
Dr. Kathleen Reynolds Philip Lemnios
John Riley Charlie Ryder
James Lampke Debbe Bennett
John Lidington
The Committee convened at 7:05pm. John Riley and Charlie Ryder reviewed the video tape of the 2 Architectural firm interviews conducted on January 24. Committee first watched a video tape make by Bill Hurst regarding the NESDEC report and their findings. He explained there were two parts of the program, the first pertains to enrollment and was performed by NESDEC and the second is engineering and was done by Habeeb & Associates ( an architectural firm hired by NESDEC).
NESDEC indicated that the needs study is basically an accurate rendering of the needs in Hull. However, there were some discrepancies in the enrollment numbers and there should be some refinement. Also, the grade configuration used in the needs study was the same configuration in place today. However, the new configuration (PreK-5, 6-8, 9-12) should have been used. Therefore, the architect of record will need to plunge right in to correct inaccuracies.
There are three general areas on concern with regard to engineering:
In reviewing the proposed construction information, there might not be enough construction proposed at the Memorial and High School, and too much at Jacobs.
After viewing the schools, Habeeb & Associates recommend that Memorial School be torn down due to it's age and configuration. This would give Hull more value for the dollar vs. cost to renovate.
If going to renovate Memorial, the classroom size would have to be increased. However the dollar amount specified in the needs study is not adequate to do so.
In closing, Bill indicated both architectural firms have submitted financial statements and responses to the committee's questions. It was noted AI3 submitted a joint financial statement with Kuhn Riddle.
John Lidington noted that Mount Vernon was aware of the new grade configuration prior to the completion of the needs study, so it should have been included. The Committee also questioned why there was such a discrepancy in the enrollment numbers used by Mount Vernon.
The Committee briefly discussed Habeeb's suggestion of tearing down the Memorial School. It was noted there is some community attachment to the building and we would likely receive opposition to this idea. This is something the architect of record will need to explore further.
After reviewing the document submitted by NESDEC, the Committee was not completely satisfied with the Needs Study produced by Mount Vernon due to the flaws found by NESDEC. Most felt it was sloppily done and gave the “cookie cutter” affect.
The committee next reviewed the firms' responses, by question, and rated each firm on how well they answered each question. All were rated with “+”, neutral or “-“. If a breakdown is not noted, the rating was unanimous.
Ability to meet schedule: Both firms scored equally, each with a “+”. It was noted, however, that AI3 answered the question in better detail.
Team Commitment: A lot of discussion took place regarding each company's response. However, AI3 prevailed with a “+” score from the Committee. They committed more top-level individuals with a larger time commitment from each. Mount Vernon received a neutral score.
Financial Stability: Security wise, both were comparable with the inclusion of Kuhn Riddle and the low overhead of AI3. Mount Vernon received a Committee vote of (8 “+” and 1 neutral) AI3 scored slightly lower with (5 “+” and 4 neutral).
Longevity Expectations. Each firm took a different approach to this question. Mount Vernon addressed how long their company had been in business. AI3 addressed their commitment to providing better service and stability by limiting their focus. They also included the history of Kuhn Riddle and the AI3 team members' seven-year history working together. Mount Vernon scored slightly higher with a “+” (AI3 received 7 “+” with only 2 neutrals).
Level of Exclusivity: AI3 scored “+” in this category. Mount Vernon scored neutral. AI3 spelled out clearly what can be expected and that they are willing to contractually commit to only one school client.
The Committee further discussed the possible negotiations. If AI3 were selected the relationship with Kuhn Riddle would need to be explored in more detail. Any contract should include a clause regarding any failure to meet the June 1 deadline.
The Committee took a formal vote of all members present. AI3 received 8 votes and Mount Vernon received one. The five official Committee members voted unanimously for AI3.
A letter to Selectmen will need to be prepared indicating that AI3 is the Committee's first choice and Mount Vernon the second. Board of Selectmen approval is needed before proceeding. This selection will be based upon successful contract negotiations. The Tuesday, February 01, 2000 meeting has been canceled.
The Committee will need to prepare a letter to Selectmen requesting the Special Town Meeting date (March 27) at the February 7 meeting.
During the 3rd week of February a meeting will be planned to include all town departments. The purpose will be to update all departments about building plans, progress, etc.. Dr. Reynolds and Phil Lemnios will work together on details of the meeting.
A meeting should be scheduled for AI3 to come to Hull to begin contract negotiations on Wednesday, February 2. It was noted they could be contacted on Tuesday (prior to Selectmen approval). Their educational consultant should look at report to get the process moving.
It was also noted a press release should be prepared about the Committee's selection and a spokesperson should be assigned.
Meeting adjourned.
| 