HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-11-PBC-min
Maria Hastings Elementary School Building Project
SBC MEETING MINUTES & LOCAL VOTE RESULTS
DATE OF MEETING: August 11, 2016 at 7:00P.M. at 201 Bedford St, Lexington MA
PROJECT: Maria Hastings Elementary School Building Project
Dore & Whittier Project #MP16-0112
SUBJECT: School Building Committee Meeting (D&W#1)
ATTENDING: Pat Goddard Director of Public Facilities
Andrew Clarke Lexington PBC
Curt Barrentine Lexington PBC
Dr. Mary Cazjkowski Superintendent of Schools
Louise Lipsitz Principal, MHES
Eric Brown Lexington PBC
Philip Coleman Lexington PBC
Charles Favazzo Jr. Lexington PBC
Carl Oldenburg Lexington PBC
Richard Perry Lexington PBC
Mark Barrett Lexington DPF
Sandra Trach Lexington
Eileen Jay School Committee
Trip Elmore DWMP
Rachel Milaschewski DWMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Call to Order of SBC Meeting at 7:00 PM with 8 voting Members in attendance.
2.Approval of Minutes:
A short SBC review of the June 30, 2016 Meeting Minutes was provided by the E. Brown.
Motion to approve the June 30, 2016 SBC Meeting Minutes by E. Brown, 2nd by R. Perry.
VOTE: 8 approve, 0 against, 0 abstain
Discussion: No discussion.
3.General Business Update Introduction of OPM below:
4.OPM Selection Process Update Introduction of Dore & Whittier Management Partners
M. Barrett introduced Trip Elmore, Project Director, and Rachel Milaschewski, Assistant Project
Manager, from Dore and Whittier as the OPM for the MHES Project.
P. Goddard n at the
OPM Review Panel Meeting on August 1, 2016 and are ready to move forward with the project.
their strong relationship with the MSBA
5.Kick-Off Meeting with OPM Binders Handed Out and Materials Reviewed:
T. Elmore then went on to explain the SBC Binders which were provided to each committee member
at the beginning of the meeting and touched on the purpose of each item included in the binders listed
below:
a.State Ethics Course Description
The state of MA has an online ethics course that reviews the ethics guidelines that would be
applied to all that represent a municipality. This course is not a requirement, though it is
recommended.
b.AGC Open Meeting Law Guidelines Handout:
A basic reference for Open Meeting Laws and Guidelines, i.e. participation requirements, posting
requirements, meeting records requirements, etc.
c.Project Team Contact Information:
The project team contact sheet includes an email and phone number for each member of the
committee, as well as the OPM team, and the Designer and CM once they are on board.
d.Project Goals Sample:
The project goals sample is by committees on
past projects for an idea of what other Districts have strived to accomplish throughout their school
building projects. Also included with the sample goals is a worksheet that committee members
can record their personal goals on for the project in terms of sustainability, finance, educational
program, etc.; These goals are typically put together in a collective statement which can be
referenced throughout the project to assure that the design and other aspects, such as
sustainability, finance, educational program, etc. stay on track.
E. Brown suggested that they request feedback from the faculty as well, while also suggesting
the committee forms a working group to lead this exercise.
e.Project Working Group Sample:
Working Groups can be created to assist the SBC in exploring the many details of the project
offline and in depth, then bring their recommendations for strategic decisions to the committee to
capitalize on time. The committee can invite members of the community to participate in the
working groups, especially those who may have particular interests or skillsets that could be of
help in areas like the interior design or mechanical systems selection. Some working group
examples may be Facilities Working Group. Community Outreach/Public Relations Working
Group, Finance Working Group, etc.
f.Potential Project Schedule Sample
Depending on the outcome of the Designer Selection, two difference schedules were provided
an accelerated schedule which may be an option if DiNisco is selected as the designer for the
remainder of the project, or a non-accelerated schedule
schedule was also included to use as a reference.
2
know what schedule path they are on until they
select a designer, and T. Elmore mentioned that the Committee could set up a Schedule Review
Working Group if it becomes necessary.
ne, defining what
meetings happen when, and the milestones/votes they lead up to.
T. Elmore stated that DWMP would provide a meeting outline specific to the MHES project once
the designer is on board.
g.Architect RFS Draft
The draft Architect RFS was included for the committee to review. T. Elmore pointed out that the
MSBA has provided their feedback on the document, and they plan to have it completed for
distribution on August 17, 2016, when the advertisement will be published in the Central Register.
h.Community Communications Sample
Examples of Community Outreach materials were provided that can be used to reach the general
public prior to the vote; these materials, made in the form of a flyer, mailer, summary report, etc.,
are intended to educate the community on the building project outside of the public forums.
A member of the committee pointed out that taxpayer money cannot be used for promotional
material for a debt exclusion vote, though the committee did agree to explore what options are
available and allowed for PR opportunities down the road.
DWMP indicated that any updates made to the binder material will be distributed to the committee,
and added that the binder is a good way to stay organized and on the same page.
6.Architect Hiring Process Update
a.RFS and Distribution Progress Update
T. Elmore pointed out that the advertisement for the Architect RFS will be published on August
17, 2016, and proposals will be due on September 7, 2016. He added that he spoke with the
MSBA about the accelerated schedule to see if it was something they would support, which they
agreed to do if DiNisco were chosen as the Project Architect. Though, the MSBA fully expects the
Town of Lexington to follow through the designer selection properly and without bias.
T. Elmore added that the RFS states that DiNisco has already completed the front end work, but
the work that has been done to date will be available for the interested firms if needed.
A question was raised asking if this information stated in the RFS would scare away potential
Architects, as they may assume that another company already has a shoe-in.
T. Elmore explained that that is a possibility, but it is best to be transparent about the process
thus far.
Some committee members asked if there was a way to be proactive by sending letters out to
design firms requesting a proposal, though others agreed that doing that may be a conflict of
interest.
3
A few more questions were raised asking about the selection process, and how it would pan out if
onl
interview.
T. Elmore described the Architect Hiring Process with the DSP, stating that if the DSP has to
make a motion to interview and it is ultimately their call. He pointed out that if interviews are held,
the Town is allowed 3 of the 15 total votes, but it is permissible to explain to the DSP who the
Town is most comfortable with and why.
P. Goddard and DWMP agreed to create a write-up and timeline of the DSP process and
distribute it to the Committee for more clarity.
7.Other Business Not Anticipated 48 Hours Prior to Meeting: None.
8.Public Comment: None.
9.Upcoming Meetings & Public Forums: TBD
10.Adjourn
SBC Motion to adjourn by R. Perry, 2nd by P. Coleman. VOTE: unanimous to approve. Meeting
adjourned at 8:35 PM
DORE AND WHITTIER MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC
Rachel Milaschewski
Dore & Whittier Management Partners, Assistant Project Manager
Cc: Attendees, File
The above is my summation of our meeting. If you have any additions and/or corrections, please contact me for
incorporation into these minutes. After the minutes have been voted to approve, we will accept these minutes as an
accurate summary of our discussion and enter them into the permanent record of the project.
4