Special School Board Meeting Minutes
School
Board Meeting Room
Members
Present
Susan Hershey –Chairman
Dr. David Anderson
Laurie Gaylord
Nancy Kline
Dr. Sara A. Wilcox, Superintendent
Tom Elfers, School Board Attorney
Members
Absent
Katie Gillen, Student Representative (MCHS)
Staff
Present
Rodger Osborne, Ruth Pietruszewski, Steve Rusnak, Leighton
O’Connor, James Copeland, Mickey Wich, Sandra Graham
Public
BRPH Architects, Schenkel Shultz, Starmer
Ranaldi, Harvard Jolly, Inc.
Press PBPost – No Representation Stuart News – Kelly Tyko
MCEA – No representation AFSCME – No representation
Call to order by the Vice-Chair and Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag of the
Dr. Sara
A. Wilcox requested to add Personnel Items and amend the agenda making the
added Personnel Item number 4, Leaves Authorized by the Superintendent 4-A,
Professional Leave, Travel, and Per Diem Item 4-A-1, Professional Leave only Item 4-A-2, and to
change Open to the Public to Item 5 and Open to the Board Item 6.
Nancy Kline moved approval of
readjusting the order of the agenda according to
1. Approve Contract PO
to Action Sports Netting for
Dr. David Anderson moved approval of Item 1, Nancy Kline seconded, and
the motion carried unanimously.
2. Approve Contract
Amendment (Change Order) with The Morganti Group, Inc. for Hurricane Related
Damages at
Dr. David Anderson moved approval of Item 2, Nancy Kline seconded, and
the motion carried unanimously.
3. Personnel Items:*
A. Leaves Authorized by the Superintendent
1. Professional Leave, Travel, and Per Diem-(COPY
ATTACHED)
2. Professional Leave Only – (COPY
ATTACHED)
4. Ranking and Approve
Ranking for Architect for New Middle School:* - (COPY ATTACHED)
Rodger Osborne reviewed and
explained the board’s worksheets and ranking tools, and he defined the
criterion. The
worksheets will become public
record. He explained the principles used
by PSAC, the Professional Services Advisory
Committee, and how they came up
to a ranking order. PSAC used evaluations of what they saw, the qualifications
of
the architects, as well as design. Tom Elfers stated that the Board should
consider the recommendations of the
committee. The Board would have
the authority to make the final decision.
The selection committee members
included: Dr. David Anderson, School Board member, Hank
Salzler, Assistant Superintendent, Rodger Osborne,
Director of Facilities & Planning,
Steve Rusnak, Special Project/Contract Accountant, Chris Singley, Maintenance
Manager, Jim Copeland, Construction
Manager, Kit Weir, Principal Murray Middle School, Mike McLeod, Assistant
selection ranking presented to
the Superintendent and School Board for consideration was as follows:
Name of Firm Rating
§
BRPH
Architects 1
§
Schenkel
Shultz 2
§
Starmer
Ranaldi 3
§
Harvard
Jolly, Inc. 4
Board members discussed the
ranking process. Tom Elfers stated that the Florida Statutes do
not set forth a
procedure. All board members
agreed that they wanted to follow a consistent process which allowed the most
fairness to all stakeholders.
and re-rank the remaining, Nancy Kline seconded, and the motion
carried unanimously.
Rodger Osborne told board members
that the order by which the architects would provide their information was
determined by pulling the names
from a hat. Criterion that the architects would be ranked on included:
§
Previous
Work for MCSD
§
Company
History and Structure
§
Location
§
Current
Work Load
§
Cost
Control and Value Engineering Techniques
§
Litigation,
Disputes, Defaults and Liens in Last 5 Years
§
Approach
and Methods
§
Understanding
of Project
§
Progressive
Use of Technology
§
Warranty
Period
§
Construction
Administration
§
Qualification
and Experience of Personnel
§
Overall
Experience and Capability
§
Related
Projects w/Emphasis on School Projects
§
Mgmt.,
Scheduling, and Cost Control for Similar Projects
§
Proposed
Project Schedule
Each architect gave a presentation and
answered the board member’s questions. Board
members used their
worksheets to total their points
and establish the ranking order. Lori Shekailo asked Tom Elfers, School Board
Attorney, to tally the scores. Sue
Hershey asked Board members to designate their first to fourth choices on their
individual worksheets and pass
their ranking order to Tom. He figured
the ranking scores. He announced that
Schenkel Shultz as being ranked number
one by the School Board. Schenkel Shultz was the will of the Board. Four out
of the five board members rated Schenkel
Shultz number one. Laurie Gaylord was
the only board member that
didn’t rank Schenkel Shultz
number one, however, she ranked them number two.
Nancy Kline made a motion to accept Schenkel Shultz as the number one
ranked architect, Sue Hershey seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously.
5. Open to the Public
- Sandra Graham
Left
the meeting at
6. Open to the Board
- Dr. David Anderson
Felt
that all four architects were capable of completing the project. All four contended that they can produce, but
all face the challenge of the time constraints.
His only concern was that we
select someone that is committed to the project, will get the plans in, has the
size and staff to do the job, and works with Rodger in a timely fashion. They are all professionals and have the
ability to do the job. We heard the pros and cons between the tilt wall and the
brick and block. The cost is the same, one
is more time, and the other is more labor.
It is just a matter of choice.
6. Open to the Board
(Con’t)
- Nancy Kline
Agreed
with Dr. David Anderson’s comments. She
felt all firms were professional and capable of delivering the services
needed. The question is what type of
school did we want? What prototype do we
want to modify? She felt each prototype
had some ideal features, were innovative and creative.
- Laurie Gaylord
Felt they all brought unique designs to the table and
took into consideration all the items board members had requested.
- Sue Hershey
Asked Rodger Osborne if there were any particular
obstacles to look for and asked for the Superintendent’s impressions.
- Dr. Sara A. Wilcox
Asked Rodger Osborne for his
professional expertise.
- Rodger Osborne
Wished there was a way that he could say this is the one
to choose. He stated that they were all
excellent designs, and they fit perfectly into the community for which they
were designed. There were pluses and
minuses in each one. The site is believed to be clean and not require any
special foundation or design. All prototypes can be modified but could mean
additional design fees and does mean time. Time is an element to consider. He
felt that $25 million is a realistic number for the school.
- Dr. David Anderson
Asked Rodger Osborne what would happen if we couldn’t get
things together with the firm ranked number one.
- Rodger Osborne
Stated competitive negotiation would be started with the
firm ranked first. If unable to reach an
agreement with them, you would go to the second and then to the third. If impasse occurred, each time it would be
brought back to the School Board.
- Sue Hershey
Asked if the utilities and infrastructure would be in
place for the opening of school. Rodger
assured that they would, and if not, there was a plan B.
- Dr. Sara A. Wilcox
Told board members that another
Special School Board meeting may be scheduled
There being no further business to bring before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned at
Tom Elfers, School
Board Attorney, requested that the meeting be reconvened. Sue Hershey called the meeting to order at
Tom Elfers said we reconvened to calculate the 2nd,
3rd, and 4th placed rankings. Tom Elfers tallied the
scores. He announced the following
ranking order:
2nd
Place Starmer Ranaldi
4th
Place Harvard
Jolly, Inc.
There being no further business to bring before the
Board, Sue Hershey adjourned the meeting for a second time at
_______________________________
CHAIR (Sue
Hershey)
_______________________________
SECRETARY
(Sara A. Wilcox, Ph.D.)