HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-23 Permanent Building Committee Minutes� OFq
Town of Reading
x' Meeting Minutes
RECEIVED
TOWN CLERK
%lr Board - Committee - Commission - council: iiEADING, MASS.
Permanent Building Committee 1014 MAR 15 A tF 521
Date: 2016 -02 -23 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Berger Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session
Purpose: General Business Version:
Attendees: Members - Present:
Chairman Greg Stepler, Brad Congdon, Patrick Tompkins, John Coote,
Michael Bean, Bill Brown
Members - Not Present:
Nancy Twomey and David Traniello
Others Present:
Joe Huggins
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary
Topics of Discussion:
`y. It was noted that the next meeting will be February 29th at 7:00 p.m. to prepare for the
March 8th presentation to the Selectmen.
Greg Stepler reviewed notes for the last meeting. He noted there was a question of legality
of erecting structures on cemetery property but the Town Manager found It doesn't apply to
towns, only cities.
Patrick Tompkins went through the cemetery site selectmen matrix. He noted that
managing the abutters and conservation were weighted highly. Utilities and site prep at
Laurel Hill and Wood End carried the highest cost. Conclusions are we need to find out If
Conservation is an issue. Charles Lawn may be out and If so should be dropped from the
list. Bill Brown noted that Laurel HIII has parking issues.
Patrick Tompkins noted that the benefits of Laurel Hill will be a building remaining or land to
use. He went through his calculations at the back of the packet that covered relocation
costs, utility costs and cost for utility tie -ins. Brad Congdon asked if septic was allowed on
site.
Brad Congdon went through his reasoning for scoring. He talked about the future of
utilizing the space for the building and displacement of graves. The discussion continued on
about displacing the operation while the building is built.
Again the question came up what Conservation will allow. Patrick Tompkins suggested that
once Conservation weighs In we should put out an RFP.
Greg Stepler read an email from Nancy Twomey that said that Charles Lawn was not going
to work due to Conservation issues. He noted that abutters weighted very highly along with
Conservation. The plan is to present the information to a selected designer and let him
come to his conclusion based on our findings and offer solutions.
Page 1 1
F
Permanent Building Committee Minutes - February 23. 20+ page
Brad Congdon suggested we get a conceptual design.
John Coote suggested we come up with two locations and focus things down to a few sites.
Greg Stapler suggested we have some amount of feasibility done to back up what the
committee has researched.
Brad Congdon noted that he will reach out to Engineering to confirm utilities. The two take
aways are: 1) what Is the building size; and 2) constraints of wetlands and Conservation for
siting.
The RFP /RFQ process was discussed. The goal is to put together an overview for
qualifications and scope that can be put into an RFP.
Patrick Tompkin noted is it important to develop a timeline for RFQ development.
Greg Stepler suggested giving the Purchasing person the following information to develop
an RFQ:
• Background
• Project Description
• Scope of Services
• Work to be done
• Qualifications
• Evaluation Criteria
• Selection Criteria
The question now is can the new person begin to draw up the RFQ and leave the above
areas blank for the Permanent Building Committee to fill out.
Greg Stepler talked about his process roadmap. He is looking at developing a shell of a
document that they can give the Purchasing person to develop an RFP. The goal is to have
a draft RFP for mid -April advertising; evaluate the RFP's early June and the first award of
RFQ in August.
The Committee will meet on February 29a to bring point to include in the RFQ to get the ball
rolling in developing an RFP.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Page 1 2