Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-07 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReadin i School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on November 7 2001, 7:30 p.m. (In the Superintendent's Conference Room at RMHS) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Ray Porter (RP) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Tim Twomey (TT) Paula Perry (PP) Alex McRae (AM) Jeff Struble (JS) Rich Radville (RR) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Principal - RMHS) Dr. Harry Harutunian (Superintendent - Reading Public Schools) -L ER l °b RG began by reiterating the Committee's objective of directing the architect solicited for production of a schematic design to restrict space usage to the present footprint of the building as far as possible without jeopardizing student safety or code compliance. TT questioned Frank Orlando on the possibility of accepting undersized classrooms from an educational standpoint as well as from a view towards ensuring reimbursability from the State. Mr. Orlando answered that if undersized classrooms were to be included in the renovation plan, it might mitigate the loss of classrooms that up-sizing would cause if all work was to be restricted to the existing building footprint (i.e., creating two conforming classrooms from three non-conforming ones with no replacement space made available via additions). RG and TT noted that Option B.2 left some undersized classrooms and expected to gain educational space by removing non-educational users from the building. TT said that he believed the State would not approve of a plan that designed non-educational space into it, but should there exist unused space after the renovation (during times of less than maximum enrollments), such space could be used for non-ed. purposes until they are needed. RG called on RR and JS to present their findings on "must do" costs. RR began by explaining that he and JS had developed their cost information separately but used similar methodologies. Both had gone back to the feasibility reports and pulling out itemized costs for specific tasks that the Committee had decided were necessary to any scheme for renovating RMHS. - RR said that he had primarily used the (older) DRA study and had upgraded their numbers with an inflation factor to bring them up to date. He also said 2 h'eadiinq School Building Committee Meeting :Llinutes from bvember 2001 that he had added in estimates for minimum basic finishes such as new ceilings and floors and paint that would be regarded as necessary for a finished project. He based his estimates on current market averages for these items. He took issue with some of the estimates made by DRA, particularly the HVAC price which he felt was too low, in his experience. He added in the cost of re-wiring for new technology, which the Committee had deemed essential to any option. He included new roofing where needed and new toilets as required by Code. He based his numbers on construction costs only, not inclusive of the "soft" costs associated with construction projects (such as furnishings, fees, contingencies, etc.). The total he arrived at was about $16M. His spread sheet was in error in some places, so he did not pass out copies (author's note: the final spread sheet produced after corrections and after adding in items later deemed "must do" by the Committee is attached to these minutes, which was handed out at the Nov. 13th Town Meeting. See later discussion for added "must do" items). - JS said that he had gleaned cost information from both the DRA and the S&H feasibility studies. He relied on the estimates made by the consultants at the end of the later report for a separate tally to compare with the older one. He also noted that the DRA HVAC estimate seemed low. He had included an estimate of $2M for upgrade of seismic hazards, which he felt would be made compulsory to any scheme by the building code, and had come up with an estimate of around $14M, exclusive of any work on finishes. He said that adding in RR's estimates for finishes, his total was close to $17M. RG asked if a reasonable estimate of "must do" costs as researched by RR and JS would lie between $16M and $18M. Both replied affirmatively. - TT asked if that estimate included provisions for solving the Title IX issues. Both replied that it did not, since just how to solve those issues was not apparent in light of the recent SBA letter discouraging additions. TT thought that some estimated costs should be included as a "must do" item, as did RP. TT cautioned that a distinction should be made between what is a "must do" item to upgrade facilities and what is a "must do" item to upgrade the educational program, since both will be necessary but only the former was could be quantified. He didn't want voters to get the impression that the list of "must do" costs being tabulated by the Committee included programmatic changes yet. Similarly; PP and Mr. Orlando said that monies for new science labs should be appended to the estimate since the high school's continued accreditation depended on such labs. RG added that it made no sense to hard-wire the school for technology and then not equip it, recommending that the cost of that equipment be included. AM raised the point that State participation was obviously a "must do" item and to do so, the project must be acceptable to them on an educational basis. This could label crucial programmatic changes as "must do". After much discussion among many members concerning the definition of "must do" and what should be included under this label, it was decided to add to the "must do" costs estimated line items for Title IX upgrades, new science labs, teacher workstations, computer hardware and fieldhouse finishes (done heading Scluxol.Building Committee Meeting Mfnutes ftom November 7, 2001 on a per-square-foot and unit price basis - see attached spread sheet and author's note above). It was decided to emphasize to Town Meeting that this total cost was only a base line upon which the project would start; it would, of necessity, grow as the educational program issues were addressed. Beyond these items, the Committee felt that its ability to quantify additional costs and make recommendations to Town Meeting required the services of an experienced architect. RP wondered if a full schematic design was necessary to come up with a scheme for solving all the issues raised by the Committee. RG said that a schematic design would answer many of the questions that the public will have about the project in much more detail than a conceptual design could. He thought such detailed answers would be necessary to accurately describe the impact the project would have on the voters and is inevitable, in any event. RR added that a schematic design would increase the Committee's level of confidence in its predictions of the impact the project would have on the town. A schematic design would display the solutions to everyone's satisfaction and could be estimated more precisely than the current estimates. TT stated that a schematic design would produce a thoroughly thought out solution which could be presented as the actual one rather than a demonstration of what the solution might be, which would be subject to significant change. JS justified the need for a schematic design by noting that the production of a phasing plan under such a design would identify costs due to time extensions. This is such a large variable, he thought, that its omission from any further studies would make accurate cost estimates all but impossible. Phasing, he explained, could only be done with confidence if actual construction times for each phase could be predicted and making such predictions without specific design information was unreliable, particularly under current market conditions. Specific information would be one product of a schematic design, which - while not being comprehensive - would aid the overall planning of the project much more than a general overview. AM suggested that RP's question pointed out the need to explain the pursuit of a schematic design to voters who may not have been following the deliberations of the past few months. He said there may even be opportunities realized by the Committee in producing the explanations to find fresh reasons for it, such as uncovering heretofore unseen ways to save money while developing advanced design solutions. RR broached the subject of justifying the amount of $500K for the schematic design when that figure was chosen under the assumption that the overall project was to be on the order of $50M or more. With the SBA's letter discouraging additions and the base costs produced by RR and JS, it appeared that the overall project would fall short of that range. He asked if the Committee, in light of these events should consider asking for a lower amount. RR noted that Option B.2 was the one that came closest to the SBA's _suggestions. _ Hethen set-about -calculating -a likely construction cost - - figure on which to estimate a likely schematic design fee, adding in some estimates for items missing from Option B.2 and the "must do" items that had Reacah g ASchool Building Committee b~ec ting It linutes fr onr r4'crvernber 2001 4 been identified by the Committee. A figure of $29.6M was produced with JS concurring. With the expectation that the architect's fee would be close to 10% of this amount and that schematic design would command 15% of that total fee, a cost of $444K was calculated for the cost of a schematic design. TT cautioned that reducing the schematic design fee could lead to problems if the final project was significantly different from the one produced in the schematic phase because the lower fee did not buy sufficient means to predict it and present it to the public. He did not object to a fee of $450K per se, but he felt the Committee should weigh the $50K reduction carefully before adopting it. General discussion ensued on the pros and cons of such a reduction, with the consensus being that the reduction was reasonable. - RG asked AM if he had gathered updated enrollment information. AM replied that he had gone over the latest enrollment estimates produced by NESDEC and noted that there appeared to be a slight decrease in K and 1st grade projections which lowered the projected maximum enrollment from around 1500 to more than 1400. He felt that the degree of uncertainty in the projections (i.e., what trends are developing, if any) was high enough to impose the requirement of producing an up-to-date projection in the RFQ for the schematic design and extend that projection out for a period of at least twelve years. Dr. Harutunian and Mr. Orlando commented on the possibility of parents opting for private high school education over concern over declining conditions at the high school. They also notice some "missing" children in the first grades who exist in Reading but have not enrolled in the public schools, possibly due to growing class sizes. These may or may not be trends to identify, but the consensus was that a fresh enrollment projection would be warranted to judge their statistical significance. A discussion took place on the continuance of the architect selected for the schematic design as the architect for the final design and construction of the project. It was noted that if spelled out in the RFQ, the plans produced by one architect under the schematic design phase would become the property of Reading and could be finished by a different architect, if the Town so desired. It was also noted that soliciting an architect to produce only a schematic design would be different than hiring an architect for the entire project and authorizing only the schematic design phase for completion. The first scenario could require that a wholly separate solicitation process for final architectural services be undertaken, regardless of the desire to continue on with the original architect. The second scenario would allow continuance without a new solicitation, since the desire to procure the full range of services was clearly intended during the soliciting. These points need to be clarified by Town Counsel before the Committee can write the RFQ, specifying its wishes on behalf of the Town. RG outlined the intended presentation to be given at Town Meeting on November 13th, starting with the identification of the problem, perhaps with Mr. Orlando enumerating the present conditions and needed work. RG would then report on the SBA guideline changes and the letter from SBA listing their - reactions to the proposed plans. He intended to stress the need for the schematic design to answer many of the questions the SBC must answer in order to make recommendations to Town Meeting, such as project costs, Reading School Building Committee Aleeting Minutes f tom November 7, 2001 schedules, programs, reimbursement, etc. He asked RR to make a presentation about "must do costs and JS to make presentations concerning other high school projects underway in the state and a projected timeline of the project from this upcoming Town Meeting through construction. Dr. Harutunian suggested presenting a history of the high school's construction projects and studies for Town Meeting's information. The timeline suggestion provoked discussion on the viability of a 30-month construction schedule with the real possibility of having no new additions in which to shift pupils into during renovations to the existing spaces. Dr. Harutunian said that his wish would be to try and limit the schedule to this time frame in order to lessen the disturbance to children's high school careers. Ultimately, it was acknowledged that the schematic design was needed to determine the practicality of a 30-month schedule. RP informed the Committee of an SBA advisory that was available on their web site that listed changes to the SBA's policies regarding reimbursements for special conditions, such as community needs, ledge removal, etc. He passed out copies for the members' use (copy attached). He also wanted to pursue adoption of the latest operating procedures written by the Town Manager (dated August 2001) and passed out copies (copy attached), which RG asked him to defer until a later date. He mentioned that he was researching the requirements for SBC members for financial disclosures relative to the State's conflict of interest laws and would report his findings to the Committee at a later date. RG instructed the Committee that no other meetings would be held prior to Town Meeting on November 13tH With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DI- so moved and was seconded by TT. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 10:15 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: A N, Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee Reading memorial High School - base upgrade costs November 13, 2001, presentation to Town Meeting Item 1997 cost Current cost, source of info comments 17,5% factor Provide sprinkler system $1,190,000 SBC, current Replace Fire Alarm system $379,230 $445,595 DRA report 1997 Provide security system $250,000 allowance Replace telephone system' $245,000 $2871875 DRA report 1997 Replace lighting $757,000 $889,475 DRA report 1997 Replace Ceilings $384,000 SBC, current About 90% of building Replace flooring $961,875 SBC, current About 90% of building, allow for removal Paint the facility $448,000 SBC, current About 90% of building Roofing replacements $495,000 SBC, current for roofs that are now 15 years old Replace windows $530,000 $622,750 DRA report 1997 Column repairs $77,000 $90,475 DRA report 1997 General accessibility issues $384,000 $451,200 DRA report 1997 Construct new Toilet Rooms $495,000 SBC, current based on areas needed for students and staff from plumbing code Upgrade plumbing systems $1,075,000 .$1,263,125 DRA report 1997 Jpgrade electrical systems $911,000 $1,070,425 DRA report 1997 install full computer network $1,229,200 $1,444,310 DRA report 1997 HVAC systems replacement $2,143,900 SBC, current based on 285,000 sf @ $20.00 per square foot Hazardous Materials removal $486,000 $571,050 DRA report 1997 Solve for Title 9 compliance $2,375,000 SBC, current assumes full reno of all locker areas @ $125/sf Seismic Upgrades $2,000,000 SBC, 2000 New Science Labs $1,500,000 SBC, current 4 new labs, 1,500 sf each, @ $250 per sf New fieldhouse finishes $390,000 SBC, current Assumes 30,000 sf @ $13 Computers $480,000 SBC, current 480 units at $1,000 Classroom upgrades $160,000 80 Classrooms at $2,000 each total construction cost $20,409,055 NOTE: the above costs are direct construction costs, NOT inclusive of "soft" costs School Building Assistance Program -Administrative Advisory 01-6 November 5, 2001 Award of FY02 grants FY02 grants will be awarded by the Board of Education after the final state budget is enacted. Current plans are to award grants to the first two projects on the category 1 (desegregation) list and to the first seventeen projects on the category 2/3 list. Districts with projects on the waiting list are again reminded that there is no guarantee that a grant will be awarded within the allowable five-year period for temporary borrowing. New applications for capital construction projects Application forms New application forms have been developed and will be posted shortly on the DOE school finance website (<A HREF="http://financel.doe.mass.edu/"> http://financel.doe.mass.edu)</A>. Districts which have already prepared or submitted materials using forms from prior years should check with SBA program staff to identify any additional information that may be required. Waivers of cost standards We will continue to allow waivers of the cost standards in 603 CMR 38.06 of up to five percent for projects on constricted urban sites, to reflect the added costs of material delivery, construction staging, noise and dust abatement, and other related costs. In general, requests for cost waivers for commonly-encountered situations, including those related to ledge and other site conditions, will no longer be recommended for approval. Expected variations in site preparation costs should be factored into the district 0s feasibility study of construction and site options. Waivers of square footage limits Requests for waivers of the maximum square footage in order to accommodate community needs will no longer be routinely granted. In general, such facilities must either be accommodated within the gross square footage limit or be paid for with local funds. Waivers will continue to be granted for dedicated space for special education, instructional technology, bilingual education, and educational collaborative programs. Maintenance incentive points As was the case in FY01, districts with one approved major repair project on the old, unfunded major repair list (FY88-00) will receive two points; districts with two or more projects on the list will receive four points. FY02 will be the last year that maintenance incentive points will be granted for unfunded repair projects. Later this year we expect to issue guidelines for the new maintenance assessment process which will be used to award these incentive points. For FY02, applicants will be able to select either criteria. Carry-over applications Projects which were initially submitted in FYOI but - - - did not complete the application process during the grandfathering period will be subject to all current policies and requirements. Review and approval of capital construction project applications Preliminary reviews of all capital construction project applications will be conducted, based upon the submission of the feasibility study, inventory of existing space, and enrollment projections. The feasibility study must clearly describe: (a) the need to be addressed; (b) the options studied; (c) a description of the recommended project (including building size; type of construction; location; projected enrollment; and preliminary cost estimates); and (d) the rationale for selecting that option. Where a need is to be addressed through multiple projects, all of the related projects should be described. Preliminary decisions will be made by March 1 of each year, for feasibility studies submitted on or before January 15. Project feasibility studies submitted after January 15 will be held over for review in the following year. Districts are urged to submit their materials as early as possible. Waiting until just before the January 15 deadline may leave insufficient time for the Department to review the submissions and identify deficiencies and for the district to resubmit amended items. The preliminary review will focus on whether the need for construction has been clearly established and whether the proposed solution is in the best interests of the Commonwealth and the district. Projects will be ranked in order of priority, based on the seven categories listed in the next section. The Department will also take into account the likely availability of funding in upcoming years. For those projects which receive preliminary approval, the district will then need to submit all of the remaining application items, including: educational specifications; schematic drawings; local and state regulatory approvals; detailed financing data and voter approvals; site title; and detailed design drawings and specifications. Each of these submissions will be reviewed by the Department for compliance with program requirements. After all items have been submitted in acceptable form, the district will receive notification from the Commissioner that the project will be placed on the priority waiting list. At that point, the district is free to begin construction if it so wishes. Lower-ranked projects which are not approved maybe resubmitted the following year. Priority categories for capital construction projects Project applications will be ranked based on the following order of priorities: Projects to replace or renovate a building which is structurally unsound or otherwise in a condition seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of school children. Applicants must submit documentation from the building inspector or board of health that the building cannot be used in its current condition, and must also indicate the plans for temporarily housing students during the construction period. Projects to eliminate existing severe overcrowding. Applicants must submit documentation demonstrating that the required space for the grades in question (as calculated under 603 CMR 38.05) exceeds the available space in the district by at least 25%. Projects to prevent loss of accreditation. Applications must submit documentation from NEASC indicating the school in question is on probation and that facility issues are a significant cause. Projects to prevent overcrowding expected to result from increased enrollments. Applicants must submit documentation supporting enrollment projections, and must demonstrate that the required space for the grades in question (as calculated under 603 CMR 38.05) exceeds the available space in the district by at least 30%. Projects for short term enrollment growth. Proposals under this category must include a master plan for all needed facility improvements at the grades in question. Projects to replace or add to obsolete buildings in order to provide for a full range of programs consistent with state and approved local requirements. Projects to transition from court-ordered and board-approved racial balance school districts to walk-to districts. Major repair projects Districts are reminded that funding for major repair projects was reinstituted in FY01. Repair projects eligible for reimbursement include: projects to eliminate a structural or environmental safety hazard; projects to make a bulding accessible to persons with physical disabilities; roof replacement or reconstruction; replacement or improvement of heating systems; and projects to improve energy efficiency. If a renovation project is not approved for funding as a capital construction project, the district can still apply for major repair funding. If a district wishes to undertake a renovation project at its own expense, SBA major repair funding can be used to cover those components which are eligible. In such cases, the SBA-reimbursable components must be done under separate subcontracts so that the reimbursable costs can be identified. Pre-fabricated buildings/modulars Modular and pre-fabricated building components, when used as swing space during a renovation project, are eligible cost items for reimbursement, subject to the overall project cost limits. Modulars may also be proposed to address short-term overcrowding situations (generally less than 10 years), if their use would reduce or eliminate the need for a larger scale construction project. At this time we are not approving the use of pre-fabricated or modular units for long-term space needs, although this policy may be reviewed at a later date. Green schools initiative The request for proposals for the Green Schools pilot project is expected to be released on or about November 7. The RFP will be posted on the DOE school finance website (<A HREF="http://financel.doe.mass.edu/">http://financel.doe.mass.edu</A>) and on the Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation website (<A HREF="http://www.mtpc.org/">http://www.mtpc.org)</A>. Districts with projects in the planning and design stages are invited to apply. Post-audit procedures The procedures and requirements for the post-construction audit have been updated and will be posted shortly on the DOE school finance website. We apologize for the long delays which districts have been experiencing in the completion of the audit reviews. We hope to have new staff and procedures in place by the end of this fiscal year to address this backlog. <A HREF="http://financel.doe.mass.edu/default.htm">Finance Home</A> ( <A . HREF="http://www.doe.mass.edu/">DOE Home</A> I <A HREF="http://financel.doe.mass.edu/Istaff.html">ContactUs</A> I <A HREF="http://financel.doe.mass.edu/Ilinks.html">Links</A> ( <A HREF="http://www.doe.mass.edu/search/search.asp">Search</A> <A HREF="http://www.doe.mass.edu/resources/privacy.html">Privacy Policy</A> Operating Procedures for Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Task Forces - Town of Reading, Massachusetts The following are operating procedures for all Boards, Committees, Commissions and Task Forces ("bodies") of the Town of Reading. These guidelines are meant to assist you in your work, and to ensure that the operation of the "body" meets the requirements of State and Town law and practice. ➢ The "body" on which you serve is a legally constituted body of the Town of Reading. All Open Public Meeting Law, Conflict of Interest Law, and other regulations apply to all members of the body. Training on Ethics and Conflict of Interest law is available each fall, and all members of every "body" are required to take the training in order to be covered by the Town's indemnification. ➢ All Town "bodies" fit into an operating Department for organizational and support purposes. All Departments have a Department Head who will usually be your main contact. ➢ Staff assistance will be provided to each "body" to the extent that is possible. Recording Secretaries are not available except in very unusual situations. Unless staff assistance is permanently assigned to a "body", requests for staff assistance must go through the Town Manager. Generally, staff members are not assigned to be members of Town "bodies", in order to keep the appropriate separation between policy roles and administrative roles. ➢ As an organization it is the Town's belief that volunteers deserve the maximum support that the Town can give them, including having the information they need to conduct their business in a timely manner. The Town will assist with photocopying and mailing. ➢ Assistance from specialists outside of your Department, such as legal counsel and financial advisors, are available upon request through the Town Manager. ➢ Before participating as a member of the "body", you must be appointed in the manner determined by the document that establishes the "body", (usually by the Board of Selectmen) and you must be sworn in by the Town Clerk. ➢ All meetings must be open to the public, and are required to be posted publicly through the Town Clerk's office at least 48 hours before the meeting, not including Sundays and legal holidays. Your Staff liaison (if any) will assist you in doing this posting, or the Office Manager in the Town Manager's office will take care of this task (942-9043). If the meeting has not been posted, you may not meet, even "informally" or in a "work session". ➢ In posting a meeting on standard forms, the meeting place will be determined by staff, based on availability of space. All meetings must take place in a public place - usually Town Hall. You may not change the meeting place unless the meeting has been re-posted to a new location at least 48 hours before the meeting, not including Sundays and legal holidays. ➢ Discussion of business being considered by a "body" must be in public session of the "body". Telephone meetings or email meetings or discussion of the business of the "body" by a majority of its members is not permitted. Dissemination of information to members of a body via mail, email or otherwise is permitted, as long as a copy of that information is made available to the public at the next meeting of the body. Often including a list of such materials on the agenda of the meeting is helpful in letting the public know that such a document exists. ➢ Meetings are not penmitted on election days (where there is an election in this Town), during Town Meeting (you must adjourn no later than 7:25 PM), on legal holidays, and during certain religious holidays as determined by the Town Manager. ➢ You must provide minutes. Minutes must, at a minimum, state the date, time, and place of the meeting; who was present and spoke, and must record the actions taken including the vote. Draft minutes are a public record, and generally minutes from one meeting should be available for approval by the body at their next meeting. The original and 1 copy of all minutes is to be sent to the Town Clerk's office once approved. They will keep the official and permanent file of the minutes, and send the copy to the Reading Public Library as required by Charter. November 2, 2001 1 c:\Amipro\docs\gdin-bcc.sam ➢ A quorum of the meeting is a majority of the members of the "body" (i.e. the full authorized membership). If there is not a quorum present, the meeting cannot take place. The only action that can be taken, is adjournment. ➢ Actions of the "body" will be effective only if a majority of the full authorized membership votes in the affirmative. For example, if a 9 member "body" has 6 members present, 5 affirmative votes are required to pass any action. (by State statute the Zoning Board of Appeals requires a unanimous affirmative vote on most issues) ➢ Voting must be done by roll call or by a show of hands -just voice votes are not permitted. ➢ In general there will not be a need for an executive session. If the "body" anticipates discussing something that it feels will need to be discussed in Executive Session, please contact the Town Manager in advance to review the need and procedures. ➢ Each "body" must select a chairman who will be responsible for running the meetings and developing an agenda.. Additionally a vice-chairman may be selected, and someone will need to be designated to take minutes. ➢ No "body" has authority to expend funds unless it has been specifically authorized to do so. If you're not sure, you probably are not authorized to expend money. To the extent that there is a need for fielding, you should discuss this need with the Department Head, and then the Town Manager. ➢ Pursuant to Selectmen's policy, no "body" is authorized to solicit or accept gifts unless specifically cleared through the Town Manager. ➢ Various "bodies" may have their own operating guidelines or "bylaws", and this is permissible so long as the operating guidelines or "bylaws" do not conflict with these procedures or any provision of State Law, Town Bylaws, or the Charter, ➢ Each "body" is accountable to its appointing authority, and reports should be made on either a specific or a periodic basis to the appointing authority. If the appointing authority is the Board of Selectmen, the report may be scheduled through the Town Manager. Additionally, annual reports of all bodies are required. ➢ The press may cover meetings of Town "bodies". All information. available at the meeting is available to the press. Press releases on other than routine matters should be cleared with the Town Manager in advance. Note - the Reading Municipal Light Department has somewhat separate governance from parts of Town government, although most of these guidelines still apply. The RMLD provides its own staff support to Boards, Committees and Commissions; provides legal assistance as required through the General Manager; and clears press releases through the General Manager. I hope these procedures help you in your work as a Town of Reading volunteer. If there's anything that hasn't been covered, or if there's any assistance you need, please don't hesitate to ask. THANKS FOR VOLUNTEERING! Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Amended 1-28-99 Amended 7-11-00 Amended 8-29-01 November 2, 2001 2 c:\Amipro\docs\gdln-bcc.sam