January 4, 2005
MLK Park
7:00pm
Attendance: Steve Brandt, Peter Hallstrom, Mark Hinds, Steve Jevning, David Motzenbecker and Kathleen Varner
KFNA Staff: Joanna S. Hallstrom, NRP Project Organizer
Introductions: None
Approval of Minutes: December minutes approved
Bryan Neighborhood Organization (BNO):
BNO recently elected new officers for their board. Varner, who lives in Bryant, will follow up with new BNO board members to attain a contact list. It was reported that BNO is still pursuing $25,000 for KBP and Hinds is following up the funding process.
General Updates: Robyn Repya is now the Assistant Editor at Southwest Journal. The new full time editor started today. Repya, indicated that the SWJ is still favorable to the idea of publishing the coloring contest and she will talk to the new editor about it. Hinds will follow up with Repya.
Hinds and Eric Lindseth (KFNA Board Chair) are meeting with newly elected 8th ward city council member, Elizabeth Glidden on Monday. Hinds will up date her KBP and other KFNA stuff.
Hinds will set up a meeting with the KBP web designers this month and invited Brandt to join him.
RFQ:
Jevning, prior to the meeting emailed the committee a link to the West End Bridge Competition (Pittsburgh). At the meeting the committee reviewed the contest components.
Motzenbecker suggested following the Pittsburgh model, by keeping it a one track design competition but solicit entries as well as leave it open for others to participate. Jevning ask if this means changing our process from and RFQ to and RFP. Motzenbecker explained that a design competition does not include all the detailed firm information and other qualifiers as an RFQ dose and a contest is strictly design. An RFP will go a little further with design, research etc. Hinds suggested that by the end of stage two (in selection process) the designer needs to have established a partnership with a MNDot qualifying firm since construction details must be handled locally.
The committee reached a consensus and agreed to tweak the open design competition components into an RFP. The proposal is defined as including a statement of interest, approach to the project, relevant project experience, firm information and organization structure, submission package. In this way it will not simply be a design competition.
Hinds suggested adding a statement under the project approach that a designer will not be excluded if they don’t have project experience. Motzenbecker added that a design sample should also be requested.
After the submission packages are received and reviewed, 3-5 finalists will be chosen to take their design into development (detailed drawings, material choices etc). The final design will be done after the winner is chosen. Motzenbecker clarified with the committee that there are stages of design: schematic, design development (refine concepts), construction documents, and then construction administration).
Brandt asked when the community would interact with artists. Varner stated that it was agreed that the community would be brought in to see the finalist’s designs and meet with them. The community will meet a second time to view the developed designs of the finalists.
Hinds stated that KBP would offer local firms an information meeting to answer question about the RFP and walk the bridge site. Varner stated that the RFP needs to communicate well what the bridge feels like for those that cannot make the informational meeting. Motzenbecker suggested more descriptives in the RFP.
RFP Selection Process –outlined:
- RFP Announcement
- Informational/site meeting
- Submissions received
- Qualifying designs selected
- 3-5 finalist receive stipend to develop design and visit site
- First community meeting held with finalists to review designs
- Designers return to their firms to develop models and design for final juried selection
- Design models put on display for community feedback (second community input).
- Jury chooses a winner based on judging criteria and community feedback
Brandt asked where/when MNDot enters the RFP process. Hinds clarified that as long as the designer partners with a local firm that meets MNDot’s standards the project will be approved. Motzenbecker added that this is why KBP can move ahead with designers and MNDot physically doesn’t have to be involved until the building stage.
It was stated that KBP needs to make it clear in the RFP that a partnership with a local firm doesn’t have to be made until the designer reaches the finalist stage.
A note to clarify: Finalist = 3-5 designers that make the first round of cuts. Winner = the designer KBP chooses to design the bridge.
Finalists will need to have partnered with a local firm in order for KBP to enter into a partnership with them. It is okay for multiple designers to use the same firm and as well, that firm can submit their own entry.
The committee discussed the stipend amount. The committee discussed travel costs and if the stipend should be different for local vs international submissions. Motzenbecker suggests a 6K stipend to offset the cost of billable work but give people time enough to put together an RFP. 7.5K would be ideal but may be too much. Brandt asked how many proposals firms are willing to lose money on. Motzenbecker stated that two-stage competitions typically have $ attached to them, which KBP is proposing and one-stage competitions often don’t include any financial incentives. Firms apply for a variety of both.
It was stated that people usually don’t know who they are competing against. Thus, Hinds suggested setting and internal limit of 3-5 finalists but not publish this. This will give KBP room to evaluated the designs and not limit selection to just 3 for example. This will also allow KBP to evaluate costs.
Budget discussion: KBP has website and production cost to think about besides stipends.
It was agreed that KBP would offer a 5K-stipend and1.5K for travel cost for one visit. The RFP time line will be set when the money is confirmed. Hinds working on budget.
Fundraising: It was stated that KBP needs to start gorilla marketing and get website up so that people can start contributing. Brandt reminded the committee that Peter McLaughlin at Hennepin County needs to know now what KBP is expecting from the county because the budget is being set.
Common Grant Application: Brandt submitted a first draft of the Common Grant Application to the committee. Hinds reminded the committee that all grants must be reviewed by KFNA so as to not duplicate efforts.
Jevning asked if we need to do we need to write two grants , one for design and one for community involvement. Hinds stated that they can be combined to make it a holistic process. The bridge is the this kind of infrastructure project were every body wins. KBP is not pitting communities against each other. Regarding concern that grant proposals needs to be specific, Hinds responded that each proposal will be tailored to fit the appropriate guidelines etc.
Brandt emailed a draft letter to supporters to committee members prior to the meeting.
Hinds handed out a supporter list and would like to expand it and start meeting with people in the next few months. Jevning and Hinds volunteered to meet with businesses and community organizations
A question was raised about the difference between Supporters and Partners: A partner has money and a seat at the table. A supporter donates money.
Task List:
Hinds will follow-up with BNO about $25,000 
Hinds and Brandt will meet with web designers
Brandt will revise the Common Grant Application
Peter and Joanna Hallstrom: Business list along RiverLake Greenway.
Jevning and Hinds volunteered to meet with businesses and community organizations
Mnts completed by Joanna S. Hallstrom – KFNA