December 7, 2005
MLK Park
7:00pm
Attendance: Mark Hinds, Steve Jevning and Kathleen Varner
KFNA Staff: Joanna S. Hallstrom, NRP Project Organizer
Introductions:
Margaret Sines, who was not present at this meeting, informed Hinds that she will be joining KBP in January 06. Sines formerly sat on the Kingfield Redevelopment Committee but recently moved out of the neighborhood.
Approval of Minutes: November minutes approved with minor editing corrections.
Local Commons Survey Project: Hinds introduced the possibility of KBP being involved in the Local Commons Survey Project. The goal of the Local Commons Survey Project is to conduct audits of a community’s hidden wealth and assets and create a broad new basis of local organizing. Julie Ristau, formerly on the NRP Steering Committee introduced Hinds to the project. KBP will pursue this project and suggest a focus along the 40th Street Riverlake Greenway, which would include a whole cross section of south Minneapolis neighborhoods. If selected KBP would receive funding to conduct the survey and to coordinate community outreach related to the survey project.
1)     RFQ Review: Motzenbecker completed the first draft of the RFQ and emailed it to the committee for review prior to this meeting. The committee discussed the RFQ and KBP’s philosophy behind selecting a design firm for the bridge project.
Excerpt from the RFQ Draft
I.                   REVIEW AND SELECTION CRITERIA
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection of the designer will be based upon professional qualifications only.
The selection process will include a design competition for the selected finalists.
Selection of Design Architect
After the receipt of the RFQ responses, the KBP will review all submitted proposals and will evaluate them against the selection criteria. A shortlist of candidates, determined by the KBP and at the KBP’s sole discretion to be the most qualified will be selected for interviews. The shortlist will be developed by XX,XX, 2006.
The KBP will conduct interviews on XX,XX, 2006. The agenda for the interviews will be issued in a subsequent notice along with additional information regarding the format of the interview. If a successful candidate is selected, such selection will be based on the presentations and the qualifications of the candidate. It is anticipated that the interview process will provide an opportunity for the KBP to experience the communication style and idea exchange process that the candidate firm utilizes in their design process. The successful candidate will be informed in a timely fashion, and should be prepared to commence contract negotiations immediately. Negotiation of the terms, conditions and fees relating to the architectural services agreement shall be limited to (30) days following the notification of selection of the chosen firm. In the event contract negotiations are unsuccessful with the selected firm, the KBP may choose to enter negotiations with the next candidate firm.
Jevning questioned if the current RFQ process will truly bring forth a creative design and feels that KBP may be limiting itself to people with a particular set of qualifications only and excluding other potentially great artists. In response, Hinds stated that he would like to maintain qualifications but suggested requiring a designer/firm to meet standards (i.e. engineering) before moving to second phase of process, leaving the initial stage more open.
Jevning suggested holding a design contest instead of and RFQ in order to allow a wider group of artists to participate. As a safety net, the designs from the contest would be tested/evaluated against engineering standards, cost analysis etc. Varner asked if KBP has the expertise to weed out designs that do not meet the building criteria. Hinds stated that MNDot has an explicit requirement for bridge projects, which would be used in the selection process. Jevning asked if MNDot cared how public this project was (i.e. seeking design work beyond MNDot’s pre-set engineering firms). Hinds commented that as long as the designer is able to partner with one of MNDot’s firms we are okay.
Varner reminded the committee that everyone agreed to keep the design selection process simple in order to limit expenses.
Hinds suggested making a hybrid of the current RFQ to include a design element up front, which initially was not included in the RFQ. The committee agreed that the RFQ process should work as follows: A design firm will submit a written document detailing their philosophy about design, and in particular the KBP project. They will also be able to submit design sample (criteria to be determined). A small group of designers will be selected from the RFQ’s submitted and the next steps will include a request for interview. In the criteria section, it would be stated that the artist will be judged by professional experience and design idea and the RFQ will include a disclaimer: before a selected artist is able to proceed further they will have to partner with a local design firm that meets MNDot’s qualifications.
Jevning asked what affect changing the RFQ now will have on the selection process and if we will reach a wider cross section of artists. Hinds stated that the RFQ will be posted in all the appropriate places and that priority will be given to artists who have a local firm who will partner with MNDot to build the project.
Hinds suggested a two tiered approach to the proposal and then an interview process of a much smaller group. First there will be a collection/sorting to come up with final pool and then the final pool will be asked to indicate how they will meet the building qualifications.
Jevning wanted KBP to consider how the design process will affect the fundraising process. The committee didn’t think there would be much impact. Varner suggested that KBP include the amount of outreach done to new artists in our program reports/ letters and not simply highlight well-established designers. All agreed that this would be beneficial, and demonstrate an effort to solicit designs from a wide pool of artists.
After this discussion the committee decided that they would like to make changes to the RFQ and include two levels of application. Hinds will discuss the changes with Motzenbecker, who will adjust the RFQ and submit it the committee for another review.
2)Â Â Â Â Â Timeline: Priority is given to completing the RFQ, then a time line will be established. Hinds is currently working on the budget.
3)Â Â Â Â Â Next Steps:
- Hinds will meet with Web designers.
- KBP needs to meet with community partners (i.e. Sabathani Community Center, elected officials) before the RFQ process is out in order update, inform and secure project backing. Hinds will make this priority in January. Varner was asked to put a community partner list together. Jevning will also work on a list.
- Varner will research and send Hinds the list of the new Bryant board members
Minutes prepared by Joanna S. Hallstrom.