MINUTES

May 3, 2007

PRESENT: K. Grunwald (staff), G. Cole, M. Hart (staff), G. Padick (staff), N. Sheehan, J.A. Bobbitt

I. INTRODUCTIONS

II. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE: no comments.

III. REVIEW OF MINUTES: April 19, 2007: the minutes of the April 19 meeting were accepted as written.

IV. COMMUNICATIONS:

A. Agenda

B. April 19, 2007 Minutes

C. Final Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

V. DISCUSSION:

A. Request for Qualifications: The suggestion was made to look into the possibility of advertising through ALFA, CALA, or another group. K. Grunwald indicated that the cost may be prohibitive, but he will check into this. A question was raised as to whether or not we would be getting much more of a response through advertising, and we may do this if we get a poor response to the RFQ. There is a need to scan the Brecht Report and send out a PDF file with the RFQ. We will also look at sending the RFQ out to organizations in adjacent states. N. Sheehan has a former student who is the Executive Director of the National Senior Housing Association (David Schless?); she will attempt to contact him. We will also ask Susanna Thomas to contact the facility in Massachusetts that has been marketing in this area. All actions were approved by consensus.

A question was raised regarding the criteria for selection of a preferred developer, and whether or not we need to create a matrix? If we look at qualifications on the RFQ, do we also need to develop objective criteria? G. Padick feels that the key will be how developers respond to the qualifications. G. Cole feels that we may need to introduce this as we get closer to making a recommendation to the Town Council; possibly use a matrix around selection of finalists. J.A. Bobbitt suggested that we individually make lists regarding what’s important to each of us. Members feel that the RFQ stage will be a learning process, and we do not need specific criteria at this point. G. Cole questioned how much the availability of the land will determine the developer’s response?

B. Next steps for the Committee: G. Padick asked about getting access to the results of the UConn Civil Engineering class study/project. K. Grunwald will check with Lon Hultgren and see if he and the faculty member could attend our next meeting. Once again, the location of the road is critical to this site. We may need to revisit this issue with UConn to determine whether or not they can locate this road. A question was also raised about who should be contacted at UConn to enlist their support? Matt will speak with Tom Callahan to discuss this. AAUP, Office of Alumni Affairs, UConn Foundation, are all potential groups to contact.

C. “Other”: UConn Water Study: G. Padick gave a preliminary report on the UConn water study, which was released yesterday and will be posted on the Town’s website. Indications are that there is an adequate supply of water for all committed use; water savings may be achieved by using gray water from the sewage treatment plant for the cooling system. This study took into account the Town’s Plan for Conservation and Development; and all potential increases for use. The report indicates that if water restrictions are placed on withdrawals, the supply will be adequate. M. Hart mentioned that the water advisory committee is looking for two additional members.

VI. SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS: first and third Thursday of each month, 9-10:30; location TBD.

VII. ADJOURNMENT: the meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Kevin Grunwald