The meeting was called to order by Chairman Monteleone. It was determined that a quorum was present. 　

    Roy Smith moved for approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2004, meeting. Motion seconded by Mary Jo Klempa. Chairman Monteleone requested an amendment to the minutes at the bottom of page seven to state that the resolution is attached and made a part of the minutes. Amendment passed. There was no further discussion regarding the minutes and they were approved by a unanimous vote.

    Donna Lipscomb introduced Robert Ferguson, the new Cabinet Secretary of Administration, to the board members. Each board member identified themselves and who they represent on the board.　

Project Status Report

    Ms. Lipscomb stated that she keeps all projects on the list for reference purposes even if they are complete. The Jefferson County Commission recreational facility project was approved on October 25^th. Proposals and qualifications from the engineering/architectural consulting firms, for the purpose of selecting a performance criteria developer, are due back on February 7^th. They plan to select the firm within the next few weeks. They are on schedule to start construction by the June 1^st deadline.

    The West Virginia Department of Transportation project for the DMV building in Summersville has gotten slowed down and they are not moving as quickly as they hoped. There is concerns about whether they are going to make the deadline to start construction. This project has already been before the board on two occasions and they may have to come back again if they can’t meet the deadline. It will then be up to the board whether they feel they meet the criteria to be approved again. The deadline for them to start construction is March 31. Secretary Ferguson questioned what the hold up was and why it was not going to be done timely. Ms. Lipscomb stated that the architect did not get the specifications to purchasing timely. They are waiting to get the bids back.

    Chairman Monteleone stated that they make these approvals contingent upon starting construction on time. One of the criteria for being approved is a time line that needs done quicker than the traditional method. This board was told the project could start a month or two ago and the board gave them an additional 45 days. The Chairman said they will have no choice but to make them come back and do not know if they can meet the criteria now because there is obviously no time urgency to do the project. Secretary Ferguson contacted the architect and inquired what the hold up was on the project. Mr. Drobot said the project should be advertised next week and they will be very close to meeting the March 31 deadline. He agreed to advise the Secretary if he will not meet deadlines in the future.

    Secretary Ferguson requested Dave Tincher, Director of Purchasing, to let the board know what the status of the DMV project was from a purchasing standpoint. Mr. Tincher stated they received signature from Jim Burgess yesterday. Ron Price, the buyer is working on it as we speak and the pre-bid is set for the 3^rd. It will be in the mail today and a bid opening date will be set for the 16^th or 23^rd. Chairman Monteleone said if they start construction by March 31^st it will be a non-issue.

    The Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority parking garage project is under construction. They are reviewing the third and final design review submission. Construction documents have been submitted to the Fire Marshall. They expect completion by June 15, 2005.

    The remaining projects are completed. Secretary Ferguson questioned what the Design-Build Board did and what authority they have over projects. Chairman Monteleone gave a brief overview. Ms. Lipscomb identified proposed legislation that will be introduced this session which will expand the authority and oversight of the board. Mike Clowser, with the Contractor’s Association, stated that the Government Organization committee’s attorney is suppose to review the bill this week to see if any technical revisions are required. Once it has been introduced Ms. Lipscomb will provide the bill to the board members and they can let her know if they have any comments or suggested revisions.

    Robert Moyer with West Virginia University gave a presentation on a proposed new student housing project. The new student housing will be on the downtown campus. They have a master plan that looks for the university to increase by 3,000 students over the next five years. A lot of those are new freshman. They are focusing on housing the freshman so the students will have a housing community the first year. They have leased space that runs out in 2006 and 2007 and they do not want to extent them.

    The university made a presentation to the Board of Governors with a ten year master plan. Part of that plan is to increase housing. The university purchased an existing facility, Summit Hall, which has approximately 420 beds. They need to purchase two houses beside Summit Hall. They are in negotiations now with the owners and will have a contract signed this week. The houses have tenents which need to stay in them for one year. They will build a new structure. Mr. Moyer provided the board with a drawing of the proposed structure. It will be a three floor building to meet the neighborhood better. The housing units will have four sleeping areas with one shared bathroom. There will be a total of 400 beds.

    The funding is already in-hand. The funding will come from revenue bonds. They received 200 million in revenue bonds. The cost for this project will be $14.75 million. The funding is secured and they are just waiting on approval of this board.　

    The close coordination is needed for the project because the $14.75 is a fixed budget and the university will not allow any other funds for the project and they need to assure they stay in budget. They believe that the design-build method will afford them the opportunity to keep in budget. More importantly, they need to use individuals who have the expertise in student house contracting. They need to look at firms that are really dedicated to student housing to make sure they get the best housing for the university.

    In regard to the timing criteria, this would be a 118 week schedule versus a 130 week schedule if they do not use the design-build method. The key elements of the time line can not change. They will save time by doing design and construction at the same time. They have given 18 weeks for architect preparation time. They want to be in the student housing by the fall of 2007 but they need to know by the spring prior to committing to the students. They can not meet these requirements with the traditional method and the time lines are a huge issue for the university.

    Mr. Sprouse stated that he is very much in favor of the project but he does not believe it would take 130 weeks in a conventional bid process to complete the project. He believes that he could get in the housing sooner than that. Chairman Monteleone indicated they can not start for one year due to the tenants having a year in the houses before they can be demolished. Mr. Thrasher agrees that you could probably do the project faster but you could do it quicker by either method than on their time line. This is a conservative time line. He also stated that the rooms are more of a "cookie cutter" plan so this project would be better by the design-build method.

    Mr. Smith inquired as to whether they were familiar with the rules of design-build and how the process works. Mr. Moyer stated they were familiar with them. Mr. Smith asked if they planned to follow the rules. Mr. Moyer stated that they would follow the legislative rules on the project. Mr. Smith indicated they have had problems with projects in the past when people deviate from the rules. Mr. Moyer stated that it will be the responsibility of the successful contractor to follow the rules and that will be part of their contract.

    Mr. Moyer stated that the bond funding must be spent by November of 2007 and they have a three year window. He questioned whether the American Campus Communities can be used as the criteria developer. Mr. Thrasher stated that they could be used as long as they have a licensed architect on the project.

    Mr. Clay stated that with design-build there must be urgency to get the project completed and he wondered what the urgency was with this project. Mr. Moyer stated that they must know by a certain date so they can commit to students and they can meet that requirement with the design build method. They can not commit to students if they do not utilize the design build method.

    Mr. Thrasher moved to approve the project. Seconded by Tom Winter. The motion passed by a unanimous vote. The board established a date of May 1, 2006, that they must start construction. If they do not meet that deadline their approval is void and they must return to the board to seek approval again. Mr. Moyer indicated that he understood and that the university would start construction by May 1^st. 　

There was no other business to come before the board and the meeting was adjourned