- New Museum Project
- Temporary Exhibits
- Online Exhibits
Mrs. Relay called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
Members present: John Hozey, Tom McAlister, Lisa Von Bargen, and Dick Smith.
Members excused: Michelle Cullen, Emmie Swanson, and Julie Farrell
Members unexcused: None
Staff present: Patricia Relay, Andrew Goldstein, Faith Revell, and Brittany Cabello
Motion: Mr. Smith moved to approve the Building Committee Minutes from March 12, 2015, and Mr. Hozey seconded. Discussion: None. Vote: All members present voted in favor of approving the Building Committee Minutes from March 12, 2015; none opposed. The motion carried.
a. Stake Holder Influence Matrix: Mrs. Relay initiated the discussion by asking the Committee on how we should engage the identified stakeholder. Is it time to engage them at this point? When do we want their input? Given that we are currently working on an RFP for a planning consultant, Mr. Hozey thought it was premature to engage the less impacted stakeholders at this time. The directly impacted stakeholders are already at the table. Once a consultant is found then the time for community members and advisers could and should be engaged. All agreed with this process.
b. Draft RFP for master Interpretive Planning consultant: Inasmuch as Mr. Goldstein crafted the RFP draft, Mrs. Relay suggested that he take the lead on reviewing the document.
i. Mr. Smith led off by identifying consistency matters on how the draft refers to the Valdez Museum and the City of Valdez. At the beginning of the document each entity would include a here in after statement and from that point forward keep consistent.
ii. Mr. Hozey addressed the term “new facility.” As this is the preplanning stage it is not a given that the consultant is tasked with planning a new facility. The Committee is looking at all the options: expanded, renovated, new, or even no change. All agreed that this was correct and the wording new facility would be amended to read somewhat like: expanded/renovated/new facility.
iii. This transcended into a discussion about the title of the RFP. Mr. Hozey questioned the term Facility Planning. Mrs. Relay stated that we are seeking a Master Interpretative Planner, not Facility Planner. The Master Interpretive plan will guide the future of a Facility Plan. Ms. Revell stated that in addition to the visitor experience, a Master Interpretive Plan will include: audience development and institutional identity; visitor experience; marketing to new and existing audiences: staffing; cost considerations; project analysis; new directions; goals of interpretation; interpretive objectives; take-home messages. All agreed that was the direction we are taking and that the title of the RFP should state: Master Interpretive Planning Services.
iv. In the section of expectations it was agreed that a square footage range should be included to help determine the potential cost for an expanded/renovated/new facility.
v. Mrs. Relay wanted the Committee’s opinion on the draft project schedule. While the project schedule seem aggressive with an RFP Release on April 15, 2015 the committee thought that it could be achieved. Ms. Von Bargen and Mr. Hozey asked Mr. Goldstein if he could circulate an updated version to the Committee as soon as possible. The Committee agreed to review and comment via email. The Committee also agreed that there was enough flexibility to bump the start date back a week.
a. Next Step: Differed to future meeting.
b. Timeline for Pre Development Planning: Differed to future meeting.
Unless otherwise posted, May 14, 2015 5:30 pm at the Valdez Museum
Motion: With no further business before the Committee, Mr. McAlister moved to adjourn the Committee meeting, Mr. Smith seconded. Discussion: None. Vote: All members present in favor, none opposed. Mrs. Relay adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.