Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central CUSD 301 board selects STR Partners for facility master plan; LarsonDarby retained for interim work
Summary
After months of interviews and committee review, the district chose STR Partners to produce a facility master plan and will continue using Larson and Darby Group for interim projects; selection of STR passed after board roll-call vote.
The Central Community Unit School District 301 Board of Education voted to select STR Partners to develop a district facility master plan and to continue work with Larson and Darby Group on interim projects.
Board members approved the recommendation following presentations and committee review of several architect firms. Dan (staff member) told the board the district’s team had performed reference checks, interviews and compiled a spreadsheet of key factors before arriving at the recommendation: "we came up with the recommendation that's in front of you for 2 architectural firms, Larson and Darby Group and STR Partners," he said.
Why it matters: the master plan will set multi-year priorities for building projects, maintenance and how to address increasing enrollment. Dan said the master plan work would likely take about a year, giving a new superintendent time to use the plan to guide future projects.
Board discussion and vote: Trustees debated whether to engage a single firm or two. Some trustees echoed administration's view that one firm should focus on the master plan while the other handle immediate projects. At the meeting a motion to appoint both Larson and Darby Group and STR Partners initially failed to receive a second; a subsequent motion to select STR Partners passed on a roll-call vote. The recorded roll call was: Watson — yes; Adefey — yes; Volk — no; Pappas — yes; Volpe — abstain. The motion carried (Yes 3, No 1, Abstain 1).
What staff described: Dan and district staff recommended STR for its facility-master-planning experience and suggested Larson and Darby keep supporting smaller or interim projects so district operations continue without interruption. Dan warned that having multiple firms work simultaneously on a master plan could "muddy the water" and recommended a single firm lead the master-plan work while others handle discrete projects.
Next steps and contracting: Staff said the board’s selection of a firm signals the start of contract negotiations; the district will then return to the board for approval of project costs and final contract terms. Dan described typical practice: after selecting a firm from an RFQ, the district negotiates fees and then uses addenda for individual projects as required. The board emphasized it wants transparency about project estimates before approving any work.
Vendor and process notes: The administration said it followed a qualifications-based selection process (RFQ), conducted interviews and reference checks, and used a facilities committee to vet proposals. The board reserved final approval of specific project contracts and associated budgets.
Board members and staff who spoke included Dan (staff member), Morgan Pappas (board member), and trustees identified in the roll call as Watson, Adefey, Volk and Volpe. Representatives from STR Partners and Larson and Darby Group presented to the board earlier in the vetting process but were not individually named in the public discussion.
Ending: The board’s votes set the district on a year-long path to complete a facility master plan. Staff will return with negotiated contract terms and project estimates for board approval before work begins.
