Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: May 28, 2020 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 6:00 PM Next Meeting: 6/11/2020 at 6:00PM Attendees: Name Present Name Present SBC – Voting Members SBC – Non Voting Members Kassandra Gove, Mayor/Chair  Christine Chabot Paul Fahey, Chief of Staff  Monique Griffin Peter Hoyt, School Committee  Lauri McAllister Jared Fulgoni, Superintendent  Bruce McBrien  Matt Bennett, Facilities Director  NV5 (OPM) Angel Wills, CFO  Tim Dorman  Shannon Nolan, AES Principal  Mike Ulichney  Lynn Catarius, Director, Student Services  DiNisco Design (Architect) Nick Wheeler, City Council  Donna DiNisco  Joseph Spencer  Vivian Low  Joan Liporto, Director of Finance & Ops  Caulen Finch Jim Shuttleworth  1. Call to Order o Kassandra Gove, Mayor of Amesbury, called the Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting to order at 6:03 PM. o Mayor Gove provided a statement regarding the ‘Executive Order Suspending Certain Provisions of the Open Meeting Law G.L. c.30A, §20’ signed on March 12, 2020 which allows for the meeting to be held online and broadcast by ACTV Channel 18. Public comments can be made by email to Mayor Gove or through the ACTV Facebook live stream (comments received have been attached to the meeting notes) o NV5 took roll call for attendance. o It was noted that Brendon Sullivan was not reappointed and his name can be removed from the list of non-voting members. Paul Fahey will confirm. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes o NV5 distributed the AESBC Meeting Minutes from the prior meeting held on April 23, 2020 as part of the meeting packet. 70 FARGO STREET, SUITE 800 | BOSTON, MA 02210 | WWW.NV5.COM | OFFICE 617.345.9885 | FAX 617.345.4226 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT - CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE - INFRASTRUCTURE - ENERGY - ENVIRONMENTAL  Page 2 of 5 o Vote: Motion by Peter Hoyt to approve the April 23, 2020 AESBC Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded by Nick Wheeler. Following a roll call vote, all members were in favor. 3. Approval of Commitments/Invoices o The following commitment was submitted for approval:  Planning Board Peer Review fee for Robert Puff, PE: $4,720 o Vote: Motion made by Peter Hoyt to approve the commitment of $4,720 for Planning Board Peer Review Funding. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. o The following invoices were submitted for approval:  NV5 Invoice #162946 - $42,000 (OPM CD Services April 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9273 - $245,000.00 (Designer CD Services April 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9274 - $2,004.75 (Stormwater Report & Soil Testing)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9276 - $320.65 (Legal Advertisement for the Planning Board Site Plan Review)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9281 - $5,032.50 (Traffic Consulting Services) o Vote: Motion made by Nick Wheeler to approve the warrant totaling $294,357.90. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. 4. Energy Committee Update o Vivian Low introduced Jim Shuttleworth, with DiNisco Design, members of the design team from the Green Engineer (TGE) including Chris Schaffner, Brad Newkirk, Anthony Hardman and Kevin Murphy who is the electrical engineer with TEC. o Tom Barrasso and representatives from the Amesbury Energy Committee (AEC) including Michael Browne and Jon Camp also joint the meeting for this discussion. o It was noted that the intent of the discussion is to review the follow up memo from the design team that was distributed earlier in the week in response to questions raised at the AEC meeting held in early March. o Brad Newkirk summarized each of the written responses and key points of the discussion included the following:  Screw Chiller: The AEC requested that the design team review the use of a screw chiller in lieu of the current scroll chiller design. TGE summarized the results of the lifecycle cost analysis which indicated that there would be a $41k cost premium for a similar screw chiller and a $64k cost premium for a higher efficiency screw chiller. Based on the annual energy savings, the payback would be 32-years and 67-years for each of the two alternatives. It was noted that the average life expectancy for the screw chillers would be approximately 20 to 25 years, which would not warrant the upgrade from a cost  Page 3 of 5 perspective. It was noted that the potential energy incentives are not likely to be significant enough to greatly impact the lifecycle cost analysis, but the rebate values will be confirmed with National Grid.  Air Infiltration Testing: AEC requested consideration of performing whole building air infiltration testing and review of the air tightness spec to see if it can be improved. The design team noted that commercial energy code doesn’t have an infiltration testing requirement and that it would be challenging to manage in a commercial building from a schedule perspective. It was concluded that additional review should be completed to confirm what the cost of testing would be, what the appropriate standard would be and what impacts it would have the project schedule and budget.  Future Photovoltaic Solar Canopies: The design team noted that the current project scope is designed to accommodate future rooftop PV. An electrical site plan was shared with the City to review with the AEC and/or Ameresco to coordinate any infrastructure needs if it is anticipated that PV canopies may be installed within the parking lot at some point. Tom noted that the biggest hurdle is the SMART program and would likely need to wait for SMART 2 or not connect to the grid and use for on site, which would limit the size of the array needed. There was discussion about provisions for battery storage and more information is needed regarding size as well as whether or not it would be incorporated into a PPA. It was noted that the intent of a battery is peak shaving, but it could also provide some backup power. However, a battery sized to power the building for a day would be massive. The City will review with Ameresco.  Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: TGE noted that the current design provides for 6 spaces, which is driven by the LEED goals. AEC would like to see more, but this would potentially require larger conduits. TEC noted that if more than 8 spaces are provided, a separate electrical service and pad mounted transformer would be required. It was concluded that adding a single conduit to the transformer for a separate service would provide the most flexibility for the future. Tom Barrasso will reach out to National Grid regarding EVCS. The following link was sent out to meeting attendees with additional information: https://www.nationalgridus.com/media/pdfs/bus-ways-to-save/ee7170- evchargingfactsheet4pager_ma-ri.pdf  Nick Wheeler questioned whether the sewer ejector could be added to the EMS. The design team indicated that it may already be on the list, but will review and confirm.  Mayor Gove thanked the AEC for their time and input. 5. Contractor Pre-Qualification o NV5 reviewed the Pre-Qualification process, summarized as follows:  The prequalification process provides for a process for the Awarding Authority to review General and Filed Sub-bid Subcontractor qualifications in advance of the bidding phase  Only those contractors who are prequalified can bid on the project  A pre-qualification committee composed of a representative of the OPM, Architect and two representatives of the Awarding Authority.  Page 4 of 5  The review criteria and scoring requirements are generally defined by statute, but with some flexibility for point allocation within each category including management experience, references, past public project experience and capacity.  Two representatives of the Awarding Authority will need to be appointed to the Pre- qualification Committee, which will involve participation in the review process with a few daytime meetings which will be held in August and early September.  Joe Spencer volunteered to participate as one of the Amesbury representatives.  NV5 will confirm if the representatives need to be on the building committee or if other staff could participate.  It was discussed that the second member can be confirmed at the June 11, 2020 AESBC meeting. 6. Schedule Summary o NV5 reviewed the overall project schedule, noting the Design Team is roughly halfway through the CD Phase, with the 60% CD cost estimate underway and reconciliation to follow over the next week in advance of the June 11, 2020 AESBC Meeting. o Given the many peer reviewers engaged by the Conservation Commission and Planning Board and timeframe for completing review and addressing comments, the permitting process appears to be extending beyond what was anticipated. o There is concern that the schedule for the early bid package will be further impacted. The project team is looking at opportunities to overlap the bidding/permitting process and further developing the SWPPP to mitigate the impacts. o NV5 reviewed the milestone and meeting schedule summary through the completion of the design and bid phase and it was noted that it is just a projection and will be updated as needed. 7. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on June 11, 2020, in order to coincide with the timing needed to review the 60% CD cost estimates and submit the 60% CD package to the MSBA on June 15th. 8. Other Business o Mayor Gove noted she will be joined by Jared Fulgoni tomorrow on a call with the MSBA regarding COVID-19 and how it with effect construction. o Mayor Gove requested that the design team provide a project update to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. It was noted that the agenda for the June meeting is due on Monday with the meeting on June 9th. o Nick Wheeler noted that he has received comments from abutters regarding stormwater management and confirmed that this is being reviewed as part of the Conservation Commission Notice of Intent Public Hearing process. It was noted by the project team the issue regarding the existing flooding was reviewed by DPW and confirmed that the AES Project site is a relatively  Page 5 of 5 small contributor to the overall watershed and that the problem is associated with the existing downstream culvert capacity, causing a bottle neck. However, the project is being design to meet or exceed the Stormwater Regulations which requires mitigating stormwater on site and will not worsen the existing issue. o It was discussed that it would also be helpful to schedule a meeting with abutters to review site logistics and address questions and concerns. Nick will reach out to the abutters and schedule a meeting. o Peter Hoyt noted the AESBC’s continued goal of working as open and transparent as possible working toward the goal of getting the best result for the community. 9. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Nick Wheeler to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey and following a roll call vote, it passed unanimously. -End of Minutes- These meeting minutes were prepared by NV5. Please notify NV5 within 48 hours of receipt of this document regarding any required corrections or clarifications. Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee May 28, 2020 Public Comment from Facebook Steve Stanganelli PUBLIC COMMENT - The newly constituted SBC has been doing a good job being transparent. But the last SBC was not and with fluid membership took votes that may have violated Open Meeting Law. But like anything else with this project, all process but no responsibility. Steve Stanganelli PUBLIC CPMMENT - The time to have input from Abutters is before the dirt is moved. There are several families. Not just one. And there remains the issues about cost for sewer extensions, the added cost for surface and groundwater mitigation, and how, if at all, this plan jives with the City's Sustainability Report - especially with the disturbance of Woodsom Farms. Billie McLane PUBLIC COMMENT-that land is WET. Has always been. I find it hard to believe that culvert on Friend St is the cause Billie McLane PUBLIC COMMENT-the concern is more than trailers