Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: June 11, 2020 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 6:00 PM Next Meeting: July 23, 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 6:02 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. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes o NV5 distributed the AESBC Meeting Minutes from the prior meeting held on May 28, 2020 as part of the meeting packet. o Vote: Motion by Nick Wheeler to approve the May 28, 2020 AESBC Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt. Following a roll call vote, all members were in favor. 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 4 3. Approval of Commitments/Invoices o The following invoices were submitted for approval:  NV5 Invoice #165652 - $42,000 (OPM CD Services May 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9290 - $245,000.00 (Designer CD Services May 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9291 - $1,630.75 (Stormwater Report & Soil Testing) o Vote: Motion made by Peter Hoyt to approve the warrant totaling $288,630.75. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. o Angel Wills noted that the project costs to date are $2,662,598 (not including the invoices approved at this meeting) and the MSBA reimbursed funds to date totals $1,093,611. o Vivian Low asked to clarify a statement made by DiNisco at the previous AESBC Meeting regarding an abutting property owner. She noted the statement was intended to clarify that the project team had met with the Aponas family and had addressed the concerns that had been raised regarding fencing, screening and site lighting, but not to imply they are in full support of the project. 4. 60% CD Cost Estimate Review o NV5 provided a summary of the 60% cost estimate reconciliation process and a summary of the results, noting the following key points:  Two separate costs estimates were completed. One by the Architect’s cost estimator and one by the OPM’s cost estimator.  The estimates were reconciled to confirm clear understanding of scope, consistency in where costs are assigned and opportunities to incorporate cost efficiencies.  The final estimates were within less than a 0.5% variance, which is considered very well reconciled estimates.  Based on the Architect’s estimate, the base scope is under the PFA budget by about $47k.  It was noted that even though the base scope is on budget, a list of VE items and add alternates was identified to both ensure the design is as cost effective as possible while meeting programmatic needs and quality standards and to provide options as the design progresses. o The VE items were reviewed as follows:  Hold items were identified as asphalt sidewalk ILO concrete at new exit road, eliminate irrigation and abuse resistant GWB ILO remaining tile at stairs. These items were recommended not to be incorporated into the design at this stage, but to remain on the list as possible opportunities if needed at 90% CD phase.  Page 3 of 4  Recommended items to accept include changing the pavers to colored concrete at the main entrance plaza area and providing 2-feet rigid insulation at the slab perimeter. These items result in a net savings of $23,540. o The two alternates were also discussed and it was noted that these are items which could continue to be broken out from the base scope and bid as add alternates so that a decision could be made based on actual bid results. These items include the following:  Provide ware wash machine in room #009, which is estimated to cost $44,946; and  Provide provisions for future all electric kitchen, which is estimated to cost $18,766.  The question was asked regarding what the sanitation approach would be without the ware wash machine. It was clarified that the current approach is to use disposable trays, which would continue without a ware wash.  It was also noted that the provisions for a future all electric kitchen include the pathways and panel capacity only. If the switchover to electric occurs in the future, cabling would need to be pulled, gas lines cut off and the transformer would need to be evaluated to confirm capacity. The capacity of the transformer can be reviewed with the utility company. o It was noted that the cost per square foot is typical for similar building types/sizes and that site costs are highly variable based on specifics of each site regarding soil conditions, availability of utilities, etc. This project doesn’t have complicated phasing, which benefits the overall cost and helps to offset other costs. o Vote: Peter Hoyt made a motion to submit the 60% CD Package to the MSBA, incorporating the recommended Value Engineering items. The motion was seconded by Nick Wheeler, and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously (Angel Wills did not vote due to technical difficulties). 5. Update on Design, Permitting and Schedule o The peer review process is still ongoing. o The next Planning Board meeting was noted as June 22nd which would just be a brief update and the Conservation Commission is scheduled for July 6th. o It was noted that approvals would be needed by late summer in order to hold the current schedule for the early site enabling bid package. o The design is progressing to the 90% CD milestone, which is scheduled to be complete in September. 6. Contractor Pre-Qualification o As a follow up to the discussion on pre-qualification at the last meeting, NV5 noted that Joe Spencer has volunteered to serve on the Pre-Qualification Committee as one of the two required representatives of the Awarding Authority. o Mayor Gove recommended Peter Manor to serve as the second representative.  Page 4 of 4 o Vote: A motion was made by Nick Wheeler to appoint Joe Spencer and Peter Manor to the Prequalification Committee. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. 7. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on July 23, 2020. 8. Other Business o Mayor Gove noted upcoming meeting conflicts with School Committee meetings occurring during Planning Board and Conservation Commission meetings. The meeting schedule summary will be sent out for AESBC members to sign up for meetings they are able to attend. Nick Wheeler noted that he is planning to attend both the upcoming Planning Board and Conservation Commission meetings. o Nick noted that he received a question from one of the School Committee members on ongoing maintenance costs including HVAC, stormwater, pervious pavement, landscaping, bussing, etc. It was noted that these costs will need to be accounted for in operating budgets and that an Implementation Committee is being established to review operational and district wide issues. o In response to a question it was noted that DPW is working on implementing the sidewalk extension on Lion’s Mouth Road as a separate project, but utilizing $40k of funding earmarked from the AES Project contingency. o The new playground areas were discussed and DiNisco noted that the surfaces surrounding the play structures are proposed to be rubberized while the other area is asphalt. The asphalt area also serves as emergency vehicle access and can’t be planted with trees. o Peter Hoyt noted the news story that ran today in the daily news regarding the City receiving bonding for the project and thanked the Mayor, Angel and Jared for their comments. 9. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Paul Fahey to adjourn the meeting at 7:11 PM. The motion was seconded by Nick Wheeler 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. AES School Building Committee – June 11, 2020 Public Comment from Facebook Nanette Masi PUBLIC COMMENT: It doesn't appear that the public is allowed to speak during this meeting. Can commenters expect their comments will be read aloud as part of the public hearing record? Lyndsey Firneno Haight PUBLIC COMMENT: Can I ask for more details regarding water mitigation for the neighborhood downstream? It is my understanding that this is part of the ConComm review, but it is a concern that there is no contingency plan in the cost projections if plans need to be put in place to alter the site plan to remedy flooding downstream. It is my impression that this issue has been minimized in this process. There is plenty of time before the August Con Comm meeting for this subcommittee to be prepared to address this potentially project-halting issue. I would hate to see it ignored only to result in major damage and responsibility of the city to make whole Amesbury residents who have lost their property when it could have been addresses and prevented. Dan Ouellet Public comment: In regards to dealing with traffic increase at the intersection of Lions Mouth Rd, Highland St and Friend St what is the plan and costs associated with dealing with this? This also involves the entrance to Amesbury High School. Patricia Bradley Theriault Public comment: All Abutters should be invited to that site walk. Billie McLane Public Comment: can we get a cost of equipment and maintenance for porous pavement and longevity of the pavement? Steve Stanganelli PUBLIC COMMENT: If time is of the essence and was the motivating factor for having a special election three weeks before our regular election at an added cost to taxpayers of $15,000, then why are we expected to go into pre- construction in October and not July/August as we were told as the need for the special election date? Dan Ouellet Public comment, the sidewalk that the city has now agreed to build to connect to existing one will that be built prior to school opening? Nanette Masi Public comment: could we get a cost for the retrofitting of the Cashman School to Gr. 3-5? Mel Webster Public comment: could we get a cost for the sidewalk the city is planning to install along Lions Mouth? Thank you. Billie McLane Public Comment: I appreciate Nick Wheeler’s question/comment although I’m not sure it was answered completely. What is the comparison of site costs to AES site and CES?i heard Nick say $8.1m fir CES. What was the cost breakdown at AES? Patricia Bradley Theriault Public comment: The site issues are cost and impact to the surrounding area. We don’t have a comparison with the AES site. We need a cost comparison with stormwater management and wetland delineation between the two. Mel Webster Public comment/question related to irrigation. Before making a decision on this item, which is costly, can we determine whether it will be used after the first year in order to get everything growing in? In addition, can we get an idea as to what the water costs will be to run the irrigation system. I understand the desire to have the initial landscaping blossom and grow, but that can be done without irrigation (though definitely not as easily) Dan Ouellet Public comment, what is the longevity of the outdoor play surface? What is the initial cost and what would be the replacement cost ? Nanette Masi PUBLIC COMMENT: Dear Members of the School Building Committee, A $60 million school at the Cashman site adds a heavy tax burden, especially during uncertain times. Local, state and federal budgets are shrinking from a worldwide pandemic. Moving the site to the existing AES site removes as-yet untallied additional burdens of rebuilding lighted ball fields and a snack shack on Woodsom Farm, retrofitting the Cashman School for Grades 3-5, upgrading traffic intersections, adding sidewalks, paying for annual specialized maintenance of permeable parking lots, paying for 7+ acre of stormwater solutions and the associated longterm maintenance, replacing the $200,000 rubber-lined playground surface every 10 years, etc. You, as school building committee members, have an opportunity to significantly reduce that burden. At the same time, you can still provide a state-of-the art school on a timely schedule without having to submit a new state application. Building at the existing AES site doesn’t come with these expenses. Taking just four straightforward steps removes $$$ millions of unnecessary dollars from taxpayer pockets, yet still provides a state-of-the-art school appropriate for young children on a timely schedule. You, as city leaders, may reverse the previous steps taken under the current application and approved by the state soon after the architect was hired. The steps listed below allow a state-funded, far less costly state-of-the-art school project constructed on a timely schedule. The state stands to gain millions of dollars in cost savings by approving those same amendments a second time; savings that can fund other school projects, especially as state revenues shrink due to the pandemic. The state also prefers reusing previously constructed sites. 1. School Committee vote to return the grade configuration to neighborhood-only (K-4). In state terms, “district-only” vs. “district-wide.” 2. Request state approval to Amend the Eligibility to allow the grade configuration change. 3. Request state approval to Amend the Feasibility Study allowing a K-4 district-only solution. 4. Present the state with a preferred K-4 school design at the existing AES site for far less cost. How can the project be redirected in a timely manner? Eligibility and Feasibility amendments may requested and approved simultaneously (as they were in 2018-19), an AES site design and cost analysis would occur concurrently, and prepared for state approval. The previous city survey showing two-thirds of citizens prefer an existing site solution, as well as a new city-wide petition supporting the change can convince the state a change is well-supported. Citizens have already voted to pay for a debt exclusion for a school. It’s in the state’s best interests to save millions, by moving the site and significantly reducing the size., especially as state funding shrinks due to the pandemic. Deborah Dudley Harris Public comment: Before you put another building at the Cashman Elementary School, we need to take a very good look at what is going on in the CES building. I was on the committee to fix the CES building and I have to tell you I am very disappointed with the lack of proper maintenance that has NOT been maintained on this building as was promised. You have mold growing in this school again, and we have leaks again. We have teachers and students in this sick building, when will we as a town, take care of what we have before we build another building. Thank you for your time.