Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: July 23, 2020 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 6:00 PM Next Meeting: August 27, 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 6:01 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). The meeting was recorded to address any lapse in live feed connection. 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 June 11, 2020 as part of the meeting packet. o Vote: Motion by Peter Hoyt to approve the June 11, 2020 AESBC Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded by Jared Fulgoni. 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 5 3. Approval of Commitments/Invoices o The following invoices were submitted for approval:  NV5 Invoice #170458 - $40,000 (OPM CD Services June 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9301 - $245,000.00 (Designer CD Services June 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9302 - $1,083.50 (Stormwater Report & Soil Testing)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9303 - $9,168.78 (Geotechnical Consulting Services)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9304 - $682.00 (Traffic Consulting Services)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9305 - $4,486.63 (Additional Soil Testing)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9306 - $2,579.50 (Environmental Consulting Services) o Vote: Motion made by Peter Hoyt to approve the warrant totaling $303,000.41. The motion was seconded by Matt Bennett and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. o NV5 reviewed commitments, which included the following items:  Conservation Commission and PB Peer Review Fee Funds (for additional services as required): $20,000.00  DiNisco Design Amendment No. 4 (Additional analysis and design revision per PB/ConCom Review): $100,855.00 o It was noted that approximately $30,000 has already been committed for the five peer reviewers, with approximately $11,000 currently pending for additional service requests related to technical review meetings and re-review of updated documents. The vote to approve the commitment was deferred until after the update on design, permitting and schedule. 4. Update on Design, Permitting and Schedule o There have been (4) working group meetings in addition to the Neighbors’ Meeting since the last AESBC meeting:  COVID Considerations & FF&E  Playground Update  Feature Wall & Technology Equipment Review  Follow up Technology & Infrastructure Discussion o COVID Considerations/Building Infrastructure  Several strategies for addressing COVID-19 provisions were discussed. Some items can be implemented at any time while others would be best to be incorporated in the design and included in the 90% CD cost estimate update at the end of August if desired.  Page 3 of 5  Potential HVAC provisions intended to stop spread of the virus in the air include:  Bipolar ionization (installed in ductwork)  UV-C light installed in ductwork supply  HEPA filters  Bipolar Ionization was identified to be the most effective and compatible with the current design.  Plumbing  Sensor faucets in lieu of manual levers in classrooms were discussed, however it was noted that there would be a significant cost and operational issues with the sink types would need to be addressed.  Floor Plans were reviewed indicating potential locations for sanitizer stations, surfaces and microbicidal paint. It was noted that since we already have extensive tile in corridors and restrooms, there’s minimal opportunity for microbicidal paint.  Typical classroom layout was reviewed to show potential density and furniture layout to accommodate social distancing as well as sneeze guards for desks and teacher station. o An overview of FF&E was provided and it was noted that this will be ongoing as the procurement won’t happen until next year. o An update on the playground design was reviewed. It was noted that shade structures are being incorporated within the current budget. o The feature Wall (Main Lobby) design progress was reviewed. It was noted that the approach has been reviewed with the Carriage Museum, including programs for younger kids where similar graphics could be incorporated. A more illustrative map may be available from the museum. The design team is continuing to review with fabricators and museum designer. o A summary of the discussion at the recently held Neighborhood meeting was discussed. Key topics included trailer location and phasing overview. o Permitting Update/Peer Review Summary Items  The Project Team met with the Conservation Commission on July 6th, with the intent of getting feedback on more significant peer review comments which drive building location. The Commission wasn’t receptive to discussion without having a complete resubmission to the Peer Reviewers. However, it was made clear that they interpret their regulations to define roadways as structures and therefore not allowed in the 50-foot buffer zone without obtaining a waiver. The Commission was also clear that they are deferring to the peer reviewers so the focus should be on addressing their comments.  Based on the feedback from the Commission, the intent is to shift the building and roadway which will move the roadway outside of the 50’ buffer zone and eliminate need for that waiver, which would require a unanimous vote.  Page 4 of 5  The other main issues to address include:  Drainage work inside the 25’ buffer on Cashman side of the site will also require a waiver for the temporary disturbance. The wetlands peer reviewer indicated that this would not be a significant issue given that the buffer is not of significant value and agreed that the best approach to mitigate would be to improve the buffer area with native plantings.  Invasive species mitigation will be reviewed but it was agreed that there would be limited success given the extent and the outfalls are no longer proposed to be replaced within the wetland area.  The two stormwater peer reviews require some additional analysis, including: o Mounding analysis required to confirm each infiltration area will work comprehensively. o Increase watershed area: Large portion of Lion’s mouth road and behind Cashman are outside of the project limits and do not change from pre- and post-development, the peer reviewers asked that they be included in the model. o Due to the nature of the comments, a complete new Stormwater Report is required to respond.  It was noted that shifting the building has a design cost and schedule impact, but should generally be cost neutral.  It was noted that approximately $26,500 of the additional services are related to shifting the building and roadway with another major component of the cost being the mounding analysis.  The question of whether the mounding analysis is necessary was raised. It was noted that the peer reviewers interpret that it is necessary under the stormwater regulations for two of the infiltration areas and that it will be beneficial to providing an even stronger conclusion that there will be no downstream impact if done for all areas.  It was discussed that completing the mounding analysis and shifting the roadway outside the 50-foot buffer should put the project in a better position to receive approvals or to respond to any appeals, should they occur.  It was noted that under the updated schedule, there is limited benefit to an early site package as the final design will now be complete earlier than the permitting. Award may be quicker for an early site package to expedite commencing work by a few weeks, but both scenarios push the earliest school opening to January 2023 so the complications of an early site package no longer appear warranted. o Vote: Peter Hoyt made a motion to approve the proposed commitments totaling $120,855. The motion was seconded by Nick Wheeler. Following a roll call vote, all members present were in favor (Paul Fahey was not present at the time of the vote).  Page 5 of 5 5. Community Petition/Public Hearing Update o Mayor Gove read the Citizen Petition and advised that the required public hearing will be a joint meeting of the City Council and School Committee and will take place in Landry Stadium at 10:00 AM on Saturday 8/1/2020. It was noted that this hearing will be open to the public and the Building Committee members were encouraged to attend. 6. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on August 27, 2020. 7. Other Business o Public questions were discussed as follows:  Question regarding why the gym flooring is proposed to be a wood as opposed to rubber: It was noted that the wood flooring allows the gym to be used by the adult leagues and JV/Varsity sports. There is currently a shortage of suitable space to accommodate all practice and competitive play and this will provide the City will a valuable resource.  Question regarding gym equipment: The equipment provided in the project scope was summarized to include electrically operated projection screen and permanently mounted projector, dividing net, regulation basketball courts, stanchions for volleyball, scoreboard, small sets of bleachers and climbing wall. Some items are intended to accommodate community and JV/varsity sports so that the space can be used as an overall district and community resource. o AES Implementation Advisory Committee: Mayor Gove provided an overview of the School Committee’s intent to establish a committee to review the district wide impacts and planning related to the new Amesbury Elementary School. This committee will address resulting changes in other schools, operating budget, policy, etc. The appointees haven’t been made yet, but it was noted that the school department experts will be heavily involved. 8. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Joseph Spencer to adjourn the meeting at 7:29 PM. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt. Following a roll call vote, all members present were in favor (Nick Wheeler and Paul Fahey were not present at the time of the vote). -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 Building Committee – July 23, 2020 Public Comments from Facebook Lisa Taylor Public comment: how will the actual construction work impact if Covid regulations are still being upheld? (now carpenters, electricians, drywall etc cannot all be in a tight space working together) also a specific Covid person is typically on site making sure all is being monitored. More time =more $. how is that being looked at? Steve Stanganelli PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Stanganelli, 12 Amidon Ave: Clarification question - What is the cost of moving the building and the site preparation costs? And these costs are not covered by the MSBA, correct? Steve Stanganelli PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Stanganelli, 12 Amidon Ave.: What is the cost estimate for maintenance of retaining walls? Over time one might expect that these walls may begin to fail. Mel Webster Public comment: given we were told a year ago that if we did not vote in October we would be facing a $150,000 cost for each month’s delay, how much is this going to cost the city? Steve Stanganelli PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Stanganelli, 12 Amidon Ave.: I second the sentiments expressed by SC Member Webster. From what I have seen at this meeting and at ConCom and PB, the project professionals keep blaming the City. It's their job to know the rules and prepare for exigencies. ConCom and PB are doing their job. NV5 and Denisco should know how to do theirs with the peer review process. Michael Hogg public comment do we have a volleyball program/teams in town? Susan Nachtygal Public comment- are there any bathrooms/ locker rooms included for use of this gym?