Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: August 27, 2020 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 6:00 PM Next Meeting: September 17, 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. o NV5 took roll call for attendance. 2. Public Comments o It was noted that Public Comments will be a standing item on each meeting agenda and comments received will be read and become part of the meeting record. o No comments were submitted in advance of the meeting. 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 6 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes o NV5 distributed the AESBC Meeting Minutes from the prior meeting held on July 23, 2020 as part of the meeting packet. o Vote: Motion by Peter Hoyt to approve the July 23, 2020 AESBC Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded by Jared Fulgoni. Following a roll call vote, all members were in favor and the motion passed. 4. Approval of Commitments/Invoices o The following invoices were submitted for approval:  NV5 Invoice #174347 - $52,000.00 (OPM CD Services July 2020)  NV5 Invoice #174347 – $16,000.00 (60% CD Cost Estimate)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9319 - $245,000.00 (Designer CD Services July 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9320 - $2,200.00 (Surveying Services)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9321 - $4,048.00 (Wetland Consulting)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9322 - $21,125.00 (MA LSP (NTE))  DiNisco Design Invoice #9323 - $1,178.14 (ConComm & Planning Board – Design Review and Additional Documents (NTE))  North of Boston Media Group Invoice #11135307 - $331.25 (Legal Ad for Prequalification) o Vote: Motion made by Paul Fahey to approve the warrant totaling $341,882.89. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. o The following commitment was submittal for Approval:  RSV Associates - $1,750.00 (Structural Peer Review Services) to be funded from the Other Project Costs budget line item.  It was noted that Structural Peer Review is no longer a code requirement, however it is an MSBA requirement.  Proposals were received from four qualified firms with RSV having the lowest fee. o Vote: Motion made by Peter Hoyt to approve the commitment for RSV Associated to perform the Structural Peer Review Services totaling $1,750. The motion was seconded by Nick Wheeler and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously.  Page 3 of 6 5. Update on Design, Permitting and Schedule o DiNisco provided an overview of the working group meeting on colors and finishes update.  One material change was noted in the main lobby with the porcelain tile wainscot. DiNisco has elected a tile used on another project because the originally selected tile had been discontinued.  Images of the color Boards were reviewed. These are images of the physical boards, which will be delivered to the School Department for anyone to review in person as shades can vary from how they appear on screen.  The main lobby materials and colors were reviewed.. A question was raised regarding durability of the phenolic extending inside along the gym wall. It was noted that this is a dense material with laminate that should hold up well in this location in conjunction with the porcelain tile.  The gym materials and colors were reviewed, including maple athletic floor and GFCMU walls up to 12’ which is maintenance free. Using shades of blue for bleachers and wall pads. Will add some color on Amesbury project at upper panels.  Second floor lobby will have some color with shapes. A portion of the wall outside the media center to be painted with whiteboard paint.  Media Center materials and colors were reviewed. This is one of the few carpeted areas and two options were reviewed for carpet colors, including a neutral gray or blue tone for more color inside the space. The blue tone was generally preferred. Physical samples will be provided.  The overall color concept was discussed, which is intended to provide a subtle wayfinding by incorporating accent colors by level. The ground floor is aqua for ocean, the middle floor is green for land/trees and the upper floor will be blue for sky.  The tile feature wall in the cafeteria was reviewed. The design includes a hex tile pattern with 8”x8” tile size. A few variations on pattern and grouping of the three different colors have been developed. The contract documents specify the level of complexity owned in the base scope but we will need to confirm which option when more feedback is provided.  The academic area was reviewed including wall tile and linoleum tile flooring patterns and colors.  Councilor Wheeler asked a question clarifying the Project Area finishes. It was noted that these areas are linoleum flooring throughout. The only carpet is in the media center and main admin offices and conference room. The kitchen and servery is quarry tile. The project area side is of the partitions is whiteboard and the corridor side is tack board.  DiNisco noted that the interactive feature wall design is progressing, working with sign companies on detailing and with John Mayer of the Amesbury Carriage Museum on graphics/map backgrounds appropriate to school aged kids.  Page 4 of 6  Mayor Gove noted that the feature walls on each floor may provide an opportunity to tie the art in with the overall accent color concept of water, land and sky. It was noted that before going out to bid there will be more meetings to go over the graphics. Peter likes the idea of having murals by local artist John Moore. He did the murals in the current AES.  A link will be sent out for interested AESBC members to download the complete 90% CD set for review. o Permitting: The design team is finalizing the mounding analysis and updates to resubmit the permitting package in the next couple weeks. The next Planning Board meeting is expected to be in late September and Conservation Commission in early October pending peer reviewers re- review timeframe. o Schedule:  NV5 reviewed the project milestone summary  Cost estimates complete next week, followed by cost reconciliation on 9/8/20  The focus of the 9/17/20 Building Committee meeting will be to approve submitting the 90% CD package with recommended VE items to the MSBA  11/2/20 is the currently anticipated completion of Conservation Commission and Planning Board Site Plan review, with the goal of issuing the request for bids in mid-November.  The earliest construction start would be January 2021, with the overall completion in fall of 2022 for a target occupancy by January 2023 6. Prequalification Update o The register of responders was included in the packet, listing all of the submissions received for GCs and each File Sub-bid Trade. There is good coverage across the board, but with the usual exception of the elevators trade. o Only two elevator contractors responded. As three are required, this trade will be re-advertised for a second RFQ. If no additional submission are received, then all submission will be rejected and the elevator trade category will not require pre-qualification. o Currently undergoing review process through the end of September. Much of this time will be spent contacting references. 7. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on September 17, 2020.  Page 5 of 6 8. Other Business o Mayor Gove and Councilor Wheeler provided a summary of the recent meeting with abutters. Design related questions focused on the stormwater management and on site traffic circulation. o It was noted that under the current design, AES vehicles can only exit the site by way of the new road through Woodsom Farm during the pickup and drop off times. This restriction is enforced by traffic signage and will also need to be further reinforced at the operational level. o We had a site logistics meeting in March with both Cashman and AES Principals, the Superintendent to review site circulation during construction phases and in the final configuration. An additional meeting would be helpful with the working group, principals and DPW to go over final configuration again. o Councilor Wheeler noted that traffic backs up now and asked whether or not there will be improvement. The design team noted that the queueing was reviewed and that the layout was developed to improve traffic that backs up now. o The AES Implementation Committee will be discussed at the School Committee meeting in September. A teacher and parent from each school will be included to complete the group and they will begin meeting. o The grant for complete streets funding for the intersection at Friend Street/Highland Street was noted. There is a public hearing with the DPW director scheduled for that project. o Baseball fields project is progressing separately. It was noted that the Conservation Commission was expected to vote on the ANRAD at last meeting. The little league lost this season due to COVID 19 and will not have use of the existing fields next year based on the expected January 2021 groundbreaking for the AES Project. o Arsenic in soil update:  Soil chemical testing was done to help refine the soil management scope of work for project and mitigate risks of encountering unforeseen conditions during construction.  Most samples came back with elevated arsenic levels. The City of Amesbury is in a naturally occurring arsenic belt. The project LSP reviewed with DEP and completed a risk assessment and additional sampling. The additional samples were taken in undisturbed areas to verify the conclusion that the arsenic is naturally occurring. Generally the arsenic levels inside ball field was lower. Additional testing came in showing that all of the samples exceeded reportable levels (close to wetland). The sampling aligns with the conclusion that this is all background/existing site conditions. Once all results are received the LSP will provide an updated opinion letter.  Council Wheeler asked for clarification on how this soil conditions impacts the project. It was noted that the risk assessment found no immediate threat. During construction the material will need to be managed more carefully to prevent dust. Material leaving the site will need to be disposed of at an appropriate facility and on site will need to have a clean cover layer. It is expected that the existing ballfield top soil can remain on site for reuse.  The updated soil information has been provided to the cost estimators so that they can account for added handling and disposal costs in the 90% cost estimate.  Page 6 of 6 9. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Nick Wheeler to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 PM. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt. Following a roll call vote, all members present were in favor and the motion passed. -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.