Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: September 17, 2020 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 6:00 PM Next Meeting: October 22, 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  Lauri McAllister Peter Hoyt, School Committee  Bruce McBrien  Jared Fulgoni, Superintendent  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. o NV5 took roll call for attendance. 2. Public Comments o No comments were submitted in advance of the meeting. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes o NV5 distributed the AESBC Meeting Minutes from the prior meeting held on August 27, 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 4 o Vote: Motion by Joseph Spencer to approve the August 27, 2020 AESBC Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey. The vote passed with unanimous consent. 4. Approval of Commitments/Invoices o The following invoices were submitted for approval:  NV5 Invoice #178025 - $52,000.00 (OPM CD Services August 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9332 - $245,000.00 (Designer CD Services August 2020)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9334 - $638.44.00 (Geotech Consulting)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9335 - $9,042.00 (LSP Consulting)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9333 - $770.00 (Environmental Consulting)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9336 - $9,839.50 (ConComm & Planning Board – Design & Review Additional Documents) o Vote: Motion made by Peter Hoyt to approve the warrant totaling $317,289.94. The motion was seconded by Jared Fulgoni and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. o The following commitment was submittal for Approval:  Printing costs for bid document printing. This commitment utilizes $20,000 from the Advertising & Printing Budget. Three proposals were received, and ProjectDog was determined to be the most cost effective based on estimated quantities of hard copies of bid documents that may be requested. The actual cost will vary but will be based on the proposed unit prices and quantities required. o Vote: Motion made by Nick Wheeler to approve committing $20,000 from the Advertising & Printing Budget to fund the initial not to exceed value for printing and distribution of bid documents through ProjectDog. The motion was seconded by Peter Hoyt and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. 5. 90% CD Cost Estimate and Value Engineering Review o NV5 reviewed the cost estimate summary comparing the two independent cost estimates as well as the PFA budget. The following key points were highlighted by NV5 and the design team:  The two estimates have been reconciled and have less than a 0.5% variance between each other.  The 90% CD estimate exceeds the PFA budget by $226,937.  One of the primary reasons for the larger variances between individual line items in the 90% CD estimate and the PFA Budget is due to the fact that as the design progresses to a greater level of detail, the design and pricing contingency is reduced and the scope is captured in the actual estimated costs.  The presence of arsenic in the soil was determined since the last estimate, which has added a significant cost for disposal of the excess soil. This added soil disposal cost  Page 3 of 4 impacts a few different line items including Foundations, Site Earthwork and Storm Sewer and is the primary reason for the 90% CD estimate coming in over budget.  NV5 presented a comparison to the 60% CD estimate to demonstrate the point regarding the contingency being a primary driver for the variance between the 90% CD estimate and the PFA budget as the 90% CD and 60% CD estimate variances are much smaller. o Value Engineering  The project team developed a list of value engineering opportunities to ensure the project design is cost effective and outline a recommended strategy to keep the cost estimate on budget.  It was noted that the recommended value engineering items are intended to reduce cost without impacting the program requirements or quality.  The recommended VE list was individually presented with a description and graphics to clarify the scope of each item.  Mr. Wheeler raised concerns regarding eliminating the EV charging station and asked if 2-3 trees could be added back into the design.  Mr. McBrien asked if the plan can keep the deleted tree locations open so they can be planted in the future as intended if funds become available. He also noted that the roof garden would have been beneficial to the STEM program.  (Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Fahey and Ms. Wills left the meeting at 7pm)  The sign wall was discussed and it was noted that it is needed as a barrier to prevent vehicles from driving into the pedestrian plaza area at the front entrance, however the signage is redundant and could be eliminated for a cost savings. It was agreed that adding elimination of sign wall lettering should be included on the VE list and deletion of trees should be eliminated from the VE list as a tradeoff.  Following discussion on the item eliminating the conduit for the future ADA EV charging station, it was agreed that this item should remain on the VE list but also be included as an add alternate so that it can be added back into the scope if bids come in under budget. o Vote: Motion made by Mr. Benntt to accept the recommended VE list as modified during the meeting and include the EV charging station on the alternates list. The motion was seconded by Mr. Spencer and following a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously by all members present (Angel Wills, Paul Fahey and Nick Wheeler not present). 6. Update on Design, Permitting and Schedule o The design team provided an update on the progress in completing the additional modeling and revising the design to address comments from the Planning Board and Conservation Commission peer review consultants. It was noted that the mounding analysis has taken even longer to complete as it is an iterative process, but is being finalized with the goal of submitting the updated package by the week of September 28th.  Page 4 of 4 o Based on the anticipated submission schedule, the peer reviewers will not have had enough time to review in advance of the October 5th Conservation Commission meeting, so the NOI Public Hearing will be continued to the November 2nd meeting. o The Meeting Milestone Schedule was updated and distributed. If permitting is complete by early December, the intent it to go out for bid on December 9th with bids due January 13, 2021. Assuming a 21 month construction schedule and 2 month period for FF&E the building may be ready for occupancy for January 2023. o It was discussed that a special meeting of the Conservation Commission may be helpful to expediting issuance of the Order of Conditions since they Commission only meets once per month. This will be reviewed once there is feedback on the peer reviewers’ timeframes to determine if it would make sense. 7. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on October 22, 2020. 8. Other Business o None 9. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Mr. Bennett to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt. The motion passed by unanimous consent. -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. Value Management & Scope Summary Value Engineering / Scope Modification Items Recommend Hold Asphalt Sidewalk ILO Concrete at New Exit Road ($24,653) Eliminate Irrigation ($133,375) Abuse Resistant GWB ILO of Remaining Tile @ Stair B & C walls ($35,194) Eliminate cheek wall at site stairs ($29,779) Replace precast sign panel with stone veneer (at entry site wall) ($2,707) Reduce playground pavement paint by 1,700 SF ($3,835) Eliminate irrigation at plant beds (keep only at lawn areas) ($14,438) Eliminate conduit to future ADA EV charging station (ADD ALTERNATE) ($3,610) Straight pedestrian bridge ILO tapered bridge ($11,280) Eliminate all aluminum trim fins at brick facade ($36,547) Brick (Ironspot) ILO metal panel at gym bump outs ($7,851) Eliminate Stair C East curtainwall (5’x35’), replace w/ metal panel infill ($6,317) Reduce Stair C West curtainwall by one bay (3’x35’), replace w/ metal panel infill ($3,790) Reduce Gym curtainwall at east elevation (3’x4’) & eliminate at north elevation (4’x27’), infill w/ metal panel ($3,898) Eliminate green roof trays (Change doors to windows, add stone ballast, eliminate parapet, add typ roof edge) ($33,276) Reduce main office storefront by 50% ($2,893) Eliminate clerestory between PT & Corridor ($8,037) Reduce clerestory between EL & Title 1 by 50% ($4,822) Reduce ceramic tile in stairs B & C to floor landing only ($16,751) Eliminate hand dryers, GC to install Owner provided paper towel dispensers ($22,507) Reduce lobby display cases by 50% ($8,460) Reduce main lobby bench by 50% ($3,948) Reduce length of Media Center circulation desk by 2' ($2,820) Total Value Engineering / Scope Modification Items ($227,566) ($193,222) 5