Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee

Amesbury Elementary School Building Committee (AESBC) Meeting Minutes Date: December 17, 2020 Location: Virtual Meeting Time: 6:00 PM Next Meeting: January 28, 2021 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  Matt Bennett, Facilities Director  Angel Wills, CFO  NV5 (OPM) Shannon Nolan, AES Principal Tim Dorman  Lynn Catarius, Director, Student Services  Tom Murphy Nick Wheeler, City Council  DiNisco Design (Architect) Joseph Spencer  Donna DiNisco Joan Liporto, Director of Finance & Ops  Vivian Low  Elizabeth McAndrews, Superintendent  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 6:04 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 or via the Facebook live stream. 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes o Angel Wills and Nick Wheeler joined the meeting at 6:10 PM 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 NV5 distributed the AESBC Meeting Minutes from the prior meeting held on November 19, 2020 as part of the meeting packet. o Vote: Motion by Peter Hoyt to approve the November 19, 2020 AESBC Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded by Matt Bennett and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. 4. Approval of Commitments/Invoices o It was noted that the Planning Board voted to waive all but $500 of the original Site Plan Review application fee. DiNisco had cut a check for the original fee from the other additional services allowance, however the Planning Board did not deposited it. o The following invoices were submitted for approval:  DiNisco Design Invoice #9377 - $10,200.00 (Additional Peer Review Fees)  DiNisco Design Invoice #9378 - $907.81 (Geotech Consulting Services) o Vote: Motion made by Nick Wheeler to approve the warrant totaling $11,107.81. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey and following a roll call vote, passed unanimously. 5. Update on Design, Permitting and Schedule o An update on the design and permitting process was provided, which is summarized as follows:  The Peer Review process is ongoing and a third round of comments has been issued.  A peer review workshop was held on 11/17 with Stantec, Bob Puff and BSC Group and a separate traffic workshop was held on December 1st with VHB.  A project introduction/overview was presented to the Conservation Commission.  The Planning Board hearing resumed this past Monday with a lengthy discussion where the goal was to get more feedback on the non-technical issues and waiver requests.  The design updates that came from the Planning Board meeting were summarized as follows:  The Parking Overview was summarized. It was noted that the 18 parallel spaces were deleted along the exit drive as well as some reductions to accommodate the landscaped islands.  Joe Spencer joined the meeting at 6:21 PM  Landscaped Islands were incorporated to eliminate need for waiver on trees and accommodate the standard light pole bases. Matt Bennett highlighted the challenges these islands present for plowing and maintenance. It was discussed that the Planning Board did not indicate support for granting the waiver, so this change was thought to be in the best interest of obtaining Site Plan approval.  The waiver request for the sidewalks adjacent to parking stalls not having a 3’ separation was discussed. It was noted that the original design provided for a wider sidewalk of 10’ width to provide space for a vehicle overhang. Some of the Planning Board members  Page 3 of 4 expressed concern over safety. Two options were discussed for addressing this concern, which include installing precast concrete wheel stops or narrowing the sidewalk by 3’ to incorporate a grass strip. The grass strip alternative was favored by Matt Bennett and the AESBC in general as it presents less of a maintenance issue than the wheel stop would.  The waiver request for areas where pipe cover requirement can’t be met is still needed, however in response to the peer review comment, the pipe material will be reinforced concrete pipe where the cover is less than 2.5’. This will have a minor additional cost of about $3,500 which would need to be covered within the design and pricing contingency.  The eastern site driveway was modified to reduce the width of the exit to be a single 20’ wide lane. The entrance configuration was revised to reduce it from 3 to 2 lanes, with the third lane being developed further into the site. This modification reduces impervious area but still maintains adequate queuing lengths for both buildings.  The Planning Board is still looking for further reduction in pavement. One option that was presented involves narrowing the island to 14’ width. The general feedback from the AESBC was that the previous iteration is preferred, assuming the revision doesn’t eliminate the need for a waiver for the driveway width.  A question was raised regarding the species of trees proposed in the median. It was noted tha they would likely be pin oaks in the narrower island and would not be arborvitae.  The Planning Board also focused on site circulation and specifically requested consideration of implementing one way traffic flow at all times rather than just during the peak pick-up/drop-off times. However, it was agreed that under any scenario the exit lanes would need to be retained for emergency vehicle use. This idea was not favored by the AESBC and it was agreed that the current design should be maintained with explanation to the Planning Board.  The next Conservation Commission meeting is scheduled for January 4 th, which may be continued to the 12th. o Schedule: NV5 provided an overview of the current permitting timeline and bid dates. It was noted that the permitting schedule is the critical path holding up releasing the otherwise completed final bid documents. Based on the best-case scenario the current expectation is that the project goes out for bid late January, which is pushing occupancy into mid-February 2023. 6. Proposed Next Meeting Date o The next meeting of the AESBC will be on January 28, 2021. 7. Other Business o Mayor Gove updated the AESBC on the School Committee’s vote to name the new facility Sargent Jordan Shay Memorial Lower Elementary School. o Mayor Gove shared her observation of the Planning Board meeting noting that this is a large project with a lot of information for the board members to absorb. The board is trying to better organize the meetings to focus on more bite sized pieces.  Page 4 of 4 o Elizabeth McAndrews update the AESBC on discussion at the Implementation Committee meeting regarding safety at Cashman during construction. It was noted a phasing plan was developed to contain the site with construction fencing, but the Cashman parking lot reconstruction work will need to be coordinated, with the majority of this phase being completed during summer recess. o Peter Hoyt noted the importance in having confidence in the qualified design professionals. o Nick Wheeler raised the discussion on the ANR plan, noting that KP has advised that it’s not necessary and even if it were filed, it wouldn’t change the approved uses/protections of the sub- areas within the Woodsom Farm parcels. o There was a follow up discussion on the question raised at the last meeting regarding the Greenleaf and Whitehall intersection. This intersection was not part of the TIA study area. The traffic engineer’s initial look was that the turn going to 495 is primarily a right hand turn and would not have much impact. It was noted that as part of the complete streets project scope, the channelized right turn is proposed to be removed. o Nick Wheeler asked for clarification on a couple items discuss with the Planning Board, including:  West Driveway: It was noted that the exit road is not currently planned to shift closer to the Aponas’ property.  Connection to Whitehall: It was clarified that a peer review comment regarding coordination with the Woodsom Farm Athletic Fields Project caused a misunderstanding regarding intent to connect to Whitehall. The AES Project does not intend to create any such connection, but would coordinate on pedestrian access between the two sites. o Joe Spencer asked a question about the budget status. NV5 noted that the ongoing Planning Board and Conservation Commission is causing increased soft costs for redesign and review but has been funded from the Owner’s Contingency. Construction costs would typically escalate, however the bidding climate has been very competitive due to impacts from COVID 19. 8. Adjournment o Vote: Motion made by Nick Wheeler to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 PM. The motion was seconded by Paul Fahey. 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.