School Building Committee

Office of the City Manager City Hall ● 375 Merrimack Street ● Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4000 ● F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager Michael McGovern Assistant City Manager School Building Committee MSBA Meeting Meeting Minutes Date: April 6, 2017 Time: 10:00AM Location: Mayor’s Conference Room 1. - Attendance Attendees: Kevin Murphy, Conor Baldwin, Maryann Ballotta, David Beati, Rodney Elliott, Steve Gendron, Robert Healy, Edward Kennedy, Salah Khelfaoui, Brian Martin, Jay Mason, William Samaras, Richard Underwood and Mike Vaughn. Roll call 14 SBC members present. Also in attendance: Mike McGovern and Rodney Conley. From Skanska: Jim Dowd, Mary Ann Williams and Dale Caldwell. From Perkins Eastman: Robert Bell, Joe Drown, and Alicia Caritano. 2. / 3. - Building Option Plan Refinement / Progress on Classroom Availability Discussion with ELT (inform phasing) R. Bell began discussing the organizational concept for the educational plan. The diagram highlights rooms for community use in yellow and administration in red. The design would include having an administrative heart with a location towards the front of the school. The diagrams illustrate course groupings such as arts, humanities, science and math. He began discussing the Cawley site first as it is a new construction that may be easier to visually see the groupings. R. Bell noted the common zone (gym/cafeteria/library) as well as the distinct academic wing for general, science, and special education class rooms. The presentation continued to illustrate what the floor plan may look like at this stage of the feasibility study. Freshman classrooms are grouped on the first floor by the cafeteria, gym and pool. The media center is located on the second floor of the plans, along with the upper level of the field house. Art classes are proposed to be located on the fourth floor, with north facing windows. All floor and classroom plans are diagrams based on studies, components may change. E. Kennedy asked about the MSBA memorandum, approximately 18 pages that noted the Cawley site did not have enough labs or classrooms. K. Murphy noted that the MSBA sent comments to the City on April 5th, and that the Manager’s Office will distribute the document in the afternoon to the School Building Committee and the public. R. Bell noted that the design firm ran into a similar situation at the Boston Arts Academy. The comments for the PDP submission is a systematic check list used by the MSBA that some items requested may not fit into the criteria. The science class rooms commented on included the freshman “wet” class rooms that are a different size than the sophomore – senior science labs. These freshman class rooms just need more of an explanation to reasoning for classroom size variance. R. Bell noted that the PSR report will be more in depth on which spaces are planned to be larger than the MSBA normally approves; such as the auditorium and pool. E. Kennedy asked the design team to explain why the lab numbers are undersized. R. Bell noted that the MSBA standard class room is an average of 23 students; having 24 student average class size would add eight class rooms to the total design. E. Kennedy inquired to the groundwater study. M. Williams noted that the team will further investigate and address the issue in the next submission. J. Dowd noted that the Civil Engineer will investigate the storm water management. E. Kennedy asked if the team implied that there were more or better reasons for eliminating the Wang site. He continued that it was believed the traffic would not be sufficient in the area, which could be the same case for Cawley. E. Kennedy also brought up the comment from the MSBA regarding a point scoring system for the site selection. M. Williams noted that the Wang site could not fit the projected size and parking that the Cawley site could. She continued that this is just a point of clarification that the MSBA is requesting. D. Beati asked how the MSBA makes determination when the OPM and the City do not know where the water level is. W. Samaras asked for clarification for the classroom size, specifically how large the Lord building classrooms currently are. R. Bell noted that the current classrooms are 850 sq. ft., while the draft plans at Cawley have classrooms that are 900 sq. ft. W. Samaras also inquired to a comment on making the Cawley site five to six stories. He noted that acquiring land is the City’s responsibility, and that a confined campus may not be ideal. R. Bell stated that the suggestion came up at various meetings and public review. He continued that it was a area of research that will be pursued to ensure that every stone is turned over, even if only for academic purposes. W. Samaras commented that the draft plan seems more urban than suburban with the number of floors. R. Bell continued with the review of the Full Renovation option. This includes the Freshman Academy but excludes the Steam plant. He noted it may be more difficult to visually see the clustering of course subjects, but ensured the committee that it is possible to achieve the desired results. He commented on the central location of the cafeteria as well as the auditorium. R. Bell also noted the location of the general administrative area as well as the art and music area. The 1922 building would contain the math and sciences as well as humanities. The administration would also have locations on both sides of the bridge to disburse teachers and adult presence throughout the building. The upper level would contain robotics and engineering. The Lord building would be renovated to have a new main entry with the cafeteria at the center of the  Office of the City Manager City Hall ● 375 Merrimack Street ● Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4000 ● F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager Michael McGovern Assistant City Manager building. The main administration and culinary class rooms would be located nearby. R. Bell also commented on the reconfiguration of the field house. R. Bell stated that the full renovation meets the same program as the new construction at the Cawley site. M. Vaughn asked if the estimate budget included an allowance to create space includes reconfiguring the walls in the existing buildings; in which R. Bell replied yes. R. Bell commented on the multipurpose room adjacent to the field house on the first level. He also mentioned the third floor having a TV studio center as well as the science labs. R. Bell then continued to the Add / Renovation Option 2, which has a similar layout to the Full Renovation. The dining area is split into two floors, with the Freshman having a separate floor from upper classmen. There is an alternative possibility for the culinary program to move up a floor and have the cafeteria entirely on one floor. The core science labs and math classrooms are adjacent to each other. This option has a relocated library on the third floor. There would be satellite media centers broken into zones such as reading and research. R. Bell went on to discuss the Add/ Renovation Option 3, which also has a similar layout including the same media center and library as the 1922 building in the Full Renovation. The field house would be located on the adjacent property, allowing for the design of more green space. The media center would be slit onto two levels with the option to swap one floor with the cafeteria. The plans reevaluate the main stairwell to connect more spaces, bringing everything together. D. Beati inquired about the exhibit plans, particular the brown areas in option three. R. Bell commented that the parking and paving cross hatch areas in the downtown images are diagrammatic; it is still too early to commit to any designs. D. Beati also asked about net zero storm water policy if it would be under parking areas or any storage space. J. Drowd commented that there are designs for wells, either vertical or horizontal, for storage tanks that can pump water into the ground that will be absorbed overtime. J. Mason asked if two level space for the media center would be connected in option three. R. Bell replied that the floor plans are a concept design; everything can and may change as part of a larger puzzle. W. Samaras asked if the team thought about taking down the Lord building with the expanded site as the logistics seem to throw in more modules and time. R. Bell noted that while the options mature, it can be determined if large portions of the building can be torn down. E. Kennedy referred to the MSBA Comments, on page 14, the report states that the regarding past projects $28.5 million was used in 1998; which may need to be paid back on a prorated basis if an alternative site is selected. N. Williams stated that the standard for the MSBA is to go back 20 years; the team would look into this. It is possible that if the Cawley site is selected, by the time work begins it may have exceeded the 20 year period. E. Kennedy noted that the impact of the Full Renovation and Cawley seem to be the focus of the study rather than options two and three. M. Williams noted that the reason the addition/renovation options were not discussed as much is that the MSBA had fewer questions on both options. D. Beati asked at this point, is the price estimate the same regarding non-reimbursable items. M. Williams noted that the pool is one of the expected costs that will not be reimbursed by the MSBA. K. Murphy noted that the infrastructure at the Cawley site will be more than any infrastructure at the downtown site. D. Beati asked what was included. M. Williams stated that anything that exceeds 8% of the building costs would be included; there are not individual items at this time. M. McGovern noted that the cost estimates sent out in December and January included around $15 million in infrastructure costs for utilities (water, sewer, gas, and electricity). K. Murphy added that sidewalks would also be an additional cost. E. Kennedy stated that the pool in the down town option as well was not included in the estimate. He commented on the page 4 of the MSBA comments regarding a newly constructed pool. R. Bell stated that the MSBA strongly worded this comment, and that when he spoke to them, they agreed it would be non-reimbursable but would consider the pool. S. Gendron noted that Option 2 needed no modular, but may require an offsite athletics area. Option 3 does not require any additional space for either modular class rooms or for physical education. S. Gendron asked if there should be any safety concerns during construction in Option 3, or if the team would address any issues that would arise. J. Drowd noted that the majority of work that the design team had completed is addition/renovation projects; they have experience separating contractors from school activities. R. Bell noted that the team would isolate portions at a time for construction to limit impact. He also noted that B. Martin has worked with them to determine open spaces that may help create vacancy and a buffer space. R. Bell stated that the goal is to portion off vertical sections of the building and create 1 – 3 classroom buffer that may include temporary walls. J. Drowd commented on the use of HEPA filters. J. Drowd stated that the fieldhouse is almost a separate project that would have construction duration of approximately 18 months. D. Beati inquired about the infrastructure upgrades required for the new school, particularly for the sidewalks around the site. K. Murphy stated that the bussing plan and traffic study will dictate the sidewalks needed in accordance with accessibility requirements. 4. - Schedule Update A. Caritano discussed the civil soil as well as storm and drain water investigation at the existing high school. The Cawley site is in phase 1 of the investigation and is expected to be completed at the end of April. Phase two is currently underway and the drilling is completed. The geotechnical borings are also complete. The hazmat sampling results are being analyzed at the lab. The structure work is being analyzed at the 1922 Building and the Freshman Academy. The survey and flagging at the Cawley site is ongoing. The traffic study and student safety walking to school is also ongoing.  Office of the City Manager City Hall ● 375 Merrimack Street ● Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4000 ● F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager Michael McGovern Assistant City Manager D. Beati asked about the second phase of testing at the existing site, would the asbestos impact the downtown cost for abatement. A. Caritano noted that the testing was done in PDP and the estimate costs were included. D. Beati inquired to the $3.5 - $9 million cost of abatement. M. McGovern noted that the cost is estimated to be $3.6 million. D. Beati also asked if the reports substantiate the removal of hazmat matter. J. Drowd stated that contaminated material would be removed during excavation. D. Beati asked if the SBC would be provided information prior to the vote in May. 5. - Approval of Expenditures for Additional Investigations K. Murphy noted that the CFO and Deputy CFO reviewed the amendment for additional expenditures proposed by Perkins Eastman and Skanska for a traffic study. C. Baldwin noted that the Finance team recommended the SBC approve the amendment as it is within the appropriated budget. R. Healy motioned to approve, seconded by M. Vaughn. Roll call 13 yea, 6 absent; so voted. 6. - Community Outreach K. Murphy stated that the City arranged community outreach programs in Khmer and Spanish at the CMAA and the Senior Center during March. M. Williams stated that there was significant turnout and was well attended by the community members who asked questions and expressed their concerns. The majority of questions were regarding the process, expense in construction as well as student safety during construction. K. Murphy stated that additional community meetings will be scheduled to keep the public informed once the City receives more information. J. Mason asked if there would be an economic meeting. K. Murphy stated that there was a meeting on April 5, 2017 that discussed the preliminary report. A more detailed report will be expected within approximately a month. K. Murphy also commented on the City Council motions, which will all be responded to prior to any final decision. D. Beati inquired about the exhibits still showing parking downtown and asked if it may be revised for the next plans that are produced. B. Martin asked if May 9, 2017 is still the targeted date for a decision. M. Williams noted that the weather may affect the geotechnical and the traffic study. K. Murphy stated that the Administration wants everyone to be comfortable with the information prior to a decision; the information would not be distributed the day before. He noted that if there is a need, the date will be modified. 7. - Website Development Update R. Conley commented on the website development, which is estimated to roll out on April 20, 2017. The website will contain meeting minutes, agendas and related documents including the MSBA PDP review comments. R. Underwood asked if it may be a good idea to revisit Option 5, similar to Option 3, but the site would include taking the adjacent land. K. Murphy commented that the SBC reviewed the options, and that option did not receive support. He stated that the team will look into adding one more option with the MSBA, and potentially bringing the option back for a vote. 8. - Next Steps R. Healy motioned to adjourn, seconded by M. Vaughn. Notes taken and certified by: