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: June 20, 2017 Time: 10:00AM Location: City Council Chamber 1. - Roll Call Kevin Murphy, Conor Baldwin, Maryann Ballotta, David Beati, James Cook, Rodney Elliott, Gary Frisch, Steve Gendron, Robert Healy, Edward Kennedy, Salah Khelfaoui, Jay Mason, Rady Mom, William Samaras, Richard Underwood, and Mike Vaughn. Both Brian Martin and George Tsapatsaris participated remotely. Roll call shows 18 present. Also in attendance from the city: Mike McGovern, Rodney Conley, Christine O’Connor, Nicolas Bosonetto, Eric Slagle, Sarah Brown, and Katherine Moses. From Skanska: Jim Dowd, Maryann Williams, and Dale Caldwell From Perkins Eastman: Robert Bell, Joe Drown, Alicia Caritano and Dawn Guarriello 2. - Presentation of PSR 5 Options K. Murphy began the discussion asking what the will of the body is – to have Skanska and Perkins Eastman go through the presentation or allow members to start asking any questions they may have. R. Elliott moved to bypass the presentation to allow the SBC members to ask the OPM and Perkins Eastman questions. No members objected. K. Murphy discussed the process, there will be a roll call vote in which each member will express their preferred option. He noted that if members prefer the Cawley option, please specify the 4 or 5 story option. J. Mason asked if members would be able to express their opinions/ reasoning behind their vote. K. Murphy replied that if the will of the body. S. Gendron inquired to the latest cost summaries and the significant increase in Option 3. J. Drown responded that Option 3 is very similar to Option 2 in design, both saw reductions but these did not keep up with the increased costs. J. Drown noted that the largest difference is in the architectural component. W. Samaras asked the team to expand on the $19 Million difference between Cawley and Option 3. J Drown noted that the trade costs in Option 2 and Option 3 have been brought together. Option 3 trade cost labor and materials were originally estimated lower than they should have been; but they have now been brought closer in line. The nature of the feasibility study is to determine the appropriate costs and to evolve the estimates with each set of information. W. Samaras inquired to the choice between the 4 and 5 Cawley Options. R. Bell noted that yes, as presented; there is an additional 100 parking spaces with the extra story. He continued that this does not prohibit the team from exploring further to maintain educational objectives, clustering and adjacencies. Between the last City Council presentation and now, R. Bell noted, that the educational leadership team did not express concerns to the difference in the 4 or 5 Cawley Options. W. Samaras inquired to any changes be made between the 4 or 5 stories. He continued that the 5 story building is not a campus, the spread is important in a campus to accommodate student needs. W. Samaras added that the Cawley 5 Story Option places an urban building in a campus setting. R. Bell noted that a difference between the 4 and 5 story building is the ability to put the community shared area on the group level. The 5 story option enables the breakdown of the classrooms into smaller communities, not to say that the 4 story option could not as well, improvements can be made to either option if selected. W. Samaras asked if the 5 story building would be a better campus. R. Bell noted that the newest may be the better option, as it is a further advancement. It is possible for the team to explore aspects applied to the 5 story to the 4 story in terms of parking if selected. Educationally, the ability to create a community shared zone is attractive to the leadership team. With the 4 story option, the natural spread is more of a vertical core for community use. The team noted it is important to learn from each plan to create a design plan, exploring the best aspects from each plan. R. Elliott inquired regarding the $2 Million placeholder for eminent domain. He asked how the number was derived as it includes new location costs and funding building of a similar nature; he concluded that the number seems arbitrarily low. J. Drown stated that the $2 Million number was provided by the City, as it was the right estimate at the time. R. Elliott stated that the nature of a campus is having all facilities and services in one area with a shared space concept is important. R. Elliott asked why the soft costs differ between projects. J. Drown replied that the number have come down this last round, they were previously 20% across the board. He noted that the team will look into the soft costs more closely, to see if they are able to drop the percentage down more from the current 15%. J. Drown continued that the percentage is a function of the number that precedes it. The nature of doing a cost estimate is the more information represented, the better the design. The change in construction contingency is less unknown with a new building rather than a renovation. D. Beati stated that he is still having trouble with the cost code- for example G10 to G50. He inquired to what, G30 per say, may encompass. J. Drown stated that the dollar amount is based on acreage and that it is not necessarily broken down. The schematic design will include a more  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 in depth estimate, but this will only be done for one location. D. Beati mentioned that when comparing either Cawley option with Option 3, the G30 cost for water and storm water seems unreasonable, with a $10 Million difference. J. Drown noted that one of the aspects of the new site is the size of Cawley; the utility cost will be higher based on acreage. The downtown location is less acreage and has less distance for utilities. He agreed that the distance is longer for Cawley but it would not be millions of dollars in cost differences. D. Beati continued at the last council meeting it was noted that there would be an additional 100 parking spots. He inquired if the team decided to the use of Alumni stadium parking lot. D. Guarriello replied that the parking lot was not included due to the distance to the facility. It would go against the campus feel to have parking all the way to the corner of Rogers St. The team is trying to create safe routes for students and faculty to walk to the school without being too remote. D. Beati noted the crosswalks are ADA compliant in the area. D. Guarriello stated that the team is happy to research the feasibility of the idea and consider all options going forward. The difference in the 4 and 5 story building is 36,000 sq. ft., it is reflective of the number of parking spots. D. Beati inquired to the additional parking spots needed downtown, of 110 spaces. D. Guarriello noted that there are 725 spaces needed for the downtown location, which is covered with the multiple garages and on street parking. D. Beati stated that if the Alumni parking lot is too far, maybe the other parking garages are too far as well. D. Guarriello stated that the team will be happy to consider all pieces moving forward. J. Cook noted that the construction costs are best guesses, the only real numbers will be when the project is bid. He mentioned various reports, such as the traffic study, that discussed busing requirements for Cawley. He inquired if there is a $3 Million annual cost associated with this. K. Murphy referred to S. Khelfaoui for an answer. S. Khelfaoui noted the amount is a maximum that would be necessary if there were two separate fleets. He added that the City would need to look into optimizing costs with re-runs. Whenever changing the schedule, the Superintendent noted, there are multiple variables such as number of buses in a fleet as well as the depreciation of the buses. J. Cook stated even a $1 Million increase could be an additional $30 Million over the next 30 years. He also asked if the City has looked into staggering school hours, as mentioned at a City Council meeting. J. Cook also inquired to the traffic study, asking if it was a necessity to take a business with the Cawley site. K. Murphy stated that the study is a preliminary estimate; it is not a detailed survey or engineering because that is outside of the scope of the feasibility study. S. Gendron inquired if there would need to be advisory board approvals for the final approval. K. Murphy noted that there would be a Conservation Commission approval for both Lowell and Tewksbury. E. Slagle stated that the Planning Board would also need to approve the plan. S. Gendron asked if this was also true for field replication, would this need to go before the Board of Parks or the Conservation Commission. K. Murphy replied it would need approval from other advisory bodies. J. Mason asked to follow up with a transportation question, in which he inquired taking City buses downtown would not be the case for Cawley. He asked how students would arrange transportation after school; if there was a way the LRTA would be able to pick up students. K. Murphy clarified if J. Mason meant if someone missed the bus. He continued that the individual student should be able to get on the LRTA if they needed a ride home from Cawley. R. Mom asked for the time frame for the project. J. Drown noted that Cawley would take 36 months construction. Downtown full renovation would take approximately 5 years plus a summer. Option 2 would take 4 years plus a summer and Option 3 would take 4 ½ years plus a summer. R. Mom asked if the students would need to be in a modular setting. Depending on the option, R. Bell noted that full renovation would require a temporary gym and 32 modular class rooms. He continued that Option 2 requires a temporary gym while Option 3 does not require any modular class rooms or temporary gym. R. Mom inquired to the total cost of the projects and the city shares. Total cost high school by option: full renovation total cost $343,585,000 with a city share $130,022,000; Option 2 total cost $343,948,000 with a city share of $135,320,000; Option 3 total cost of $352,559,000 with a city share of $143,232,000; 4 story at Cawley total cost of $339,152,000 with a city share of $152,160,000 and the 5 story at Cawley total cost of $336,138,000 with city share of $149,439,000. R. Bell noted at the last City Council meeting, a request was made to look into keeping students in full buildings not split with phasing, which would cost $5 Million more and add one year to the duration of Options 2 and 3. W. Samaras asked if the city anticipates students needing to be taken to and from Cawley for afterschool programs if this site is selected. S. Khelfaoui noted that the bus schedule could be reorganized to take students, although the cost impact is unsure at this time for so many people. S. Khelfaoui noted not all students will have sports at Cawley; some activities will be at the school some may be at other locations. He continued that the city can look into bussing companies and the impact for anticipated late afternoon activities. The Superintendent stated that bussing can be organized like it is for a fieldtrip, if buses are available which can translate to additional runs rather than additional costs. W. Samaras stated that the committee should focus on students’ needs. S. Khelfaoui noted that this would be part of a true transportation plan. D. Beati noted he was curious, in terms of the traffic study, if the takings on Roger Street were for capacity of the intersection or for the buses turning. He specifically inquired about Milan Pizza. N. Bosonetto replied that the road widening on Route 38 would be for capacity issues; adding a left turn lane on Rogers St onto Douglas Rd would accommodate vehicles more efficiently. D. Beati asked why you need a lane if there are already four lanes on Rogers St,  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 especially since it would only increase traffic with 1,000 additional vehicles. He asked if the takings would be a necessity or desire. N. Bosonetto responded that it would be a necessity as the intersection will be over capacity without the turn lane. D. Beati asked if this was an equitable comparison with the downtown and the Cawley site. N. Bosonetto note that in the downtown, 34% of all students walk. The intersections will remain a “C” grade in the downtown with the downtown option. The intersection of Rogers St and Douglas Rd is currently rated an “A”, but would be downgraded to an “F”. Clark Rd would be downgraded from an “A” to an “E”. Village St would also be downgraded from an “A” to an “F”. N. Bosonetto also mentioned that Andover St would be adding over 4,000 trips daily to accommodate student and faculty transportation. N. Bosonetto noted that the intersections would need signal improvements with Douglas and Rogers needing a left hand turn lane. S. Gendron inquired to the safety during a phased construction. He mentioned that Perkins Eastman was selected because of their experience with phased constructions. S. Gendron also commented on the necessity of making arrangements to deliver a safe education to students while construction continues. R. Bell commented that every measure will be taken to cleanly and clearly separate students from contractors vertically and horizontally. The goal is to limit the impact, creating buffer classrooms so that students are not learning adjacent to a construction zone. S. Gendron inquired in Option 3, when students would be able to access the newly constructed fieldhouse. R. Bell note that it is still conceptual, but it would be approximately 1 year and two months; but this does include an assumption that construction may start early which would impact the deadline. S. Gendron asked if R. Mom’s question regarding the cost may be clarified; the 5 story Cawley Option and Option 3 have straight construction city share cost of $143 Million v $149 Million respectively. This does not include additional costs for field replication if the Cawley site is chosen. R. Bell noted that these are approximate amounts, just estimates. M. Vaughn asked what the costs for new construction are, as a percentage per year, in Perkins Eastman’s experience. J. Drown noted that there is a 3% cost for addition/renovation as well as Cawley. He continued that they are anticipating 3% unless escalation changes, which is hard to predict. R. Mom asked about the sites in terms of energy efficiency. R. Bell responded that new construction is generally more efficient because the floor plan can be condensed. Any time new construction is started, insulation can be added to roofs and windows can be replaced. R. Bell continued that renovations have more limitations to bringing a building up to the highest energy efficiencies. Many new constructions are designed to have North and South orientation for optimal light control and efficiency which provides a better educational environment. This is not to say that the renovation would not have high efficiency fixtures. E. Kennedy noted that regarding traffic improvements, the recommendations for various intersections and Roger Street seemed like a necessity rather than an opinion. He asked if the city does undertake the traffic improvements, what would happen to Milan Pizza and the Lexus dealership. N. Bosonetto stated that if this happens, there would need to be an engineering survey completed to determine if certain properties or portions there of need to be taken. E. Kennedy inquired if partial takings would diminish the function of the properties; and if the owners may rather the whole taking of the property compared to a partial taking. N. Bosonetto mentioned that he cannot speculate what will happen but in his experience many times property owners would rather a whole taking to a partial taking. E. Kennedy asked if it is definite that the City needs to take both properties. N. Bosonetto stated that there would need to be traffic improvements as well as right of way improvements. E. Kennedy noted sidewalks are option, but it may be dangerous at any time of the year for students, particularly during the winter. N. Bosonetto stated that most of the land needed for sidewalks is in the right of way and not on personal property, which does not go all the way to the pavement. E. Kennedy mentioned that some homes on Douglas Rd had a 40 foot yard; to install the sidewalk would cut into their yards, which may need retaining walls. He asked if the city would be responsible for building retaining walls along the homes. N. Bosonetto stated that the City DWP would be responsible for maintaining the walls. E. Kennedy inquired to how to build sidewalks in Tewksbury. N. Bosonetto responded that the City does not have rights in the other municipality; it would require the cooperation of Tewksbury. This may require an incentive, such as giving the town money to build the requested sidewalks. N. Bosonetto discussed the reasoning to keep traffic moving on Rogers Street by inserting a lane on the Lexus side of the street rather than the side with the gas station. He noted that it would make sense to continue the widening from Village Street to Rogers Street. E. Kennedy inquired to widening beyond Milan’s Pizza. N. Bosonetto responded that there would need to be an engineering survey completed and Mass DOT would need to be involved. N. Bosonetto discussed the Andover Street signalization, how the plan may change if the Cawley site is selected. He is unsure at the moment if the Commonwealth would continue participation in the signalization, but nothing is sure until surveys are completed. E. Kennedy inquired to Option 3 taking 4 ½ years in the large handout; but some construction downtown may be completed without impacting the high school at all. R. Bell confirmed the statement that it may impact 3 years of education. E. Kennedy wondered why this was not pointed out when R. Mom brought up the question about duration of construction.  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 E. Kennedy inquired to the exact cost of bussing, if the $3.2 million would increase going forward annually. If Cawley Option is selected, would this mean that the city would need to provide bussing for charter and private schools as well. S. Khelfaoui replied that he was not sure. E. Kennedy inquired to the status of Article 97; the likelihood and estimated time that the issues would be resolved. K. Murphy replied that the EEA and the Law Department have agreed on language as part of the legislation. He continued that it is now up to the State Delegation for the timing; whom he met with the day before. E. Kennedy also inquired to the cost of replicating the fields. C. Baldwin stated that in DPW Commissioner Bellegarde’s motion response to the City Council, he stated that $1.9 Million will be the cost of replicating the fields. E. Kennedy asked where the estimates came from. K. Murphy confirmed that Commissioner Bellegarde estimated that $1.970 Million would be needed to replicate the fields. E. Kennedy asked why Purchasing did not reach out for quotes. K. Murphy stated that the city relied on Commissioner Bellegarde for the Carvalho and Manning Field Turf replacement; it was thought that he would have a working knowledge of the costs. E. Kennedy inquired which advisory bodies the city still needs approval from. E. Slagle noted that for the Cawley site, the city would need the Conservation Commission notice of intent for the building and parking lot; the Planning Board approval for site plan review; a series of Zoning Board of Appeals for the height of the building and parking spaces; Tewksbury Conservation Commission approval for the parking lot north of the field of Clark Road; and a potential Tewksbury Planning Board permit which is up to interpretation. There would also need to be commercial or accessory educational use that the Conservation Commission in Chelmsford would need to approve for field replication and possibly the Planning Board for parking. E. Kennedy asked how the Cawley site morphed into two options; and if the 5 story option is only because of parking. If this is the case, he continued, why would the 4 story option still be on the table. R. Bell replied that for any option to be removed there would need to be a formal vote, unless it is prove less viable. He stated that the team was looking for a feasibility threshold for the site. He also noted that for voting purposes, the new 5 story option at Cawley may be better than the 4 story option. E. Kennedy asked why the second option did not require a formal vote to be added as an option. R. Bell noted in terms of the next step, the option that is selected will continue to be refined. E. Kennedy mentioned that what the SBC is doing is making a individual recommendations to the City Council based on what is most affordable and what will cause the least disruption. He continued that everyone’s individual recommendations will comprise the SBC overall vote. R. Elliott commented on Chapter 90, which increased to $1.8 Million that will be spent in addition to funding in the Capital Plan. He continued that the city has begun to look better in the past few years with the roadway and sidewalk improvements under the City’s Administration. R. Elliott wanted to stress that the funding could come from the state for the sidewalks, not the taxpayers. S. Khelfaoui asked the design team about the construction phase, particularly looking into an option that minimizes construction interaction that was mentioned. He asked if numbers stated were for the cost of the overall project or the city share. R. Bell noted that the project is still in the feasibility stage, the educational spaces will have a clear distinction between contractor and student areas. R. Bell mentioned that the team is looking into the costs of creating a more distinct separation, where entire buildings would come of line rather than portions of a building. He noted that the question is if the city prefers short duration of the project or separation. M. Williams noted that the $312/ square foot is part of the general conditions and escalation, so there would be a 100% cost to the city for the distinct separation. S. Khelfaoui stated that his office receives many emails from concerned parents and guardians who are apprehensive about the construction stage. He commented on possibly needing an individual to handle the communications if they expect to see the number of concerned parents and guardians increase. R. Underwood inquired if the Addition/Renovation options were a full down to the frame renovations. R. Bell replied that yes, Options 2 and 3 entail internally clearing out the majority of the walls for repartitioning in the 1922 and Lord Building. He mentioned that some of the structural walls and corridors may remain, but as far as plaster walls and interior building, yes the renovation would be down to the frame. J. Mason asked if the estimated cost in the 4 and 5 story Cawley options included eminent domain. K. Murphy replied not, it would require six votes of the City Council to approve the cost. E. Kennedy noted that some Chapter 90 funds may be available, but it is fair to point out that all Chapter 90 funds would be funneled into the high school project and not to the rest of the city. 3. - Vote on Recommended Preferred Option 3.1 - Discussion S. Gendron commented on being involved in the process with the High School for 3.5 years, as the Mayor pointed out to the advisory board for the Council. The SBC took the 19 options and narrowed it down to a few now. This decision will draw upon what has been learned over the past 3 years. He commented that Options 1 and 2 should be eliminated as they do not meet the educational plan compared to the others. He continued that Option 2 does not provide natural lighting to all class rooms. S. Gendron stated Option 3, he will vote for because of three reasons. He stressed that the renovation will not just be a coat of paint, but a 21st century high school that  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 will offer quality education to students in the shell of a historic building. His first reason is central location, having one high school downtown is fair positioning, and accessibility. He commented on leveraging partnerships with UML and Middlesex Community College. S. Gendron stated that this option would not disrupt the neighborhood, and that people should not be demeaned for standing up for their neighborhoods. Secondly he noted field disruption, it is important to have fields and room for sports activities there and not to scatter fields across the city. His last reason was cost; there is a minimal cost of $12 M in difference for construction, field replication as well as transportation. J. Cook noted that the most important thing is that a new high school be built, whether downtown or at Cawley. He stated that the best two options are Options 3 and Cawley. He commented on the Cawley option, the Traffic Engineer talked about land taking and annual busing costs. He noted he will be voting for Option 3 as well. E. Kennedy commented that if the city is moving forward with one option, why put forward the most expensive and disruptive. He reviewed the site standard that the MSBA sent to the city noting site selection should be based on max community resources and minimal educational and economic impact on the community. This is not limited to sewer, transportation, public infrastructure and hazardous materials. After reviewing the standards, he stated that only Option 3 is left. R. Elliott stated that cost is a factor; there have been weekly meetings with the Manager and his staff. He noted that without true revenue coming into the city, raising taxes is not the only option left to help pay for the new high school. He commented on converting the 6 acres downtown to generate prime property to add to the tax roll. He stated that housing downtown is desirable, making it a viable option for housing. From a fiscal perspective, how to afford the new high school is by putting property back on the tax rolls, creating a true revenue stream. He concluded by noting he will vote for Cawley. J. Mason commented on safety support, access and transportation issues at the Cawley site. He mentioned that renovations can bring out the best in a site and its surrounding areas. It is a way to restore irreplaceable qualities, recycle and not throw away part of history. He commented on the courthouse being the only thing planned for the 14 acre site downtown right now, it is difficult to keep a master developer. W. Samaras stated that everyone wants what is best for the students and that everyone has different views and backgrounds. From the onset, he stated he was not supportive of Option 1 or 2, but rather Option 3 and Cawley. He stated that the 5 story Cawley Option sets an urban building in a rural area not meeting the campus setting desired. He commented that the best  chance to do what they can is the downtown Option 3; it gives the city the campus that is desired. He asked which building is the best, and answered there is no really good answer. The decision will be based on what he believes and his experience on what is best for the students; he chooses Option 3. 3.2 - Vote Member Preferred Selection Vote Absent City Manager Kevin Murphy New School Cawley 5 Story Conor Baldwin New School Cawley 5 Story Maryann Ballotta New School Cawley 5 Story David Beati New School Cawley 5 Story James Cook Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Lisa DeMeo Absent Councilor Rodney Elliott New School Cawley 5 Story Gary Frisch New School Cawley 5 Story School Committee Member Steve Gendron Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Robert Healy New School Cawley 5 Story Mayor Edward Kennedy Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Superintendent Salah Khelfaoui Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Head of School Brian Martin - Conference Call Vote Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Jay Mason Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Representative Rady Mom New School Cawley 5 Story George Tsapatsaris - Conference Call Vote Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Councilor William Samaras Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Richard Underwood Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) Michael Vaughn New School Cawley 5 Story Preferred Selection Vote Tally Full Renovation 0 Option 2 - Add/ Reno Existing Site (Demo FH) 0 Option 3 - Add / Reno Existing Expanded Site (Demo FH) 9 New School Cawley 4 Story 0 New School Cawley 5 Story 9  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 Overview of SBC votes is 9 for Option 3 Addition Renovation Existing Expanded Site and 9 for New School Cawley 5 Story Option. 4. Adjournment K. Murphy thanked each and every member of the Committee for their hard work that they have done. Great job monitoring the feasibility study. K. Murphy also mentioned that the members have been involved since selecting the OPM Skanska and Perkins Eastman. The SBC Members still need to select a Construction Manager at Risk, which will take place in the upcoming months. Motion to adjourn E. Kennedy, seconded by R. Healy. None opposed. Meeting stands adjourned at 11:50 AM. Notes taken and certified by: