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: August 3, 2017 Time: 10:00AM Location: Mayor’s Conference Room 1. - Attendance Attendees: Kevin Murphy, Conor Baldwin, James Cook, Rodney Elliott (via conference call), Gary Frisch, Steven Gendron, Robert Healy, Edward Kennedy, Jay Mason, William Samaras, Richard Underwood, and Mike Vaughn. Also in attendance: Mike McGovern and Nicolas Bosonetto. From Skanska: Jim Dowd and Mary Ann Williams. From Perkins Eastman: Robert Bell, Joe Drown, and Dawn Guarriello. From Birchwood Design Group: Ashley Iannuccilli 2. - Update on MSBA Facilities Assessment Subcommittee Meeting K. Murphy noted that the School Building Committee would participate and advise the architect relevant to the design of Lowell High School. The Manager stated that plans for LHS would be need to be approved by the City Council and the School Committee. K. Murphy mentioned that the SBC has the important task of choosing a construction firm. E. Kennedy inquired to when two members would be replaced on the SBC, Lisa DeMeo and Brian Martin. K. Murphy replied by the next meeting they would both be replaced. J. Drown noted the summary of the Facilities Assessment Subcommittee of the MSBA; members of the board asked questions about the project. He mentioned the Superintendent of Schools started with opening words. Roxanne and Amy spoke about the educational plan while R. Bell presented the process and how the design fulfilled the educational plan. Mary Pichetti, from Capital Planning at the MSBA, will be sending the City documents to review. J. Drown continued that the MSBA is still in the process of reviewing the submission, and will send back comments. To make sure everyone is on the same page, J. Drown reiterated that the MSBA funds only 8% of the site cost. E. Kennedy noted he was present at the MSBA meeting, and noted that there was a lack of elevators, for 3,500 students, the five story design only has one elevator. He also commented that there was a possibility of designing three elevator banks in the project. He inquired why the preferred site was selected with only one elevator and if adding elevators would impact the cost estimate as well as square footage. E. Kennedy commented on the $10 million dollar mistake in Option 3. J. Drown replied that the design is still in the process of refinement as information available improves. He stated that the City needs to make the best decision with limited information. J. Drown continued, the amounts regarding costs will increase and decrease as the project continues. With one site selected, J. Drown noted, information available will be refined improving the design. E. Kennedy inquired why a design with one elevator was given to the SBC when the design team knew at the MSBA meeting that 3 banks of elevators will be needed. J. Drown replied that assuming two elevators are located in one bank, a single elevator that accesses multiple floors may meet requirements. D. Guarriello noted that adding additional banks would only impact corridors slightly; it would not impact the size of the building overall. J. Drown stated that each stage of the process, the design is refined further, the dollar amounts roll into identified costs. E. Kennedy asked if the only reason was to control the cost estimate, it undermines the credibility of the project. E. Kennedy continued that people are concerned with the costs, and finds it troubling that the preferred option was sent to the MSBA with only one elevator. K. Murphy agreed. D. Guarriello noted that there may be restricted use for the elevators. Accessibility, safety and defacing property are issues that need to be addressed in how students use the elevators. She noted that there are plenty of staircases with the width to accommodate students. Elevators are often restricted use and access to those who need it. K. Murphy noted that the issue will be looked into in order to come up with a reasonable explanation. K. Murphy noted there was also discussion about the theatre, and inquired if 750 capacity is sufficient. J. Drown noted that the theatre program could use different types of theatres such as a black box theatre in which is painted black for a more dynamic theatre production. K. Murphy commented that the current auditorium, the room is packed on awards night. He also stated that the space is often used by the community. M. Williams commented on the design potentially having three venues that can be used at once: music theatre, black box theatre, and an auditorium. She continued that this is ultimately the districts choice. J. Cook commented on school assemblies, 750 seats is not enough for the entire school. D. Guarriello noted that the design for Cawley currently has 1,200 seats, the same as the current auditorium. The design team explained the size requirement for the size of the school. J. Cook asked if this was practical to only have 750 capacity. J. Drown noted that the MSBA reimburses up to 750 seats. He continued that this is a conversation topic; the design team can make a case to the MSBA to increase the size capacity as a City cost. J. Cook commented on the possibility of an increase in population. W. Samaras commented on the need to have a theatre large enough for one class to meet. Based on what the design team described, the only place for large meetings would be in the gym. W.  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 Samaras stated that the administrators would not be able to meet with a whole class in the current plan, unless there is an appendage. J. Dowd commented on the current design that can accommodate 3,500 student population, which is an increase in the current population. The average class size is 880 students per grade. W. Samaras noted that he still has difficulty accepting the campus concept. He continued that having one elevator for 3,500 students is not enough, even with restrictions that allow only students and teachers who need the elevator. J. Drown noted that the Freshman Academy would be located on the 5th floor, isolating them so that no one else travels through their space but granting access to other spaces within the school. W. Samaras commented on perhaps building a separate building at Cawley for the freshman to not isolate them, rather transition them. W. Samaras mentioned that plan is building an urban building on a campus setting. He expressed his thoughts on difficulty managing the number of students with the limited spread. W. Samaras noted that he was concerned with safety. He inquired if the City can only move forward with the 5 story option. J. Drown replied that the 5 story plan better meet the needs of the educational plan. W. Samaras inquired why the 5 story would be better than a larger spread. J. Drown responded that they cannot build on an imaginary site, there are restrictions for wetlands, city boundaries, parking requirements and field replication. W. Samaras noted that this will make it harder on the school administration. He continued that the students are great kids, but you do not necessarily want a large number of students in one constructed area. He also noted that he understands there will be changes in price, but the $10 million change for option 3 and the change in modular classrooms required bothered him. W. Samaras stated that to help with stability, the City could go back to constituents with costs. He noted one elevator was not impossible, but it may not give students a real option or plan. W. Samaras asked if there were any other ideas or expense projections for the City if more elevators were added. D. Guarriello noted that the grossing factor is 1.5 per square foot, if elevators are added it will not come from the classroom sizes. K. Murphy commented that the SBC will be part of the process in making final recommendations. M. Williams mentioned that part of the outcome from the educational plan was feedback regarding making the freshman separate but not in a different building. R. Elliott asked what the difference in cost per elevator is. The design team noted that the approximate cost is $30,000 per stop. R. Elliott also inquired to the size of the Irish Auditorium now. J. Drown stated that the number of seats is approximately 1,150, which is exactly what the design plan incorporated. E. Kennedy asked if there would be an additional cost for the elevators. J. Drown stated that the design contingency will cover the unknown costs during the design process, it is specifically for this kind of issue. The construction contingency is a separate contingency that will not be touched until construction begins. J. Mason inquired to the code for a high rise building. D. Guarriello stated that the 5 story is MAAB(Massachusetts Architectural Access Board) compliant with one elevator. The information was assessed on a preliminary level, by a code consultant. The egress will be addressed in the future in addition to pressurization of stairs and fire proofing the structure. The cost estimate changes can be accommodated by the design. J. Mason asked if the review at this level is standard rather than from an egress standpoint. J. Drown noted that it was reviewed. D. Guarriello stated that the building will stay under a high rise; the first floor is approx. 16 feet floor to floor, and approx.12’-8” feet floor to floor for the remaining four floors. She also noted that the team did discuss not needing the pressurized stairs since the building height is below a high rise per code. J. Mason stated assuming the building is not a high rise, does it meet 521 CMR? D. Guarriello replied that there is access to all floors, the team is confident in saying that it is at minimum in compliance. K. Murphy added that this is up to the committee. W. Samaras inquired if the building will use steel, which the team responded yes. S. Gendron inquired to requirements for a high rise. D. Guarriello responded pressurized stairs, fire pumps areas of refuge, and a call button in the elevator(s) are examples of additional requirements. The design comes in two feet under the high rise classification. J. Drown noted that during the Schematic Design, there will be flow and pressure tests performed on the site. 3. - Traffic/ Site Access K. Murphy began the discussion on accessing the site including the traffic as well as the infrastructure to improve Clark Road and Andover Street. K. Murphy requested the input of the committee to minimize negativity regarding access to the site. 3.1 - Option A A. Iannuccilli discussed the three concepts, asking the committee for honest feedback. The first concept has a bus loop from Clark Road with half of the drop off, visitor parking, student parking and staff parking. Generally the staff would arrive prior to school starting via Clark Road. A. Iannuccilli noted that studies have shown municipalities can control the bus routes while it is much more difficult to control which direction individuals take. N. Bosonetto mentioned having buses take Route 38 from Village Street by the Mobile station. Students would have access to park via Douglas Road. W. Samaras inquired if the team was going to set an estimated route. He stated that there may be repercussions only having students taking Rogers Street to Douglas Road. He mentioned that Lawrence has one lane in and out, how would the traffic flow with cars traveling both ways. He highlighted his concern that it may be problematic for the neighborhood. K. Murphy stated that students could continue to travel down Village and Clark rather than Douglas. M. Vaughn asked if the plan included the full capacity to accommodate the total number of buses to que. J. Cook inquired how many spaces are available  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 of parking. A. Iannuccilli replied there are 850 spots; 400 for staff, 100 for visitors and 350 for students. E. Kennedy asked if Village Street would be two lanes. The bus que would be split between Village and Rogers Streets. The cars cannot be controlled; drivers often find the path of least resistance. E. Kennedy continued that traffic could flow over to Route 133 to Route 38, people are bound to fund a way to get around restrictions. E. Kennedy asked what the traffic count is per day. N. Bosonetto replied that there are 28,000 per day. E. Kennedy inquired if the City Engineer could definitely tell the committee that Douglas Road and Route 38 would not require a land taking. Bosonetto replied that Mass DOT would not participate financially; all costs would need to be absorbed by the City. K. Murphy stated that there is no appetite for land taking in the area; the goal is to develop a transportation plan without land takings. E. Kennedy asked what needs to happen at the intersection since traffic will que up on Routes 38 and 133 during drop off and pick up. He also inquired to any change in recommendation. N. Bosonetto stated that beyond the capacity and volume issue, there are political, financial, and environmental constraints. E. Kennedy asked if the capacity was over 100%. N. Bosonetto replied yes, the intersection would not work efficiently at certain time of the day during peak hours. R. Healy stated that is 100% of the buses were to que up along Clark Road, it may lessen the impact on Douglas Road. He noted that another option is to change volume on Clark and Douglas; it cannot be expected that capacity will change the volume. S. Gendron inquired if the total number of buses included special education. There are 10 special education vehicles that will use the staff entrance. 3.2 - Option B A. Iannuccilli noted that the second option has cars only using Village Street. This promotes safe pedestrian, car and bus circulation. A. Iannuccilli stated that entrances can be opened and closed depending on how traffic flow is arranged. Hypothetical questions were broached as to if parents may drop off their children a few streets away and not drive directly to the front door and if there was a potential issue mid-year could the traffic patterns be adjusted. A. Iannuccilli responded “yes, both of these things could potentially happen”. E. Kennedy commented on the 46 bus plan. S. Gendron commented on controlling the buses and not student or parent flow paths. He brought up restricting access on Douglas Road may back up Route 38, especially if the streets are not wide enough. He agreed with Mayor Kennedy’s point earlier that traffic like water will seek the path of least resistance. S. Gendron mentioned that the City cannot make anyone drive a certain route. K. Murphy noted that the committee can help give advice on the best scheme to mitigate traffic rather than litigate it. 3.3 - Option C A. Iannuccilli discussed the third option that disburses bus circulation 40% to both Clark Road and Village Street and 20% from Douglas Road. K. Murphy stated that the design team will revise the plans incorporating the committee members’ ideas and findings from the traffic engineers. Perkins Eastman will create a stronger list of pros and cons for each and will include more detail relative to Andover Street and Clark Rd. J. Mason inquired to the distribution of busing route, and if the widenings are lessened due to the change. N. Bosonetto responded that the third option redistributes volume from one intersection to another. The volume however, is not only vehicular. N. Bosonetto continued that different intersections have different capacities in terms of left turn lanes and traffic lights. He stated that if the volume capacity ratio is over 100%, switching to alternative intersections may not help a lot. N. Bosonetto mentioned that this can be looked into further. J. Cook asked if there are 46 buses total. A. Iannuccilli noted that there are 46 buses plus 10- 11 special needs vans. M. Williams commented that the drop off may be scheduled simultaneously or staggered over time. 4. - Next Steps E. Kennedy commented on the ELT team meetings, noting that they will start meeting biweekly. The meetings have been paused over the summer for change in staff. K. Murphy reiterated a prior comment that both the City Council and School Committee will need to approve the building plans. R. Elliott commented on the traffic patterns in Pawtucketville. Specifically, Old Ferry Road currently has restricted traffic in the neighborhood due to a quality of life issues. He suggested a similar restriction could be used in Belvidere as well. S. Gendron asked what the PSR stands for, which J. Drown replied Preferred Schematic Report. Motion to adjourn, R. Healy; seconded by J. Cook. Meeting adjourned 11:20 AM. Notes taken and certified by: