School Building Committee

Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager School Building Committee MSBA Meeting Meeting Minutes Date: March 29, 2018 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Council Chambers I. - Attendance Present: William Samaras, Rodney Elliott, Edward Kennedy, Connie Martin, Conor Baldwin, Maryann Ballotta, Marianne Busteed, David Cunningham, Gary Frisch, Robert Healy, Salah Khelfaoui, Jay Mason, Maria Sheehy and Mike Vaughn. Also in attendance: Senator Eileen Donoghue & City Councilor John Leahy City: Mike McGovern, Elliott Veloso, Heather Varney, Alex Magee Skanska: Maryann Williams Perkins Eastman: Joe Drown, Robert Bell, Alicia Caritano and Dawn Guarriello Traverse (Landscape): Ashley Iannuccilli W. Samaras called the meeting to order at 6:38 PM II. - Revised Educational Plan Approval R. Bell discussed the revised education plan that is based on the site changes. He noted that the MSBA determined that the pool would not be part of the project. The revised education plan was presented to the School Committee along with the space summary. He discussed the changes to reference of a pool, adaptive physical education, ROTC, Katie’s Closet and the Community Health room. The space summary noted changes to the upper and lower gym area. R. Bell clarified the depiction in the presentation, noting that the numbers 1-6 on the upper level identify the six gym stations, the MSBA maximum as contiguous space, but co-located with a U-shaped area designated for ROTC marching and additional space for adaptive PE. R. Bell noted that the MSBA recently reviewed and does not take issue with the colocation of the gym spaces noted in the preliminary letter to the design team. He also mentioned that the MSBA reserves the right to continue review of the space summary. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education did not have an issue with the co-location either.  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager Space Summary E. Kennedy asked the design team whether they had received a communication from MSBA questioning the size of the project. R. Bell stated that following the normal course of action, the MSBA can accept or reject the size of certain rooms at end of Schematic Design. R. Bell commented that the team answered all the questions in the prior communication to the MSBA. R. Bell noted that the educational team met with the Superintendent of Schools, faculty staff, facility groups, to discuss goals and desires of the district. W. Samaras inquired how the dialogue would go with MSBA if they will not allow space because of scaling limitations in place. R. Bell stated that the dialogue is submitted through the formal MSBA submission process in the PDP and PSR narratives. R. Bell noted that the team must articulate why the space should be larger and commented that it’s a good sign that they will continue to review it. R. Bell commented that the MSBA realizes their template does not scale to fit a larger school. If the MSBA objected, they might use stronger language in their response. R. Bell noted that it may be frustrating when the City resubmits in May, because the review comments will tend to default back to ‘the MSBA will continue to review.’ R. Bell continued, noting that based on dialogue thus far, the MSBA recognizes that the space scale does not fit a school this size and that it is not their intent to penalize the District for having one large school rather than three or four high schools. R. Bell mentioned that it is worth defending the spaces and design, such as the co-location of the gym for more multi-purpose use and flexibility to better serves students and community. Senator Donoghue noted this is a huge high school project, much larger than MSBA normally deals with. She stated that MSBA must get constant reminders regarding the size of the school. Senator Donoghue inquired if there are space changes between plans 2A and 3A. Perkins Eastman noted the education plan is the same for all of the options. Senator Donoghue asked how much square footage may not be reimbursable. Perkins Eastman replied they will need to get back to the committee. W. Samaras commented on the necessity of having an auditorium that will fit at least an entire class, as the MSBA limitations now would not allow for that. III. - Eminent Domain Proceedings Update E. Veloso noted the City Council voted to begin process to take 75 Arcand Dr. via eminent domain. He mentioned that the Law department will identify parties affected by and prepare for the taking process. He stated that the Law department is confident that the City can move forward with appropriate scheduling. At this point the City has begun process, but E. Veloso noted he is hesitant to describe the process due to attorney client privilege. E. Veloso stated that Law is proceeding on the process and moving forward as we speak. E. Kennedy commented on the need for two appraisals and discussed the 45 day window from time accepted and ability to  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager proceed. M. Vaughn stated that this was correct. E. Kennedy noted the substantial amount of equipment for the medical practices, much of which may be depreciated. He inquired to how inventory within building will be dealt with, who will handle appraisal of equipment, how to proceed and arrive at a dollar value and if this will occur after the eminent domain taking. Mr. Veloso discussed relocation process for tenants. P. Sleeper was introduced as the relocation specialist out of Arlington MA, with over 50 combined years dealing with eminent domain. P. Sleeper stated that appraisers have 30 days to give to the owner an acceptance or rejection of the initial offer. He mentioned that the June 5, 2018 date needs to consider time for the tenant to consider what the City is offering. Mr. Sleeper and his associates will treat with sensitivity and compassion; as he hopes to have all practices relocated by December 2018. Mr. Sleeper’s company will identify comparable space downtown and in other neighborhoods for the tenants. He mentioned it is a possibly to convert office space into a working dental office. P. Sleeper state that ideally businesses would like to close down Friday and reopen Monday in another location. He also mentioned that he has a lot of experience with takings in other municipalities. P. Sleeper discussed his hope to meet with tenants within a week or two. He mentioned the need to determine how much relocation benefits each tenant will receive, which will then be given to the City Manager’s office as an estimate. If tenants do not accept the estimate, they can go to city, or DHC to figure out next steps. P. Sleeper stated that he will explain that the City has right to eminent domain to each tenant. He also stressed that he cannot waste taxpayer money but will be open-minded for the tenants’ sake. P. Sleeper noted that he has a standardized 10-item list that he addresses to protect each of the businesses. E. Kennedy mentioned that the appraisals are scheduled to take 45 days and include a 30-day owner review; he questioned the required time and the timeline. P. Sleeper noted that a letter will need to be delivered by May 5, 2018 offering an estimate, in which the tenant then has 30 days to review and accept. He noted for the relocation component, after City takes ownership, it can take some time to move tenants. The transportation of equipment can take place after the order of taking. By the end of April, the relocation plan will be presented to DHCD and City. Each tenant has 21 days to review the plan. Most information in the plan will come directly from the tenants, including square feet of office space and current rent per month. After the hopeful May 21, 2018 approval, the City will seek a quick turnaround from DHCD. P. Sleeper noted that he plans on having the approval before order of taking. E. Kennedy commented that it may be a tight schedule as it could be over 6 weeks for appraisals. He expressed his hopes to tighten it up to a 4-5-week period. M. Vaughn stated that he will work on a 30-day angle. E. Kennedy noted it is important for the City Council to have ownership in early June prior to the MSBA meeting. M. McGovern noted the June 5, 2018 deadline is aggressive and tight, but it gives three more weeks prior to June 27, 2018 MSBA meeting. This means that in that time, there will be three City Council meetings to get the vote prior to the MSBA meeting. E. Kennedy inquired if the City will attempt to firm up the  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager schedule early next week and confirm with the School Building Committee, City Council and School Committee. M. Vaughn agreed. W. Samaras inquired to the relocation, specifically if the plan would simply replicate their existing practice and what would happen if the tenants were looking to have more sinks or x-ray machines. P. Sleeper stated that the tenant would need to pay for additional space and equipment themselves, the plan only addresses replicating the existing practice. He mentioned that the goal is to make sure that the tenants survive and are happy somewhere else. Senator Donoghue noted that with her experience of eminent domain on the Stoklosa School and the Early Garage that the proceedings are very technical, and that timing is critically important to the process. She inquired to the bid process and timing. M. Vaughn stated that the City had only received one quote after soliciting quotes from 36 local licensed appraisers. He continued that under Chapter 30 B, no sealed bid was required for the appraisals. Senator Donoghue noted the importance that the City proceed carefully every step of the way through the process. J. Mason wanted to clarify that City had only heard back from one appraiser. M. Vaughn stated that some other appraisers alluded that more quotes will be received on Monday. E. Kennedy noted it may make sense to reenergize search. M. Vaughn replied that the search included research on the Massachusetts Appraisal website, and that requests were sent to the appraisal firms listed. E. Kennedy commented that the City selected the procurement method that would streamline process; some vendors have declined, some must have not responded at all. He asked if it was worthwhile to follow up with the vendors who did not respond at all. M. Vaughn stated that he plans on following up and was surprised that some vendors did not participate. Senator Donoghue noted with the lack of interest in appraisals, it may be beneficial to bid the project. E. Kennedy asked R. Bell if the appraisals need to be completed by June 5, 2018 and if it was critical or likely to have a favorable vote if the City did not have possession of property. J. Drown commented that the MSBA doesn’t typically require ownership of property and that the team is hoping to be able to access the site this summer for boring testing. E. Kennedy said if not done by early June, maybe by the end of June, could still do testing on the scheduled timeline. R. Elliott noted that under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30 B, projects under a certain threshold only require the City to solicit quotes, which may be less costly and time consuming than bids. M. Vaughn has not seen anything on the state’s procurement website COMMBUYS, but he did go to the appraisal association websites. He added that he can investigate goods and services published on Monday as well as the State website. R. Elliott noted that having one quote is fine since the City reached out to so many appraisers and anticipates having more respond. Mr. Vaughn noted that he anticipates having more submit but, in his experience, he does not believe something will arrive until it is sitting in his hands.  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager IV. - REVIEW OF OPTIONS AND PHASING Architects D. Guarriello and A. Iannuccilli updated the refined education program. The program removes the pool which results in less additions. D. Guarriello noted that the presentation is an overview at feasibility level now, including concepts. The team is looking at the three options Add/Reno 2A, Add/Reno 3A and Option A. A. ADD/ RENO Option 2A This option fits onto existing site; the image in the presentation shows the new gym and freshman academy, renovation of the ‘80s building and the ‘22 building. The temporary gym would be necessary. The result of the design after construction has limited green space and loading dock space. The project would take four years plus summer for construction. Freshman academy would be built almost up to sidewalk, which may raise concerns with breathing room as students enter and exit the school. Phase 1: The temporary gym would be built on the grass land next to parking garage owned by city. The demolition of the existing fieldhouse would start in the summer. The phasing would then incorporate better utilization of space in the ’80 building, ’22 building and the freshman academy. Phase 2: the existing gym would be removed and renovation to the west side ‘80s building would begin. Phase 3: renovation on the ’80 building would continue into the summer, allowing for continuous connection to new freshman academy, gym to the ‘22 building. Phase 4: the remainder of renovation work on ‘22 building and the construction of the second bridge would commence. The result is a new school consolidated on one campus with construction lasting four years and a summer. The phasing concept is preliminary, the number of rooms freed up and the number that the contractor can take are estimates. The construction manager hired after design complete will determine overall phasing. The presentation from the design team trying to create concept of how the project can be accomplished. D. Guarriello noted the shuffled space on the ‘80 building. She continued to explain the slide with large yellow space representing a major cafeteria, and the kitchen as currently in school. The yellow colored spaces are all public; the blue are class rooms and the green class rooms represent science courses. J. Mason asked to clarify the ghosted walls going away to create cafeteria. R. Bell replied not really at design level of walls yet, and the group will not see this level of detail until later in the design process. B. ADD/RENO Option 3A This option is similar to Option 3 presented to the group previously, only the pool was removed. The campus is consolidated with the freshman academy on site. As shown previously, the design will bring light wells into the ‘80 building; window-less classrooms will now have natural  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager daylight. The design has green space on site for ROTC and physical education classes. The option does locate the gym on new site, which moves that building further away from other parts of school. The project is estimated to take five years; which is three months more than previously presented. Major transition points where summer contractor can move fencing without impacting the students. Demolition of 75 Arcand Drive without disrupting school and building of the new gym, with no temporary gym or temporary class room required. Phase 2: the freshman academy would be relocated to the existing gym space; which would create swing space needed to renovate the ‘80 building same time. Summer work would take place in the south portion ‘80 building. Phase 3: complete the renovation of the ‘22 building. This option provides more outdoor green space, plaza space, and has the freshman academy and gym further away from street. This option would take five years, four years on school property and the first year would be off the site. D. Guarriello noted option 3A was set back from Father Morrissett further. There is more space at the heart of school to work with. Natural lighting and the additional outdoor spaces make the design more vibrant. C. New School Option A This option is an all new facility on the ‘80s side of the canal with the expanded site. The building would be five stories plus the basement level. Overall the building consumes much of the footprint with limited plaza and green space. The new freshman wing would be temporarily connected to the ‘22 building, construction would then occur to remove existing bridges. This option would require twenty-four additional modular classrooms off site. Possible modular host sites are illustrated in presentation materials. Part of the phasing would take the cafeteria off line; convert the new freshman academy into a temporary café which will then be converted back into classrooms in the final phase. This option would take four years and a summer. E. Kennedy noted this was a little different and asked the design team please review for audience at home which options require modulars and amount required. Option 2A – Existing site would require a modular gym and locker / team room space. Option 3A – Expanded site would require no modulars of any kind. Option A – Expanded site would require the most modular class rooms (twenty-four) as well as a gym, locker room and team space. D. Guarriello mentioned that the modulars are not eligible for reimbursement and cost is fully shifted to the City.  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager E. Kennedy inquired if the freshman academy building would be suitable for the swimming pool, perhaps a municipal pool down the road. R. Bell commented it would take many of the engineers to look at this analyze the architecture, and that would be a very different study. W. Samaras asked what a temporary gym would look like. R. Bell replied there are structures that may sound interesting, inflatable roof structures are envisioned, and have been used in Boston. The gym would be a large shell of space with a gym floor. M. Williams noted the modular gym is required but it is not something that the City can rent, it must be purchased. W. Samaras inquired if it was reimbursable if it needs to be procured. Senator Donoghue mentioned the last site, Option A, with 24 modular classrooms and inquired where the modulars would be placed. R. Bell replied that a potential offsite and laydown space/staging area is included in the presentation. The map illustrates stared locations – fourteen parcels of use or available that may or may not be within walking distance. The design team has begun looking into closest ones, particularly the parking lot behind the post office, where approximately half the modulars would fit. Senator Donoghue inquired if security concerns would be addressed in option 3A. D. Guarriello replied that the concerns have not yet been addressed but the plan will be discussed on April 4, 2018. V. - Community Outreach M. McGovern commented that there is an April 12, 2018 community meeting, similar to a previously held meeting at Senior Center. He noted that the Manager’s Office is currently speaking to various local and neighborhood stakeholders to put this together. The meeting will be set up as a break out style community meeting, with a presentation by Skanska and Perkins Eastman, and then give participants time to have a discussion and come back with questions. At the end of April, when cost estimates are received, the School Building Committee meeting and City Council presentation will need to take place. The SBC meeting could take place Thursday night and then the City Council could vote on the next Tuesday. W. Samaras noted that the group can talk about dates and what the committee would like to do moving forward. E. Kennedy motioned to set a SBC meeting on Monday April 30th, noting a recommendation to be made to the City Council on a preferred option. Seconded by D. Cunningham. M. McGovern noted that the April 12, 2018 community meeting would take place at LHS cafeteria as the Senior Center already has something else scheduled. He noted that the cafeteria may work out better for seating at tables for question and answers. The community meeting on April 12, 2018 will be recorded and replayed by LTC. E. Kennedy motioned that the second community meeting take place at the same time and date at the SBC meeting on April 30, 2018. Seconded by J. Mason.  Office of the City Manager City Hall • 375 Merrimack Street • Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4400 • F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Kevin J. Murphy City Manager A. Caritano noted that the estimator will look at package and submit to MSBA on May 9, 2018. The Facility Sub Committee meeting will take place by June, prior to the then MSBA meeting June 7, 2018 meeting. City Councilor J. Leahy spoke regarding the safety of the designed options. E. Kennedy inquired when the School Building Committee receives information and materials if the School Committee and City Council could be included. M. McGovern noted that the School Building Committee, City Council and School Committee will receive the package. The package will also be posted on the City and LHS Project websites. Motion to adjourn by R. Healy. Seconded by E. Kennedy. 8:05 PM. Notes taken by Alex Magee and certified by: