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 Eileen Donoghue City Manager Michael McGovern Assistant City Manager Scho0ol Building Committee Meeting Meeting Minutes Date: April 30, 2018 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Council Chambers I. - Attendance Present: Eileen Donoghue, William Samaras, Conor Baldwin, Maryann Ballotta, Brian Barry, Marianne Busteed, James Cook, David Cunningham, James Donison, Gary Frisch, Edward Kennedy, Salah Khelfaoui, Connie Martin, Jay Mason, Rady Mom, Maria Sheehy, Richard Underwood, Michael Vaughn. Also in attendance: City Councilors: John Leahy, Vesna Nuon, James Milinazzo, Rita Mercier, David Conway, & Karen Cirillo School Committee Members: Andre Descouteaux, Gerry Nutter and Jackie Doroghty City: Mike McGovern, Mike Geary, and Heather Varney Skanska: Maryann Williams, Dale Caldwell, Jim Dowd Perkins Eastman: Joe Drown, Robert Bell, Alicia Caritano, Dawn Guarriello Taverse Landscape Architects: Ashley Iannuccilli City Manager E. Donoghue called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. II. - Update on Tasks Since Last SBC Meeting A. Caritano discussed the overview of meetings on the LHS project since the March 2018 School Building Committee meeting. On April 4, 2018 the Sustainability meeting was held consisting of a work shop for 22 people including the members of the School Department, Skanska, Perkins Eastman, and their consultants, and the City. The group discussed sustainable strategies for the new high school. A. Caritano noted that there was also a City Department Head meeting on April 4, 2018 in which all relevant department managers were present to discuss approvals needed and the timeline. The Security meeting on April 12, included a workshop of 17 people to discuss security issues for all the options and current trends. A. Caritano also mentioned the April 12, 2018 community meeting in which the open forum provided a good amount of input. She stated that the team has updated the estimated EUI, energy use intensity, for the design options to provide a relative comparison for each of the options as compared to the existing buildings. The EUI for the existing buildings is 63 kBtu/SF-yr, Option 2A is 42.53, Option 3A is 41.98, and New A is 36.23. The energy update serves as a benchmark for future study which will include lifecycle cost analysis. III. - Design Option Overview and Cost Update B. Bell provided an overview of the three design options. All options meet the Educational program including relocating the Freshman Academy to provide a consolidated campus. Option 2A has a, limited green space and loading, windowless labs, and requires a temporary gymnasium. Option 3A incorporates the adjacent land at 75 Arcand Drive which allows for a larger entry plaza, an expanded footprint which includes lightwells in the 1980 building so that there are no windowless labs, and additional greenspace and loading. Option 3A also requires no temporary facilities, but requires Eminent Domain. New Option A, also takes the adjacent land and requires Eminent Domain. However the footprint fills the site and has a limited entry plaza, and green space. In addition, New Option A requires a temporary gymnasium and 24 temporary classrooms. R. Bell noted that the presentation includes the pros and cons for each option in additional to specific building specifications. D. Guarriello discussed the massing of all the options. There were multiple meetings, during the PSR where the Design Team explained the design options included the proposed plans and phasing. She noted that the floor plans illustrated in the presentation are only for the main floor so that the audience can get an idea of the layout. She also mentioned that the size of the new gymnasium, locker room and fitness area is consistent among options 2A and 3A. D. Guarriello discussed Option 3A, which includes the expanded site with more greenspace, new bridges and light wells. She noted that the building is set back from the property line giving students more space on the Father Morrissett Blvd. J. Mason inquired to the comparison of the two courtyard sizes for Options 2A and 3A. A. Iannuccilli stated that 2A is approximately 3,600 square feet, and 3A is 15,000 square feet. D. Guarriello compared the square footage to the size of four classrooms for 2A and sixteen classrooms for 3A. A. Ianunuccilli also compared the size to the green space across the street from the high school by the parking garage which is 14,000 square feet. D. Guarriello discussed New A, which is almost up to the property line at the street. She mentioned that the design lets light into the classrooms as they are set up in bars. D. Guarriello stated that the auditorium would be located in the windowless space.  Office of the City Manager City Hall ● 375 Merrimack Street ● Lowell, MA 01852 P: 978.674.4000 ● F: 978.970.4007 www.LowellMA.gov Eileen Donoghue City Manager Michael McGovern Assistant City Manager J. Drown noted that the team has been working on an updated cost estimate. He mentioned that there are a few points to make note of including a schedule conflict which resulted in Perkins Eastman bringing in new cost estimators, PM&C, and the project estimator staffing at SKANSKA also changed. These staffing changes resulted in a “fresh set of eyes” on the project. J. Drown noted that the space program changed as the swimming pool was removed, reducing the size of the school. While refining the design Perkins Eastman has the opportunity to make the design more efficient. J. Drown also noted that the cost estimates reconciled within 1% of one another. By the end of the meeting, both estimators understood how other was viewing the project, which was a very constructive important meeting. The estimated project cost is within the MSBA average of $400-$500 / square foot construction. J. Drown noted that the slide for reconciled revised PSR cost estimate includes projected costs from Perkins on right and SKASNKA on left. He explained that the construction cost includes the cost of the building and the site. The Project Budget includes the construction cost as well as the other soft project costs such as Design Team, Operation Project Manager fees, and construction contingencies etc. Option 2A construction cost is $ 262,135,000 with a project budget of $333,040,000. Option 3A construction cost is $270,456,000 with a project budget of $345,400,000. New A construction cost is $289,153,000 with a project budget of $361,624,000. The city share for 2A is $124,282,000; for 3A is $135,960,000 and New A is $160,955,000. W. Samaras inquired to the reimbursement cost, if the City would ever be able to obtain a higher rate of reimbursement, how the city may begin conversations with the state on this topic. M. Williams addressed this noting that the City may open discussions with the MSBA to consider spaces that exceed the space summary guidelines if the argument about the scale of the school and student population can be justified, and argue that the school does not fit with the average model used as a guideline. B. Barry inquired if there was a different reimbursement rate for each option. M. Williams noted that the team looked at the last set of responses from MSBA on the comments for ineligible costs. It is a snapshot in time, the spaces consider ineligible cost for reimbursements will need to be carried by the City, unless the MSBA does approve items for reimbursement. She continued, noting that the guidelines are generally for schools with a thousand students. This is an important part of why the size of school may fall outside the guidelines. B. Barry asked why the construction costs go down so much. A. Caritano replied that Option New A includes temporary classrooms, which are not required for any other option, and constitute a large chunk of the cost. B. Barry inquired to why the gross numbers illustrated for state reimbursement on Option 2A is $209,000,000, and Option New A reimbursement is $8,000,000 less. J. Drown stated that there more factors than just if an item is ineligible or eligible, they also need to be within the maximum $/sf for reimbursement in order to be reimbursed. He noted that with Option New A, some of the limits were reached, making the costs ineligible for reimbursement. R. Bell reinforced this noting that the design hit the cap on the reimbursement; a building may be more expensive even if the footprint is smaller. D. Guarriello stated that the differential between the reconciled revised PSR cost estimates has a substantial amount of money that is ineligible as it relates to reimbursable $/ sf. E. Kennedy followed up to W. Samaras’ notion that the City’s portion could go down and asked what the team meant by being conservative. J. Drown stated that the city portion can go down, but this is not known until the city enters into a conversation with the MSBA. E. Kennedy inquired to why the portion may go down. J. Drown noted that the square footage is scaled down, and more spaces become eligible with more money reimbursed by the MSBA. E. Kennedy asked if there will be a negotiation. M. Williams replied that the team will not know until final project budget scope when the City receives more feedback from the MSBA submission, how the reimbursement will be reflected. E. Kennedy asked what the duration of Schematic Design will be, and if it would be July 1. M. Williams stated that April 10, 2019 is when the MSBA Board approval would be scheduled for Schematic Design. The team would submit February of 2019. With the local appropriation, the state gives the city 120 days to appropriate funding for the project by mid-august, which is reflected in the project schedule. E. Kennedy asked if the loan order could be brought before the City Council in late spring, early summer. M. Williams replied yes. D. Guarriello noted that the team would definitively know when the OPM fills out the 3011 forms to determine the square footage ineligible. M. Williams added that a caveat to this is that the funding agreement will not be signed until eminent domain is complete, at which time the city would have to have complete control of the land. W. Samaras inquired if there would be negotiation with the MSBA. R. Bell stated that the Irish Auditorium at LHS is one of the spaces that may be ineligible currently. There may be an argument that making the existing facility smaller may cost more, which makes it prudent to renovate the existing space instead. J. Mason asked if at the end of schematic design, the City would have a number with the MSBA that could change during the design element. M. Williams noted that when the OPM submits form 3011 with the scope and budget, there may be some communication prior to the agreement; but once the Scope and Budget Conference is held, that would be the final number agreed upon with no more negotiations. D. Guarriello stated that the MSBA sets a total maximum grant amount which may fluctuate during construction; the number can change when change orders are deemed ineligible. She noted that at the end of schematic design, only 20% of the design will be complete, but Perkins Eastman will be further along in the process than the district and community may typically see for a project in Schematic Design. B. Barry asked if 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 Eileen Donoghue City Manager Michael McGovern Assistant City Manager gymnasium and Freshman Academy is the same size in options 2A and 3A. R. Bell noted that the size is the same for all three options. IV. - Community Forum Two members of the community spoke. E. Donoghue noted that the City Manager’s Office is tasked with updating the project website to make sure that it is up to date and accurate. She mentioned that the office will work regularly with the consultants. M. Williams noted that the project design for a phased occupied demolition and construction that will take 21 months after the project is approved by the MSBA and the City. The start of the construction will begin August 1, 2021. Option 2A would take 4 years plus a summer, 3A would take five years and the New A would take 4 years. B. Barry inquired if the extent of the rehabilitation is to gut the entire buildings or to keep much of the existing structure. R. Bell stated that this could depend on the design once the team gets into more detail. He explained that on a preliminary level, based on the wall thickness, the team will make judgments to take out a whole wall rather than to make many holes in the wall. R. Bell noted that the walls would not be recognizable. The idea is not to completely gut the buildings at this point, but a substantial gut is likely. The walls, stairs, corridors may remain as shells, or may be moved based on a number of variables. B. Barry inquired to if there would be all new systems in the buildings or if existing electric and heating systems will remain. R. Bell noted that there would be all new plumbing, heating and electric systems. J. Drown noted that the 1980 building will be entirely redone with new systems, right down to the wire. V. - Vote on Recommended Preferred Option to the City Council for the PSR Submittal to the MSBA E. Donoghue asked if there were any additional comments or concerns prior to the vote. B. Barry stated that this was his first meeting but he has followed the project all along. He noted that the SBC is charged with coming up with the best and most cost effective site to recommend to the City Council. He stated that he does not think that any of three options before the committee at the moment are the most effective, all have compromises in them. He mentioned that he sent a communication regarding looking into South Common prior to being on the committee. E. Kennedy motioned to vote to recommend a preferred option to the City Council. City Manager Eileen Donoghue Option 3A Mayor William Samaras Option 3A Conor Baldwin Option 3A Maryann Ballotta Option 3A Brian Barry Option 2A David Beati Absent Head of School Marianne Busteed Option 3A James Cook Option 3A David Cunningham Option 3A James Donison Option New A Councilor Rodney Elliott Absent Gary Frisch Option 3A Robert Healy Absent Councilor Edward Kennedy Option 3A Superintendent Salah Khelfaoui Option 3A School Committee Member Connie Martin Option 3A Jay Mason Option 3A State Representative Rady Mom Option 3A Maria Sheehy Option 3A Richard Underwood Option 3A Michael Vaughn Option 3A 1 Option 2A, 16 Option 3A, 1 Option New A. The School Building Committee approves Option 3A as the recommended preferred option to the City Council. So voted. E. Kennedy motioned to adjourn, seconded by M. Vaughn. Meeting adjourned 7:25 PM. Notes taken and certified by: