Woodrow Wilson Building Committee

Woodrow Wilson Middle School Building Committee September 27, 2018 Minutes Present: John Giuliano, Kirsten Byrd, Phil Pessina, John Phillips, Chris Bonsignore, Mary Bartolotta, Chris Drake, Absent: Gene Nocera, Ted Raczka, Richard Pelletier, Sheila Daniels, John Cross Members of the Public: 8 including TSKP Meeting Called to Order Chair Bartolotta calls the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Public Session Chair opens public session at 6:03 p.m. and asks if any members of the public wish to address the committee. Patrick McKenna, Parent in town and LEED accredited architect representing Clean Energy Task Force and he looks forward to the conversation on Sustainability and reimbursement and the committee wants to work with this committee and architects on sustainability to make it as sustainable as possible and asks that a charette be put together to get the goals for the project, what we can afford to do so we can comply or exceed the certification for a sustainability. The sooner the charette can be done, the better it is and he appreciates public comment is available and asks chair to have a public comment at the end of the meeting and it might benefit the committee if they could comment at the end. Brian Eddy resident of Rocky HIll and Vice President of construction firm based in Middletown and he is hearing rumors that a PLA is being added to the WWMS project and if that is the case, we can’t bid on the project and PLA means you need union members on the project (all union members) and there were three projects that the city bid with these agreements, Snow School, MHS project and more recently the sewage connection project which the town had to go out to bid again. Both projects had to get rebid, Snow and MHS without the PLA. He sits on a Rocky Hill building project for a $48 million project and it was through referendum and without the PLA, the project is coming in $10 million under budget. There is a risk with PLA and you may have to put it out to bid and put at risk the opening of the school. He doesn’t know who does that and you consider a PLA, he hopes you here from all sides. The unions are doing 40% of the project in Rocky HIll and hopes the town won’t do a PLA. The Chair, seeing no members of the public wishing to address the committee, closes public comment at 6:09 p.m. Chair Bartolotta asks to take the minutes as a whole. Mr. Pessina moves the minutes for August 30, 2018, September 5, 2018, September 13, 2018, and September 19, 2018. The motion is seconded by Mr. Giuliano. The vote is unanimous to approve. The Chair declares the minutes approved. B. Commission Agent Update/Discussion. Ken Biega, O & G is here and they have a sample contract and they did check it out and they sent it back to John Cross. They received it today and they got the letter last week from Donna, confirming their appointment. Chair asks if there are questions. Vice Chair Drake asks to update the committee on the chosen CM. Chair Bartolotta states the Professional Services Committee met and Mayor was receptive to the top choice of the list of three submitted and the paperwork was signed to move forward with the Construction Manager at Risk. They met and did interviews to choose the Construction Manager. B. Commission Agent Update, Discussion to approve RFP. Mr. Pessina moves for approval the RFP and Mr. Giuliano seconds the motion. Vice Chair Drake asks if we are going to discuss the logistics of the Commissioning Agent. The Chair states we will go out to RFP and then we will follow the same procedure as we did for the Construction Manager. Vice Chair Drake asks if we want to pick a subcommittee we can do that or wait until the bids come in. Chair the Purchasing Agent has to go through the bids and we won’t know when that will be, but we can pick the dates. Chair states they were waiting for information on insurance from Nancy Raczka. Mr. Szczypek states he had a conversation with Nancy Conway Raczka and she wasn’t sure what the role of the commissioning agent was and once they spoke, she then knew what to do about the insurance. The conversation was today. Vice Chair Drake states if we will have another meeting another month from now, we can do a subcommittee and do the same fas we did for the Construction Manager and do a special meeting between October and November. We will be in late October and we should wait until then. Chair calls for the vote and it is unanimous to approve the RFP. C. Sustainability and Reimbursement Chair calls on Mr. Szczypek who states LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification should be all capitalized. LEED is not mandatory; what is mandatory is designing the building to the State requirements which is higher. It is built to higher performance standard for a building at a certain cost. The State looked at a number of ways to measure high performance and looked at LEED as one way to do it. Instead they chose to write a standard for high performance and follows the LEED very closely and the State says you can use the Silver score sheet for LEED. We don’t have to do a LEED certified project. The score sheet categorizes in terms of energy, water, recycled content - a number of criteria for a number of environmental and energy standards The budget has a line item for these features and is $1 million and you are obligated to do that. We haven’t identified what those features are that will total $1 million; it may go above that, but you have to spend at least $1 million in enhancements. It might include additional insulation, alternate energy sources, solar wind, tidal - a number of ways to obtain alternative energy for a building. It could be a number of features and we should talk about that and it may exceed a $1 million and the committee would have to make the decision on that. You might ask for the payback of putting photovoltaic on the building. Geothermal for this project is unlikely because there is insufficient acreage on this project for the wells. Because of the timing, we won’t have the site available in the former footprint to do this. In other projects, with the committee or subcommittee that could be additional enhancements for the committee, we can flesh them out and the committee will have to decide what to include in the project. We are in the middle of the schematic design and now you have a CM on board, we would like to look at these features and have O & G price those features for you so you can see what the base building will cost and then the additional features cost so you can decide what to include. Mr. McKenna addressed this and the Clean Energy Task Force can work with the committee and the committee could meet with them or this committee have a subcommittee to invite the Clean Energy Task Force to take pat in that meeting, but it is up to the committee to do soon. Sustainability and Reimbursement, we had a preliminary meeting with the State and at that meeting we were asked point blank if we had solar panels or photovoltaic specified in the specs. If it is not in the ed specs it is not eligible for the reimbursement; but the State has been endeavoring to reduce the amount of Grant expenses and looking for ways to make things ineligible. I would question that with them for taking that position. Proceed cautiously before adding features and make sure they will be reimbursable because you may be on the hook for those features. Noted for the Record Mr. Rackza enters the meeting at 6:28 p.m. We need to schedule a meeting with the State once we have more of the design done and he would like to continue this discussion. Vice Chair Drake states he looked up the standards of buildings over $5 million and it is mandated by the State to do this and in one section, it says an integrated design process and it shall include one collaborative session with all the individuals. Mr. Mr. Szczypek states integrated design is to bring everyone together to address all the design aspects concurrently so we are all advising each other in the process. If we increase the insulation, how does that affect the size of the HVAC and the engineer can immediate answer those questions. Vice Chair Drake states it does say you tell us what a cx is and have an x-1 license and it can’t be an employee of your firm or the cm or engineering firm and has to be independent and directly hired by us. If we are not bringing the cx on until mid november and if we have the design session without that person, it feels we are missing something. Mr. Szczypek states don’t accept the specs until you have the cx on board. Mr. Pessina when will the schematic design be made. Mr. Szczypek responds the end of October. Mr. Pessina we will be picking one in November and it will be a couple of weeks and jump in and review and by the end of November or December, it can be accomplished. Mr. Szczypek states we will do the design development and we will close schematic once cx is on board. Mr. Luther states you are not the first committee to face this; the process moves normally and when cx is on board, we review everything with the cx and his role is to understand what you are doing, what the goals are and when the end comes, if you met your goals. Mr. Szczypek states the cx will measure the building and report to the state that you met them. Chair Bartolotta states the minimum goals are in the State Statute and then we decide above and beyond that. The options can be weighed in, the financials and someone mentioned a net 0 building - what is that. Mr. Szczypek responds you need to provide energy for the building and choose to not use fossil fuels for a net 0 carbon footprint and you could do that with photovoltaic and it would be a lot of them and it would be a net 0 building. A net 0 ideal is the building consumes no energy - it can generate energy so you don’t have to buy it and it is difficult to achieve. Vice Chair Drake states he doesn’t understand the energy market and the difference between generating all the electricity on the spot to committing to purchase energy not coming from fossil fuels. Mr. Luther states you need to drive the energy usage as low as you can go to achieve a net 0 building. The first goal is to drive energy to as low as you can get it. It translates to the operating costs so we want to drive energy down and we have to generate on site or purchase and that is where the $1 million comes into play. He doesn’t believe there is a public school in CT that is net 0. Mr. Szczypek states Williams in MA is finishing a net 0 building and Choate has one. It is not what you find in a public school. Mr. Pessina asks is that what they were doing when they got the fuel cell; it was a big discussion. Mr. Raczka states that were part of why they put a fuel cell there (MHS). Mr. Szczypek states it is to reduce the purchase of energy. Mr. Pessina asks what did Williams do to achieve that. Mr. Szczypek states it is a residence building and classroom; they limited the amount of air conditioning. So people who live in that setting will have to be a little uncomfortable in the shoulder seasons. Perhaps they will have to carefully use the washing machine on their laundry. They explained what the residences can do. Mr. Pessina states a lot of the city buildings are using voltaic and certainly we can do the same thing here and it will only use it for a certain number of hours a day. I think we really have to look at the best bang for the buck. Chair Bartolotta states it is reliability and efficiency; how easily it is maintained and the cost factor. We are having an issue at the Senior Center because geothermal might not have been installed correctly. Mr. Luther states we have been talking about a piece of the building which is energy efficiency. We have to look at water conservation, using plants appropriate for the area and there are a lot of facets to the project. Energy is the easiest. The other discussion is what the community wants to do and maintenance and costs and they all have different implications and we need to have those discussions. It is a list of many things and pick which ones you have to do. Chair states it is getting to the bottom score. Mr. Luther states we have to discuss all the issues and decide the goals for all of those. Mr. Mr. Szczypek states one of the scoring points could be educational features; it is conceivable to have the electricity by the housing and if they can read them, the students can get competitive about the energy efficiency. Vice Chair Drake states he is looking at the regs and the rating system focuses and he reads the statute. When he worked at the Capitol, they redid the parking surfaces and put in a permeable asphalt and the water is caught and gets used in the building and do you get points for that if you decide to do that. Chair states this is full circle from a year ago and I think having a subcommittee or if this entire committee wants to meet as a whole to invite Clean Energy in and have an open discussion and start moving that forward and if we can meet the expectations and can do it financially so when the CX comes, we can bring that person up to date. My understanding is it is not just a checklist, but that we are abiding by it and the end result is what we called for. Mr. Szczypek states that is correct; they stay with the project for a year after the project is finished and then they write a report. Mr. Luther states the score sheet is small part of their work, but shaking down every system in the building. Chair Bartolotta asks thoughts of the committee; do you want to meet as a whole or do you want another subcommittee. Mr. Pessina states because it is such an important area of this project, he would like us to have a meeting with the Energy Task Force. Chair states it is how we want to handle the meeting. Mr. Phillips states it should be outcome based; an outcome-based approach is to bring them in and line item price those items out and we as a committee can say we can afford that or not. It is a transparent process. There are many layers and important in their own right and independent. Bringing in the committee we should do and listen to them, but we have to take the list, prioritize and itemize the list based on the cost. Chair Bartolotta states we can have the discussion, price it and invite them in and say this is what we can afford and have them help us. Mr. Phillips states you couldn’t vote on something to put in the school without knowing the cost because if some of the things end up at $1.2 million, we have to look at what is not going to happen in the construction. Chair we have to look at the maintenance of those items as well and we have to build it once, like lighting. Mr. Giuliano states you have to take into account what is the ROI; it might cost more initially, but have savings year after year. Mr. Phillips states we are saddled with a budget and that theory would have been good before the referendum. We were transparent with the public with what we would spend so expensive treatments for long term could take away from the core use of this building. Vice Chair Drake we have to agree with you the $87.35 is the cap and if we exceed that we would end up like the high school. I will point out at the meeting, Mr. Szczypek forgot I was there, and the State said not to look at the money as a piggy bank. I am assuming HVAC will run more than $1million and at this point when we pick that system we will pick between degrees of efficiency. Mr. Phillips look at it from outcome based approach, it will meet the State’s requirements. Chair Bartolotta states $1 million was added to the budget to design the building with all the energy efficiencies we can and then looking at the actual cooling and heating, is this where we use the money to upgrade the system. The $1 million is to upgrade where we can exceed or make it cost effect and environmentally friendly and that is my understanding. It appears we are all on the same page and the end goal is to have the best school we can with the budget we have. Chair states back to the original question, notice a letter to Clean Energy and she was hoping to have a subcommittee or dedicate two meetings with an open discussion on this and move forward. Vice Chair Drake and I discussed about having someone from the Clean Energy Committee to be on the committee to choose the commissioning agent. Vice chair Drake states the meeting in the regs is that what we are discussing having. Mr. Szczypek states we will use the score sheet and states we will use the LEED Certification and we will identify what the likelihood is having the features in the buildings and what could be maybes and others we can’t achieve so we don’t include. We will have the maybes and you will have to decide what you want and you will have a preliminary list and then have CM [price it out. Mr. Biega, O & G states we can look at the things on the list and help the committee to cost to year payout and then you will get a certain number of things and then focus on those and choose the best of them. Mr. Luther not all the items have costs and as a community you have to decide where you want to go and what you want to do. Chair can you give examples of that. Mr. Luther states natural light is one and it has two examples means the lights are not on so I am not using energy and the lights are not making heat so I am not cooling. Plants, you have to pick ones that you need to water or are invasive are not good; stormwater runoff and do we percolate it into the ground and recharge the groundwater or save it and use it to water plants or use the grey water to flush toilets. Those are the kind of things you look at; you look at the goals and what makes sense. As a group you have to decide what to go after and you have to look at the cost. Guilford wanted to get the energy usage down during the day. Chair asks committee to waive the rules to allow the Clean Energy members to speak. Mr. Pessina moves to waive the rules to allow them into the discussion; Vice Chair Drake seconds the motion. The vote is unanimous. The Chair calls forward a member of the Committee. Ms Salo-Markowski states there is a lot to talk about and she was grateful you discussed a wholistic approach and there are option strategies for a high performance building and they have a great profile that don’t cost a lot. Chair states we have been preached to by the architect on this and it has always been part of the discussion and concern to have the best building possible; that it is healthy, that will last for many years and grow with the community and safe. Michael Harris came up with the list of questions looking at return in investments. They will make sure they get to you. Chair will make sure they get to TSKP and the Committee. Mr. Szczypek asks if there is a checklist for what the City has in mind. Mr. McKenna responds the goal is to set goals for the project and their goal is the health, energy efficiency building we can have. High Performance buildings are robust, healthy and last and that is what they are striving for. We would like to work with the committee and not impose our will and there are others that can help with that; the Complete Streets Committee, where are the cars, how will people get there, the Urban Forestry committee and they should be invited to that collaborative session. The high performance is a minimum standard and we need to exceed that and discuss how to do that because of costs. The standard is a minimum of one and it doesn’t say you don’t have to have more. You don’t have to wait for the CX to have these discussions. They have weekly meetings to review the energy performance at Guilford High School and the committee can decide how often the subcommittee meets with the architects. We encourage the committee to set the standards high and not hold just one meeting, but engage the committee and to hold the standards high. The CX will not make those decisions and only verify that those are good decisions and verify that they are working properly. CX doesn’t care if plants don’t require irrigation, but it will get you points. One final point on net 0, Amherst just finished one, a public school in Arlington and they are a completely different animal and you need to set the goal that is what you are going to aim for and it is different from a sustainable building. Chair states they could invite in multiple facets. You meet with the committee mentioned, just the professionals and airing it out and narrowing it down and then bringing it to us and is that how it is done. Mr. Szczypek we can do it that way. Mr. Luther states many towns have done it that way and what you are suggesting is not uncommon. Mr. Pessina then we can bring in the Clean Energy Task Force. Chair it is a group effort. Mr. Luther suggests a representative from the committee as well as John Cross. We need one person to be there and if more want to attend, the committee would be present when discussing how to spend the money. Mr. McKenna seconds that; a member of the committee is also on the Clean Energy Task Force, John Giuliano. Mr. Pessina states it is a natural. Chair agrees to do it with you. Vice Chair Drake states we are struggling with FOIA and the way we do it on the Board, all the Board sub committees have members on them and are regular members and any member is welcome to attend because we notice all subcommittee like regular Board meetings. We could say a subcommittee of the whole and commit to attending and at the meeting itself, everyone can take part and participate in the discussion. The other option is we can do that without a subcommittee; if all of us show up we have a defacto meeting. Mr. Phillips asks two representatives and the building committee’s professionals to meet with the Clean Energy Task Force to gather ideas regarding goals, sustainability and building efficiencies and report back to the committee as a whole. Mr. Raczka seconds the motion. Vote is unanimous. Chair asks for the point of contact so we can set up a meeting. Jen Kleindienst and asking to meet with them regarding the building. Security Committee Update: Mr. Pessina was at the meeting and gives an overview. It was a good initial meeting because we had the Fire Chiefs and Police Department Representative, Communications, Marco Gaylord and Randall Luther and Christine O’Hare and it was a general discussion on security and goals to keep the building safe utilizing ideas and perceptions from each of the departments on how to move on it. Because this is a sensitive topic, we will go into executive session when we talk about the procedures addressing the issues, but what I like is that Sheila stepped up and she has a different set of eyeglasses and different experiences and she has the perspective of the students and teachers and keeps us in check to get the security procedures centered around education, children and teachers. We will meet the third Tuesday every month at 9:30. Mr. Luther stated the next meeting we will discuss the site and slowly work into the building. Mr. Pessina states Christine gave each of us all the requirements in a nutshell to work on. I was impressed with the meeting. Chair would like a motion to have Sheila Daniels as the Chair. Mr. Pessina makes motion to appoint Sheila Daniels as Chair of the Security SubCommittee; Mr. Raczka seconds. The vote is unanimous. The Chair states Sheila is the Chair of this subcommittee. Approval of bills. Mr. Phillips moves t approve the bills as presented; Mr. Raczka seconds. Mr. Pessina asks for the discussion. He asks that the budget be part of the next meeting as it is presented at the Pump Station Building Committee. The vote is called and it is unanimous. The Chair states the motion carries to pay the invoices as presented and states the budget will be at the next meeting. B. Update Administrators and Teachers. Vice ChairDrake saw that MS O’Hare met with the administrators and teachers, and had discussions with Dr. Conner. Mr. Szczypek states they wanted to go back and have a discussion with special ed and plans are being updated based on those discussions and will edit plans before presenting them to the committee; they will have meetings with other department chairs. It is in the works. Mr. Luther states there have been changes to the vision of the ed specs and he needs to communicate it to the staff and we are following Dr. Conner as he brings people on board and it is a symbolic process. Chair asks if it is moving at the right place. Mr. Szczypek states they want everyone on board. Mr. Giuliano asks if it includes the Keigwin staff as well. Mr. Luther states that is part of the discussion they are having. Chair states her understanding is their principal should be bringing them into the fold. Mr. Szczypek states they are relying on school administrators to speak with staff. Chair states communication is key and any reminder of that is good if there is not enough information provided. Vice Chair Drake states one of the thousand is middle grade integration. Sylvia has been part of that. We took a tour of Nathan Hale School in Norwalk. Mr. Luther states we haven’t met with the Math Department because the issue is still out there and Dr. Conner needs to have that discussion. Chair states Dr. Conner is being honored by the NAACP tonight and we chose to have this meeting. Next month we can bring up communication. C. State Pre Planning meeting. Mr. Szczypek will be releasing information to CM starting next week. We will have working sessions on building components and size and they need to get their estimators up to date and when the design is done, we want them to bring in their cost estimate. I don’t know the status of the contract. Mr. Biega states O & G will step in and not wait for the execution of the contract. Mr. Szczypek will be fleshing out outline specifications and we will add information to it when they meet with Clean Energy. They have drawings working on this from various engineers and there are 60 drawings from different disciplines. They are still schematic drawings; by the time we are done with all the construction documents, we will have 60 or 70 sheets and two or three volumes of specifications. We will share the information on the October meeting and they are working on presentation materials and a model. Mr. Szczypek states they did get the Geotechnical report from Geoinsight; the information is good and it is sandy soil of different grades of sand. They went to 22 feet and did not encounter rock so it is easy material to maneuver but the groundwater is fairly high elevation 99 is where we encountered groundwater and the lowest is 102.5 so when it comes to the elevator or orchestra pit we have to make sure there is adequate waterproofing and drainage. Mr. Szczypek states you are kind of building a boat; this will not be a deep foundation. The good news is the foundations won’t be exotic. Mr. Pessina states the run-off from Ridge Road we have to deal with it. The water will flow from above to the lower field. Was that a consideration in the report. Mr. Szczypek states there are recommendations for water proofing, dewatering; there are recommendations. We have civil engineers to do drainage. CM is guaranteeing it. Mr. Szczypek states the State was looking for a Phase I Environmental Assessment. Through us you retained the people and the report is 491 pages. Mr. Szczypek states the executive summary, the purpose is for the State to see that it will not be a difficult site. This site isn’t. In the report you will find a diagram of the footprint of the existing building and there are areas of concern enumerated and there are underground fuel sources. There is nothing unusual. It is just removal of the tanks and they will explore the soil when it is removed. There is the former High School Chemistry Department and that is a concern and they will need an interior abatement issue and it is minor. Mr. Giuliano states he has worked on that building in different roles and he is familiar with the cans and the worms and would like to be involved. Mr. Szczypek states this is just a Site assessment and they will have an interior abatement and you will be part of that. This is a site assessment and as far as the site is concerned there is nothing here. Mr. Pessina asks in your experiences with what we have found here with the sandy soil, have you done projects with similar soils and have there been difficulties. Mr. Szczypek responds none; the foundations will be conventional. O & G looks at the borings to make sure there is no inappropriate material and there is none. Mr. Giuliano has a question. Because of the hill at the back of the building, I am assuming there would be a playing field, parking lot, middle floor of the building and if we were to have a storm like the other day, would that be a concern of water getting into the building and coming towards the middle floor. Mr. Szczypek states he is not concerned; we will work with civil engineers to make sure the drainage is adequate; Mr. Luther the goal would be to intercept the water before it gets to the building. He explains what the spaces are in the hill; they won’t be occupied. The Chair, hearing no further questions from the committee, asks for a motion to adjourn. Meeting Adjourned Mr. Pessina moves to adjourn and Mr. Raczka seconds the motion. The vote is unanimous and the Chair adjourns the meeting at 8 p.m.