Woodrow Wilson Building Committee

WWMS Building Committee Minutes October 25, 2018 Present: Mary Bartolotta, John Giuliano, Kirsten Byrd, Sheila Daniels, Ted Raczka, Richard Pelletier, John Phillips, Also Present: Dr. Conner, John Cross Absent: Chris Drake, Phil Pessina, Chris Bonsignore, Gene Nocera Also Present: TSKP, O & G, 9 members of the public Meeting called to order at 6:02 p.m. Public Comment: Martha Kline Sierra Club; Sierra Club is a stakeholder for climate protection and there are a number of reasons of considering heating with little or no fossil fuels. Because the fossil fuel comes from fracking with trace of radiation and drilling slurring and people living near these areas have developed health issues including cancer and other diseases; we are seeing health impacts of using natural gas. Methane is the most devastating greenhouse gas in our environment. Noted for the Record Kristy Byrd takes her seat at 6:05 p.m. Ms Kline continues that the UN just released a report and we are far advanced in climate change. Across all the parameters, methane comes out a loser and there are other options for the school and town and for the children. If anyone wants more information, Sierra Club is thrilled to be a resource. Closes public comment at 6:06 p.m. A. Construction Manager at Risk Construction Manager at Risk. Ken Biega, O & G, speaks to the contract; there were some changes by the City regarding 60 days for bill paying after the committee approved can that be lowered to 30 days and it is now a 30 day pay period. The O & G office made the changes and they should be able to sign it and send it to the City. It will be signed later this week. Chair asks why 30 days for payment. Mr. Cross states because we are the City Of Middletown you want to give smaller contractors participation in this and 30 days helps that and 30 is in the industry standard. It is 30 days after the Building Committee approves it. If you are a small contract you don’t see money for at least 60 days. They want to keep it tight and want smaller contractors. The Chair states it is paperwork and new protocol for reimbursements and moving it through the last process. The Chair can’t vote on the contract this evening. Chair asks staff if this can work; staff responds that so long as it is 30 days after the approval of the bills by the committee, it should work. Chair once it is signed and you are good to go and we can look at it and make the final decision. We will look at a special meeting to do that. Mr. Pelletier asks if it can be a phone poll. It is explained that it can’t be unless it is a conference call where the public can hear the discussion. Mr. Biega would like to have a special meeting in a couple of weeks. The Chair states we need to approve the budget line for the construction manager at risk for $4,270,500. Mr. Cross states it represents O & G’s fees; keep in mind the number will have to be finalized once the GMP is finalized. GMP can go up or down when we go out to bid based on the estimates and pricing by O & G, we will say the project will cost x and they will be at risk and their fee will be based on the final number. The fee is based on the conceptual number of $74 million. Once the max price is set, that will be the number and if they screw it up, there fee is at risk. Chair asks if there is a percentage of the max number. Mr. Cross states we have a fixed cost; the numbers are very good. When we put the conceptual numbers, we vetted with the architect and believe the number is in there. It could be $3 million more or $1 million less. He believes we can make the exact amount on the estimate. It will be our charge to keep the budget where the estimate and State authorized the funds to be. Mr. Szczypek would like to know what is in this number. GMP stands for guaranteed maximum price and it includes all the max numbers from the contracts and what this number (budget line) represents is overhead expenses, trailer, superintendent, insurance, engineers they hired to monitor the work all the expenses outside the trade costs and some of the numbers in this are variable. Mr. Biega states if you look at our fee, it is a percentage of the work and when we get our guarantee max price it will be for $73 Million and can be adjusted up or down. Chair states if the price goes up, the monies go to your payment and less to the project. Mr. Biega if something happens and the cost of construction goes up we look where the money comes from and if the guarantee price goes up then we have to adjust our insurance and bond fee costs. You have to base it on something and it is based at $73.5 million. Chair wants it to have all the details and doesn’t want you to come back and say there is a big chunk missing. Motion to approve budget line for the Construction Manager at Risk Mr. Phillips moves to approve the budget line for the construction manager at risk for $4,270,500; his motion is seconded by Mr. Pelletier. The Chair asks if discussion and hearing none calls for the vote. It is unanimous to approve. The Chair states the budget line is approved for $4,270,500. Motion to approve putting a requisition in place to encumber the funds The Chair states the next motion is not a repetition of the first motion. It is to approve signing the requisition to encumber the funds for the Construction Manager at Risk. She asks for a motion. Mr. Pelletier moves the approval of signing a requisition for $4,270,500 for O & G as the Construction Manager at Risk; his motion is seconded by Mr. Phillips. The Chair calls for the vote. It is unanimous to approve. The Chair states the committee has approved the requisition for O & G to be signed for $4,270,500. Chair Bartolotta asks for a motion to move up 4A because we will not have a quorum after 7 pm so we need to take action on this item now. Mr. Phillips moves to waive the rules to move 4A for discussion at this time; his motion is seconded by Mr. Raczka. The vote is unanimous to do so. Motion to approve payment of Invoice #5, TSKP Chair asks for motion to pay the remaining TSKP Schematic Design Invoice for $170,000. Mr. Raczka so moves the approval to pay Invoice #5 from TSKP in the amount of $170,000; Mr. Phillips seconds the motion. The Chair calls the vote and it is unanimous to approve. The Chair states the Invoice is approved for payment. Motion to pay TSKP expenses from the Administration Line Item The Chair states there are expenses from the Architect that have to be paid that are not part of the contract. She asks for a motion to pay the expenses from the Administration Line. Mr. Raczka moves to pay expenses from Invoice #4 Totaling $177.08 and Invoice #5 for $45.00 from the Administration line. His motion is seconded by Mr. Pelletier. The Chair, hearing no discussion calls for the vote. It is unanimous to approve the expenses as stated from the Administration line item. The Chair states we will move on to reviewing the project. Mr. Phillips asks about the financial reports. The Chair asks staff to explain. Ms Norwood responds that at the last meeting, Mr. Pessina asked that at each meeting the committee be given a budget statement to show monies encumbered and monies that have been spent. The reports are to show those figures. Mr. Phillips thought that was what they were. The Chair asks if there are any questions. There are none. Old business B. Commissioning Agent status. John Cross states the RFP is being advertised and should be back the last week of November; we will do the same as we did for the construction manager at risk and then present them after he reviews and categorizes them. Chair asks if this will be on the next regular meeting. John Cross responds it would be interviews until December. Chair asks if it will be back in time for this meeting in November. They are due back November 28, 2018. John Cross cut down the amount of time for this. If you only get 3 or 4, it will be easier and if only that number it will be easier. The Chair asks if there are questions on this. C. Security Subcommittee update: Sheila Daniels states the bulk of discussion was around the new park area and Hunting Hill Avenue and Mr. Gaylord Gaylord had a discussion. They had a security audit at the end of last year and it was brought up that the proximity of the school would be an issue; we were surprised to see how close the seating area on the field is to the street; we had a car last week veer from the road toward the field. The field is bigger so it made the track wider and pushed the grace period into the road area; there is no barrier there now. We reviewed the area again and it was recommended we revisit having the area partially closed during the school day. This is a compromise. Some school campuses have this; Bennet Academy in Manchester has this sort of campus in a more dense area. He made some pictures for your review. Mr. Luther took a field trip last Friday with Phil Pessina, the Fire Chief and Sgt. Porter visited the area and we felt this was a nice compromise. It is a safe barrier during school days; they can use the fields during the day; and security and one of the areas has to do with a lockdown situation and kids could get back to the school safely in that situation. The pictures show the gate the school chose and it could be a mechanical gate that opens automatically in an emergency situation. We would like to move to take the steps to close the area until the after school activities are ending. John Phillips states you are proposing to close it. Mr. Gaylord responds we can use the front for school arrival and dismissal. It gives the architect more flexibility in designing that area and parking and busses. Mr. Luther states this is an idea we talked about early on and closing the road and that did not go over well. We went forward with the assumption it was not viable; the Security Subcommittee that was the first thought and I explained and they pushed back. Mr. Gaylord states the conversation came back up after the security audit and at the time of the hospital incident. Once you see the grace area between the curb and facilities. Chair states the bond ordinance added language that the road cannot be closed permanently and we didn’t push back so hard because we needed to get the bond done. She believes this is not a permanent closure and we can open and close it, we should be okay with this way to address it. It is great that Police and Fire are endorsing this. Mr. Luther states if the consensus is that is what we want to do, then this site plan may be obsolete. What really drove our site design is the bussing, cuing them up and to fit them all was a challenge and if we are talking about closing the road during the school day, then we can do what we did at Manchester Academy and it is bus drop off only then we can get them in the front and then parents would pick and drop off at the main entrance. It would help the site plan and we still have to see if we can cue all the busses there and it will change what you see here tonight. Chair asks how it will change; Mr. Luther explains he can have two rows of busses on each side of the street and can eliminate the parent drop off loop and have more buffer between the street and the school and then I would have a parent drop off loop that is continuous along the side of the school. If there is one continuous loop, it won’t matter where I come in and the parking lot would be contiguous and give more parking for the field. It is the best solution given the need to cue up all the busses. Chair asks if there is a down side. Mr. Luther can’t think of one and if we get into it and it doesn’t work, we know we have a plan that works. We can still close the road. Chair reviews the positives for the change. Mr. Luther states they are all positives. Ms Daniels states it is better for the Staff. Chair is on board for this. Mr. Gaylord states it frees up the community center as well. Mr. Gaylord any situation where we have to vacate the building, this area is safer. Mr. Luther we had the Sustainability charrette and one of the topics was stormwater and the amount of the site paved or built on and right now we have this huge swath and we already have the road so we can save money and have more green space and take care of storm water. Ted Raczka asks if they can revisit the possible Council legislation; Chair states it was the Mayor. Mr. Raczka states he always thought it would be great to close the street. Chair to change the bond ordinance is impossible. Mr. Raczka thinks it might be worth a discussion. Chair states she believes the bond would have to go back to the voters to close the road permanently. Chair states this is not a permanent closure. Sgt. Porter said moving forward with the gate solution and closing during school facilities and if it can be revisited. Richard Pelletier states he doesn’t cross the road ever; he asks about summer. Mr. Gaylord responds hey have school during the summer. Sgt. Porter thought this was a good compromise and they could revisit it in a couple of years. This is a good solution for the problem for fire and police and our safety committee. Mr. Pelletier asks about an ambulance and how does it work. Mr. Gaylord doesn’t know the technology. Ms Daniels states Chief Howley doesn’t see a problem. Mr. Gaylord will update the chief; Chair states we will need something in writing. Mr. Gaylord will ask for that. We should move forward with the partial closure. Mr. Phillips asks about bringing the busses to the front of the school; his concern about the logistical flow and the majority of the busses come from the north and they have to get around to leave toward the north otherwise they have to use the side streets. Mr. Luther needs to talk with the Transportation Director and see how he imagines how this will work. You have no ability to make a left turn onto the property. Mr. Gaylord what do you envision as the next step; Ms. Daniels states the subcommittee can make the recommendation and the committee has to vote and there are several Fire and Police departments involved. Mr. Gaylord said the police and fire are in agreement. Ms. Daniels states when the audit came forward they had the conversation and with the emergency people present, there was no issue or concern. Chair states the question I have is I can amend the agenda, but we have nothing from them in writing from either committee and something from the Fire Chief and Sgt Porter is necessary. Mr. Phillips states we should direct the architect to incorporate the gates and bus flow to accommodate the recommendation and get the letters you need so we can move forward. We need to make the motion for those changes. Mr. Gaylord states he can get those letters on their recommendation. Chair states there are minutes from the subcommittee. I want to have everyone on board and have that in hand. Mr. Szczypek asks if you don’t vote on it tonight that is fine; Ken asked for an additional meeting and it be brought up at that time. Chair states the one reporting back. Mr. Gaylord will take care of it tomorrow. Ms. Daniels states we were changing the date round; it is the 20th of November. John Giuliano has a couple of questions. Currently the busses come from the north down South Main to Farm Hill to Russell and turn into the school and in order for them to maintain north south direction they will have to go down Farm Hill, left on Newtown and Left on Hunting Hill. Can they negotiate that left and will the neighbors have a fit because we changed the traffic level of the neighborhood. Mr. Gaylord states the middle school is second tier and they are coming from multiple directions and every year is different and being out there, they come from all different directions from Randolph Road straight ahead and Russell Street and Newtown and there hasn’t been an issue. Newtown has been used. Mr. Phillips asks one last question as far as State reimbursement will this qualify. Mr. Luther states they won’t pay for the gates themselves because it is off the property line. Mr. Phillips states that will take away from what you want to do in the school. Sustainability update; John Giuliano hands out a summary of what went on at the meeting and recommendations the Clean Energy Task Force made. Mr. Giuliano states we met at the Library and from the Clean Energy Task Force perspective we want a building that has, if you look at #1, Setting expectations, they set goals for energy perspective and sustainability. They want decisions based on life cycle costs. They want to reduce long term operating costs. Reassessing geothermal and asks they look at page 3 and the size needed to do geothermal and that could have substantial returns on investment. They think wells could be done in the parking lot in front of the admin building. Photovoltaic may be reimbursed by the State. Parking Lot solar canopies can be an option. Stormwater Management, we can incorporate bioswales; he believes there is one in front of the new Liberty Bank. We talked about pervious concrete in the parking lot for drainage; he likes the idea of that but he is concerned about the maintenance because it has to be cleaned yearly. They mentioned Guilford which is 50% lower than code for energy efficiency. Mr. Giuliano read something from the Sierra Club about fracking and it was eye opening and we are heading for natural gas for heating and wondering if that is our best option. Her email gave me pause. Patrick McKenna said he was happy to be party of the conversation and they want to continue to be part of the conversation and everyone wants the same for this building. It is a great summary of the meeting. He is excited about the potential of freeing up open space. Mr. Szczypek states we due owe you life cycle savings; Christine O’Hare from my office attended that meeting and the intention is to work with O & G to cost the items out and work out the payback periods so you have more information to make the decision. Mr. Raczka asks if we are not too far down the road to consider geothermal. Mr. Luther states we have to go back and check. The original problem was no place to put the wells and the suggestion was wells under the building and he needs to talk about the implications of that and the other is the parking lot across the street and the problem with that is that this is an extraordinary site for development and this is the wells, I don’t know that you can build the building and I have to have the conversation with O & G. We will check those boxes again. The question is asked if the district is still committed to the old administration; the one for Russell street. Mr. Cross responds that is IT and we are short office space and I don’t see the buildings going away. We have the White building down below. John Cross what we have to consider with geothermal it is difficult to do heat recovery on cold days and you need supplemental boilers in there everyday and I have one person doing HVAC across the district and I don’t see it working well on this site. If the football field wasn’t built, that is where we should build. Mr. Phillips states regarding geothermal the process to get it there started before the design of the building; you have to look at the change in temp in the aquifer. Geothermal might be an opportunity missed; it should have been done well in advance of this. Chair states we did have this discussion when it was determined this was the site, there was significant push back to put it here and because of everything that was taking place across the street; originally we had $2 million in the line and $1 million was pulled out because geothermal was not a good fit. If we want to go through the exercise again and what the state will do or not do is the bigger question. Mr. Szczypek states it is worth one more visit. Chair wants for the record we did go through this exercise and had $2 million to include geothermal and we took out $1 million because it could not work. At the Sr. Center we have a major issue and it is under the foundation and having it under the building makes it harder to address. Art Helms with the Sierra club would like to address the life cycle question; chair states. Life cycle the payback period and it is looking at 40 or 50 years and life cycle depends on market prices and heat pumps lock in price now. Chair states the city is locked in with 20 years and solar panels. We need to address the geothermal now. 5. New Business Update TSKP. Mr. Luther will walk you through the schematic design and a computer program to illustrate the design in 3D. We delivered a roll of drawings of 50 sheets and a volume that describes the systems and finishes they are considering and the structural plans all necessary for O & G to cost it out. Our work for you is divided into design and construction admin part and the design is schematic, design devel and documents. Schematic is 20% of the design at this time. In addition to Mr. Luther, we have Garrett Lord, MaryLynn Radych, and Christine O’Hare. Mr. Luther states Garrett did most of the model. He did a building sign; it is internally lit. We can take the roof off. We talked briefly about the site plan and it will change. He is referencing what won’t change. Busses and parking for cars, but also separate parking for the community center; it could be 15 or 20 spaces for the day. Big events are after hours and weekends and you may have a lot more people they could use the parking from the school. The other reason is the state will ask us how many are serving the building and they won’t reimburse for them so we want to keep it at a minimum. He shows parking areas. Half of the travel lane they will pay for none of the parking and sidewalks. We need to maintain the parking that serves the maintenance building and kept those. We continue to create a green space for PE but it is real estate for whatever. He shows the slope and it is not usable real estate and they maximized the flat areas. Service area, the grade helps that; the service is down low and hidden because of that grade. It is the least prominent corner of the building. The other thing that won’t change, important design element, is this access. You spent money to create this facility so he wants the building to respond to that feel. We have this colonnade of trees to the Main Entrance. When you come in, you can see right through the building to the field beyond. It is a strong visual connection to that field and make it feel like one campus. He shows a section through the hill and playfield where the current school is and that will be the new community center and pool. We are cutting through that building and this is the old school. In the feasibility study we said we would use that grade for the building. It brings the building to almost the exact same height as the old high school. You can look through the lobby and stair to the field beyond. He shows the inside of the building and the features that have been incorporated. He shows the lower level plans; there is not a lot of change, but more refinement. We just begun meeting with some staff as to what goes on in the rooms in detail. The classrooms are on the west side in three separate houses or schools; they all have the same elements on different floors. We do that for flexibility and he explains. In the future, if they want to organization by floor, they have the rooms to meet the ed specs. One of the things they added is each house has one set of classes with a folding partition so there is a double size room. On the other side of the public spaces or core spaces, we have the auditorium and it goes down and up for the stage and behind is the band and orchestra which they can access the backstage area. As you come down, he shows the kitchen suite with the loading dock and service drive and it is tucked into the hill. They are not classroom space because of the limited daylight and they will do what they can to keep water out. It is mechanical, storage space, etc. On the end is library media center and technology lab. We need to have discussion whether or not they work together. As it is developing, the maker’s space is moving into the pods. The principal’s idea having the idea that the media center is a branch of the public library and he shows how you can have direct access and parking. It is not part of the project, but they are leaving it open to do that. He shows the main entrance and the features. It serves as a stair, seating during lunch or a lecture area. The lobby serves the gym and the auditorium. There are entrances at both levels. You will be buzzed in to the main office where you sign in. You have to go through this space. He shows the school based health clinic. He shows the balance of the music program and special ed life skills classroom. PE suite has large collapsible bleachers so you can have two parallel basketball courts. Shows PE storage and locker rooms. Shows auxiliary gym and fitness rooms. At the end, we added a flex lab that can serve in a lot of capacities. The third level he shows where it is open to below and glassed in. You can see down there, but not throw stuff or yell. It allows visual connection of all the floors. Shows the second flex lab on the opposite end. Shows the art suite, 3 rooms and one takes advantage of the north exposure. He shows rooftop spaces that are screened and they provided a service corridor to walk directly onto the roof to get to the equipment easily. For the rest of the equipment, there is a second elevator to access them. If they cut through the building, he shows the entrance and the stadium seats gym on one side auditorium on the other. Shows the spaces from a different view. The east is the entry elevation and Gene discussed colors that speak to middletown and what you see here is brick and our intent is to match the brick to the high school to have the connection with the old high school and new middle school. It will have limestone panels and the materials up high covering the gym are metal panels. We were trying to do is it is a big building and we heard during the ref to send their kids to the big school and they tried to create a collection of smaller buildings like a village. They come together with different materials so they don’t come together as a massive building. He shows the large canopy that provides an opportunity for students to congregate. He shows what it would look like from the parking lot. There is opportunity for large signage above the gym. As you come in the front door gym on right auditorium on the left and he shows the views out and the upper level. They are imagining a lot of display cases in the main lobby to showcase what goes on in the school. Shows stairwells to the cafeteria so they are not traipsing through the school. They tried to open the building up as much as possible. It allows us to get daylight especially in the gym to get a nice light quality. They will do a detailed analysis of how big the skylights will have to be; the goal is to run gym classes all day with natural light. Shows north elevation; it is great opportunity for glass. It is very transparent and above is an art room. Where it is fewer windows it is gym spaces. He shows the parking lot and what will be the pool and gym they are saving. Shows the classroom pods facing south with only a light glass; shows the music spaces and the school based health clinic. It is all brick and limestone. Shows west facing Hunting Hill and it is all brick and limestone as the old school and it was important that the three houses be reflected in the architecture. Shows the entrance opposite the grand staircase; whether it is the bus or parent drop off will be decided. Shows various views of the school along Hunting Hill Avenue. We attempted to make it feel like smaller buildings put together to form a coherent building. It will be dramatic when people drive by in the evenings for functions. The last material I did mention is the old building has a base of brownstone and that is prominent in Middletown and our intent is to put brownstone on the lower level along this side, as a base to reflect a common material in Middletown; it can take a lot of abuse and a good way to reference what Middletown has. Everything you see is from the team. Mr. Luther opens for questions. He shows 3D model. Mr. Phillips states when looking at your model for the service area are you accommodating future recycling. Mr. Luther states we are in the early stages for that. Mr. Phillips states we want to build infrastructure to support all that recycling. Chair asks how the architects are addressing disability access. Mr. Luther states one nice thing about the grade change is entering in the middle of the building; he shows where the elevators are located. There is a primary one off the main lobby to all three floors. The lower floor is at grade level and for emergency egress they don’t need the elevator and the second level they can egress without using the elevator. So lower, and second floor both have grade access. It is better than most schools in term of access. Mr. Szczypek states where we are right now is O & G has the specs and is doing costing bu we have not sat with them to reconcile the details and we have not heard about abatement. Ken Biega states like Ryszard said we sent the estimate, but we made assumptions and we have to discuss what they have in mind. That is the next step. What I would like to do is schedule a meeting with just this on the agenda, with the contract and the bus move. I don’t know what the schedule is. They want two weeks. Schedule special meeting November 15 at 6 p.m. The Chair asks who could be there; Mr. Giuliano, Ms. Byrd, Mr. Phillips, Ms. Daniels, and Mr. Pelletier are available. The Chair asks if at the meeting it is the intention to have proposal for sustainability. O & G states no. C. Committee opening discussion. The Chair states she received the resignation from a committee member who requested the reason is confidential. We do need to replace that individual and also address one of the Council Member's schedule who won’t be able to attend due to teaching schedule. We will have to revisit that. I do not pick the committee members and it is the community member and Chris Drake is working on that and we will make the recommendation to the Mayor to fill the position as soon as possible. Wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. She thanks Mr. Phillips for getting here. Ms. Daniels states on membership, have to have parent rep. we have parent reps of minority status. Ms Daniels would like to see the committee diversify. Chair states Mr. Drake is addressing this and we can take care of that. This committee had no hands on choosing its membership; they'll do the best they can. Motion to adjourn. Mr. Pelletier moves to adjourn and his motion is seconded by Mr. Giuliano. The vote is called and it is unanimous. The Chair declares the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by: Marie O Norwood Staff to Building Committee