School Building Committee (2020)

School Building Committee (2020) Regular Meeting City Hall, R00m 335 100 Broadway, Norwich, CT And via ZOOM February 27, 2024 6:30 PM Committee Members Present: Chairman Mark Bettencourt, President Pro Tem Joe DeLucia, Alderwoman Stacy Gould, William Hull, Gregory Ballassi, Shiela Hayes, Cindy Beauregard, Christine DiStasio (ZOOM), Gregory Carabine and Mark Kulos. Committee Members Absent: Peter Gauthier. Ex-Officio Members Present: Mayor Peter Nystrom, Attorney Michael Driscoll, Matthew Brown (ZOOM) and City Purchasing Agent Bob Castronova. Consultants Present: James Barrett and Greg Smolley from DRA; Tom Romagnoli and Brad Anderson (ZOOM) from Downes Construction; and Mike Faenza from CSG. Citizens Present: Mary Lou Rychling and Robert Harris, Norwich Public Utilities. I.Call to Order and Quorum: Chairman Mark Bettencourt called the meeting to order at 6:31 PM. II.Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes: William Hull made a motion to approve the January 23, 2024 meeting minutes as written. Gregory Carabine seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. III.Public Comment: Mayor Peter Nystrom stated that in regards to the issue of a project labor agreement (PLA) which was addressed at the previous meeting, there had been discussions regarding funding amongst council as recently as that past Friday. Mayor Nystrom stated that during that time the council was told that the estimated date for receiving new anticipated costs for sitework and utility installation for the Greeneville and Stanton projects was a few weeks away. Mayor Nystrom stated that the council had the intent to pass a resolution at the next council meeting which would require a PLA on the projects. Mayor Nystrom stated he was told in discussions with DRA after the last meeting there would be an approximate 10 to 12 percent increase, which would translate to millions of dollars. Mayor Nystrom felt the council should know what this increase is before making a decision and that any increase of that amount needed to be presented before the council. Mayor Nystrom stated he felt if the council was to enforce a PLA the city would run into the risk of running out of money to complete the projects. Mayor Nystrom feared that any increase in cost would force a review of the project capability. Mayor Nystrom stated that the projects spread over many years which would not hide the lack of funds available due to an inflation in costs. Mayor Nystrom stated he did not want to gamble with the future of the city or its children. Mayor Nystrom stated this bond was likely to be the highest ever approved and it was a grave concern to him to not have the total of the increased costs before making a vote. Mayor Nystrom stated that the cost of a PLA should have been included in the referendum when citizens made their vote. IV.Report from CSG: Mike Faenza provided a copy of a monthly project update for both sites to committee members. Mike Faenza stated the report established the critical patch schedule for  the next few weeks and an updated budget as of the past month. Mike Faenza reported that since the last meeting he met with the building department to discuss the wetlands impacts on the projects and what the next steps would be. Mike Faenza reported that the project design team released the schematic design (SD) drawing packages for initial SD estimating and that quotes would be received tomorrow. Mike Faenza stated that he was meeting with the Director of Planning and Neighborhood Services, Deanna Rhodes, and her office in regards to scheduling a team meeting between the various involved city departments and project stakeholders to look at items that may apply to things such as planning, zoning, wetlands and utilities. Mike Faenza stated that two weeks prior he had a working group meeting with the food service team from Norwich Public Schools to get an understanding of what their kitchen needs would be for equipment and amenities. Mike Faenza stated that the previous week CSG met with the academics working group and were continuing to hold those meetings every Thursday as needed. Mike Faenza stated that the Norwich Public School group had been bringing in team members to the meetings that may be needed for different discussion points, such as a representative from UCFS in regards to the school based health center. Mike Faenza noted that the timeline date for the SD estimate and reconciliation moved to February 28th to 29th. Mike Faenza stated that the parcels at the Greeneville site were being combined to make one large city-owned parcel as a formality. Mike Faenza highlighted the design fees for DRA and allowances within the updated budget. Mike Faenza added that the program management costs were accurate costs, while the commissioning amounts and other numbers were projections. Mike Faenza stated that the utility charges would likely be increasing. Mike Faenza stated that the numbers within the budgets were costs provided by Norwich Public Utilities (NPU) when the only fee at the time was the sewer connection. Mike Faenza stated he was waiting on a formal confirmation of the utility costs from NPU. Mike Faenza discussed the various projected fees listed on the budget. Mike Faenza stated the budget would have a few iterations as things progressed and once the SD estimate was completed those numbers would be included to see what the new projected costs were. Mike Faenza stated that once associated consultants were brought on board any applicable projected costs would be reconciled. Discussion ensued. Mike Faenza noted that the construction cost would likely increase after the reconciliation. Mike Faenza discussed various aspects that could increase, or potentially decrease, the budget. Mike Faenza noted there was a change in the way the state conducts plan reviews as they used to require a preparation meeting, a schematic design review, a design development review and a plan completion review once the construction documents were available. Mike Faenza stated that the state has removed all required meetings aside from the plan completion review. V.Report from DRA: James Barrett reported that the SD package was delivered to Downes Construction and Tarbell Construction. James Barrett stated that approximately 25 requests for information were submitted and responded to. James Barrett reported that the building square footage was somewhat high at the SD level and they were working to reduce that number. James Barrett showed sample footprints on screen for the Greeneville site where they were resolving to trim down the square footage throughout the building. James Barrett showed footprints on screen for the Stanton site where the same approach was taken. James Barrett reported that DRA met with the food service group on February 13th and were beginning to receive responses from their food service consultant who will work with the director and assistant director of food service for Norwich Public Schools, and report back to DRA moving forward. James Barrett stated that his team began looking at the Pre-K/Kindergarten/Grade 1 floor plans and began to fill the spaces with potential furniture choices in order to investigate design options. James Barrett showed a conceptual floor plan on screen for all to view as well as classroom designs with the placeholder furniture. Greg Smolley clarified that no furniture was being selected at this point and the process and anything shown only served as placeholders to assist in determining the wall configuration of space. Mark Kulos arrived at 6:56PM  Discussion ensued regarding potential cubby placement versus lockers in the hallway outside of the classroom. James Barrett identified within the plans on screen where the learning commons would be located in each of the two schools. James Barrett discussed the STEM components of the space and how natural light would be utilized. James Barrett showed on screen and discussed rough proposals of internal design and furnishings that were presented to the school administration working group. James Barrett showcased the proposed nursing suite that was reconfigured after feedback from nurses in the working group, which now utilized open rest space and would be connected to the school based health center in the building. James Barrett discussed the configuration of the school based health center which had also been revised after receiving feedback from the working group. James Barrett stated that at the previous meeting Gregory Ballassi had raised the question of a pedestrian connection at the Greeneville site and how it could be possible to get students from the lower level of the site to the upper level outside of the building. James Barrett showed a proposed sketch on screen for all to view where this had been considered. James Barrett explained that some constraints to achieve this are the required control of the slope which they would like to see at five percent or less, where it would be considered simply a walkway, but that would require 700 feet of ramp. James Barrett stated the conceptual sketch showed 500 feet of ramp at an eight percent slope. James Barrett noted that at that percentage handrails would be required on both sides of the pathway. James Barrett stated this concept was presented to the working group and it did not garner a lot of positive reception. James Barrett added that the school administration was presenting the question to their officers in the district to see if there is another way a resolution can be achieved. James Barrett showed on screen where the floodway for the Ford Brook fell within the original proposed site configuration at Stanton Elementary. James Barrett stated this was reviewed with administration and they received the recommendation for the grass play area to be placed within the floodway abutting the paved play space, basketball court and playscape. James Barrett explained the challenge with the space is that fencing was limited within the grass play area so they were looking at other options of things that could be placed at the edges to keep the play area controlled. James Barrett stated that at the working meeting with school administration that upcoming Thursday they would be focusing on special education spaces. VI.Report from Downes: Tom Romagnoli introduced Chip Natsis, who was the lead in putting together the SD estimate. Tom Romagnoli stated that his team was preparing for the estimate reconciliation the following day as well as scheduling a logistics discussion. Mark Kulos asked if the budget estimates accounted for increases in wholesale costs, materials and potential delivery delays. Chip Natsis responded that an escalation package was included in the estimate. Chip Natsis added it was possible for them to put out an early release package including some of the long lead items as more of the information is developed by the engineers and consultants. Mark Kulos asked if Downes had been working with NPU on long lead items such as electrical transformers. Mike Faenza responded that many conversations with NPU had occurred and DRA provided them with all parameters of what would be needed in terms of flow rates, electricity to the buildings and associated items. Mike Faenza stated he followed up the previous week to see if any estimates were available and they were not. Mary Lou Rychling and Rob Harris were in attendance from NPU. Rob Harris stated that NPU was working on those items and had just received a site plan and confirmation for the Greeneville site that the L-shaped piece of property by Boswell Avenue was being utilized, so they can now move forward to develop a cost effective estimate. Rob Harris noted that connection fees were mentioned previously and that NPU does not have the ability to waive  those fees themselves. Rob Harris stated that there may be other discussion occurring but NPU did not have that ability. Mary Lou Rychling agreed and noted that the enterprise zone was a component of that. Discussion ensued. Tom Romagnoli stated that his team did have their finger on the pulse with the market and were aware rooftop units had anywhere from a six to ten month turnaround. Tom Romagnoli stated as things progressed he would get more information on what the systems and manufacturers were so they could offer input on if one manufacturer’s basis of design was a longer lead than another. VII.Invoices: ● CSG - Greeneville #11- $10,680.02 Stanton #11- $10,555.46 Mark Kulos made a motion to approve CSG Invoice #11 for $10,680.02 for Professional Services Rendered for January 1, 2024 - January 31, 2024 in regards to the Greeneville Elementary School project. Gregory Carabine seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to approve CSG Invoice #11 for $10,555.46 for Professional Services rendered for January 1, 2024 - January 31, 2024 in regards to the Stanton Elementary School project. Gregory Carabine seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. ● DRA - Greeneville #4- $98,077.50 Stanton #4- $104,395.31 Note: includes SLR reimbursement William Hull made a motion to approve DRA Invoice #4 for $98,077.50 for Professional Services rendered January 1, 2024 to January 31, 2024 in regards to the Greeneville Elementary School project. Alderwoman Stacy Gould seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Mark Kulos made a motion to approve DRA Invoice #4 for $104,395.31 for Professional Services rendered January 1, 2024 to January 31, 2024 in regards to the Stanton Elementary School project. Alderwoman Stacy Gould seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. ● Downes Construction Company - Greeneville #1 - $38,835.48 Stanton #1 - $38,835.48 Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to approve Downes Construction Company Invoice #1 for $38,835.48 for Preconstruction Services in regards to the Greeneville Elementary School Project. William Hull seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to approve Downes Construction Company Invoice #1 for $38,835.48 for Preconstruction Services in regards to the Stanton Elementary School Project. Mark Kulos seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. VIII.Anything else to be brought before the committee: Mike Faenza distributed memos to members in regards to professional service supplements for DRA as they relate to the project. Mike Faenza noted that these supplements would initiate a change in the contract value. Mike Faenza stated there were about $230,000 worth of allowances, with somewhat less attributed to the Greeneville site as the Stanton site included demolition allowances. Mike Faenza explained that the PSS-001 before the committee was for the Phase 2 environmental site assessment for both projects as well as work that’s required for the floodplain discussion that James Barrett had within his quote. Mike Faenza discussed what a Phase 2 versus a Phase 1 environmental site assessment entails. Mike Faenza noted that both schools had an underground oil storage tank at one time and there was not any testing on file to show how the tanks were removed and if it was done properly. Mike Faenza stated that material needed to be tested to determine the presence of any hazards. Mike Faenza added that the material being exported off site would be tested as well. Mike Faenza stated PSS-002 was in regards to flood management certifications for the Stanton site as readjusted FEMA flood mapping. Mike Faenza stated that the building at Stanton would be encroaching on the 100-year floodplain which required the updated FEMA mapping. Mike Faenza stated that because this was a state funded project there needed to be a memo of understanding between DEEP and the Department of Administration Services that all flood criteria had been met. Mike Faenza stated that he was requesting approval from members to extend the allowances from DRA’s contract and that there was money in the allowances to cover that. Mike Faenza noted that the way the RFP was written to the architect the committee is warranted to reassign the allowance amount as needed. Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to authorize the professional service supplements PSS-001, PSS-002, and PS-G001 as submitted in the memo by CSG and DRA. Cindy Beauregard seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Mike Faenza stated that as part of the Connecticut High Performance Building Standards a high performance building meeting was required during the design phase where a commissioning agent must be presented. Mike Faenza stated that the committee needed to hire a commissioning agent within the next couple months. Mike Faenza stated he developed a draft RFP and would like to distribute it after coordinating with the city purchasing agent Bob Castronova. Shiela Hayes asked if the same agent would work on both projects, to which Mike Faenza responded was correct. Gregory Carbine made a motion to authorize CSG to develop a RFP for a commissioning agent and advertise the RFP upon the review of the city purchasing agent. Alderwoman Stacy Gould seconded. All voted in favor. Discussion ensued regarding questions from the PLA presentation at the last meeting held. IX.Adjournment: Mark Kulos made a motion to adjourn at 7:55 PM. Alderwoman Stacy Gould seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Katherine Rose