School Building Committee (2020)

School Building Committee (2020) Regular Meeting City Hall, R00m 335 100 Broadway, Norwich, CT And via ZOOM Tuesday, March 19, 2024 6:30 PM Committee Members Present: Chairman Mark Bettencourt, President Pro Tem Joe DeLucia, Alderwoman Stacy Gould, Peter Gauthier, William Hull, Shiela Hayes, Gregory Ballassi, Mark Kulos, Gregory Carabine and Cindy Beauregard (ZOOM). Committee Members Absent: Christine DiStasio. Ex-Officio Members Present: Mayor Peter Nystrom (ZOOM), Attorney Michael Driscoll (ZOOM, Matthew Brown (ZOOM) and City Purchasing Agent Bob Castronova. Consultants Present: James Barrett and Greg Smolley from DRA; Kevin Blanchette (ZOOM), Ryan Patrick (ZOOM), Chip Natsis and Jeff Anderson from Downes Construction; and Mike Faenza and Jim Guliano 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 6:33 PM. II. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes: President Pro Tem Joe DeLucia made a motion to approve the February 27, 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: None. IV. Report from CSG: Mike Faenza provided a copy of the monthly project update which included an updated budget. Mike Faenza reported that over the past 30 days the schematic design (SD) estimate was completed and estimates were provided by DRA and Downes. Mike Faenza stated that at least seven or eight budget reconciliation meetings were held to discuss considerations for value management for the projects. Mike Faenza continued that the RFQ for commissioning services was completed and once he received back final comments from the building committee that Friday he would include those in the final draft and get the document to the city purchasing agent to post the following Monday. Mike Faenza stated that the monthly working group meetings were continuing to further assist in the design of the buildings. Mike Faenza stated that during the last meeting the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment was approved and that testing for that should commence in the next few weeks. Mike Faenza stated that his next steps were to work with the district administration to analyze the building program and determine if any square footage efficiencies could be reached without impacting the educational program. Mike Faenza reported that he and interim Superintendent Susan Lessard toured the Griswold Elementary School to observe how a building of that size with 700 students operated. Mike Faenza stated that he was scheduling meetings with other district administrators to review the educational program in place for the two schools and to refine the educational specifications for the Moriarty school project. Mike Faenza stated that the work to combine the parcels at the Greeneville site was ongoing but to date not much progress had  occurred. Mike Faenza stated he continued to work with Norwich Public Utilities to understand the utility connection fees and needed to get them additional design details for them to complete their estimate. Mike Faenza stated that the committee would soon need to review and select a commissioning agent, as the way the RFP was written interviews and a pre-bid walkthrough would not be necessary. Mike Faenza reported that CSG was still working to complete the FEMA mapping research for the Station site and that the design team had everything they needed to provide a submission to FEMA and the state for the updated map. Mike Faenza stated that in regards to the updated budget the initial budget that was based on the original grant amounts had not been changed, but pending the outcome of the meeting he would update them based on the schematic design estimate. Mike Faenza stated that currently $676,877.96 had been expended on the Greeneville project and $681,589.77 on Stanton, not including the invoices on that night’s meeting agenda and any other costs that may have not yet been funneled through the committee. Mike Faenza stated that the RFP for the Moriarty project was currently in development and CSG was determining how to proceed with the grant application. Mike Faenza stated that the previous RFP for the architect would suffice, but CSG was considering excluding the conceptual design phase as they felt there was enough information provided by the master plan. Mike Faenza stated that additionally it would be difficult to include that phase and meet the June deadline for the grant submission. Jim Guliano stated CSG was working to keep various systems consistent throughout the district. Mike Faenza stated he would be meeting with the district administration that Friday to discuss potential redistricting efforts and who would occupy the schools once complete. Mike Faenza stated that one value engineering item discussed was the potential to move students partially out of Stanton to afford significant cost saving by permitting some early demolition that would facilitate efficiencies in site and construction work. V. Report from DRA: James Barrett reported that since the SD estimate submission there was a lot of activity regarding the reconciliation of the budgets. James Barrett stated that design development documentation continued with the architectural team as well as the structural, mechanical, electrical, fire protection, plumbing, site engineering, civil and landscaping teams. James Barrett stated that one of the key activities as part of design development was to confirm the various layouts were the same as they were described during the early efforts of the SD process. James Barrett stated that DRA would request a signoff from the district on those represented spaces. James Barrett stated that the first necessary step for the Stanton site was to complete a Letter of Map Amendment Application, then local city review processes could commence. James Barrett stated the application was submitted and is being processed. VI. Report from Downes: James Barrett discussed the progress of the project so far, beginning with the master plan that was compiled by DRA in December 2022. Mike Faenza discussed how CSG, at the time, provided an alternate schedule of how they felt the projects could run in a staggered approach in an effort to level the number of trade contractors needed. Mike Faenza stated the plan was for the first two schools, Stanton and Greeneville, to be built in 2025 and Moriarty a year later. Mike Faenza noted that the schedule had since shifted from what was originally proposed, leaving a year of escalation missing from the original master plan budget based on when the projects would actually start. Mike Faenza noted the original master plan put escalation out to only June of 2024. Mike Faenza added that as things progressed the complexity of the Stanton and Greeneville sites became apparent. Mike Faenza stated the site analysis done for the grant application showed very little wetlands at the Stanton site and none at the Greeneville site, which was not actually the case. Jim Guliano noted another issue that arose was that the initial enrollment report put additional students into Pre-K which caused the schools to grow in size. Jim Guliano stated that because construction was not set to start until this time in 2025 an additional year of escalation was needed. Jeff Anderson stated Downes Construction was working to modify plans where they could in regards to drawings, looking at site logistics, assessing historical data from recent jobs they have reconciled, and canvassing to form an idea of what real costs are in the changing economy. Jeff Anderson reported they had met with a third party estimator provided byDRA for multiple reconciliation meetings and discussed the process taken to achieve a proper reconciliation. Jeff Anderson discussed the SD project estimate summary and highlighted the overall 2022 master plan budget variance from $66,078,261 to $73,625,650 for Stanton School after reconciliation. Jeff Anderson explained the reasons for the 7.5 million dollar variance were the increased building size, as the actual square footage for the building was 85,934 opposed to the 74,134 square feet estimated by O&G. Jeff Anderson continued that the variance also included the cost escalation from June 2024 to March 2024, when the construction will actually begin. Jeff Anderson stated the additional costs were actual ‘owner soft costs,’ which were $624,900 higher than what was quoted in the master plan budget. Jeff Anderson explained that these totals put the reconciled master plan budget at $76,130,87 in comparison to the SD estimate completed by Downes at $73,625,650. Jeff Anderson continued that Downes took an initial look at cost management and identified $5,106,886 in potential cost savings to bring that budget further down to $68,608,764. Jeff Anderson noted that amount was still approximately 2.7 million dollars over the approved project cost, so they continued to work collectively to get closer to the original budget amount. Chairman Bettencourt asked how the 85,394 square footage was determined. Jim Guliano responded that the Downes team measured from the exterior walls, whereas the grant application requested interior measurements. Jim Guliano stated that a discussion would be held with the district administration to see if there were options to potentially lower that number. Peter Gauthier how confident the $5,016,886 cost management amount was. Jeff Anderson responded there were discussions to be had in regards to how to build the new school at Stanton when the existing building sits in its footprint. Jeff Anderson stated they would look at what could be done to improve the situation from a constructability standpoint while working with the administration on a realistic option, such as taking down a section of the existing building to construct the new driveway and bus loop so there could be a more efficient turnover of the new school. Jeff Anderson stated that a similar approach in reconciliation was taken with the Greeneville project, with confidence in the proposals and that the site was much more concerning in relation to logistics and being able to build the new school with the grading that exists. Jeff Anderson stated that at face value the SD estimate total $82,481,059 in comparison to the $60,368,069 master plan budget for the Greeneville school. Jeff Anderson stated that the variance again was attributed to the increased building size as well as the immense site work needed, which was a $8,620,905 premium in itself. Jeff Anderson added that cost escalation until March 2025 and the owner soft costs also contributed to the variance. Jeff Anderson stated that Downes identified $4,443,188 in cost management items from their SD estimate, but noted that the site impacts on the project could not be fully recovered through this process. Jeff Anderson continued that this put the total for the SD budget estimate at $78,019,871. Jim Guliano agreed that the Greeneville site was very unforgiving and it would be difficult to recuperate those costs. Jeff Anderson stated that as information became more available he did plan to investigate the potential of utilizing more open rock face, as there was currently $2.7 million dedicated to different types of retention of the existing site. Jeff Anderson stated SD estimate budgeted for 33% of exposed rock, 33% block and 33% cast in place. Cindy Beaurgard joined the meeting via ZOOM at 7:16 PM. Discussion ensued regarding the increased square footages. President Pro Tem DeLucia stated that while he believes the committee made a wise choice in only building two schools at once, but due to the unintended consequences now being faced at the Stanton site, he questioned if there would be a benefit in pushing the Moriarty project forward ahead of Stanton so that there was the option to move students there during the Stanton construction, since the new building at the Moriarty site was being built far enough away from the existing school where there would not be a conflict of space. Mike Faenza noted that there would be a year of time already expended on the design aspect for Stanton that would not be able to recover in that scenario. Mike Faenza also noted he was unsure how quickly special legislation for the project could be processed, as the approved grant application for Moriarty was not yet filed with the state. Jeff Anderson reiterated that while there are constructability issues to work through he was not implying that the Stanton school could not be built as things currently sit. Jeff Anderson added that putting the Moriarty project before Stanton at this point could also increase the project costs exponentially in terms of escalation. President Pro Tem DeLucia stated he wanted to ensure every option was explored due to the unforeseen circumstances with the sites. Mike Faenza stated that not much effort had been put in yet to determine what displacement would look like and that it may be possible to achieve construction access while the existing building remains in place. Greg Smolley stated that the committee could choose to move forward with the Moriarty project in terms of design, but if the Office of Governmental Accountability did not put the project on the short list the city would absorb the cost associated. Greg Smolley suggested the committee move forward with the Stanton project and get the documentation needed for that, with the intention of speeding up the Moriarty project timeline. Greg Smolley continued that the determination then would be what are the savings of building Stanton without the existing building in the way and what the savings are in moving Moriarty forward within the overall schedule. Greg Smolley stated the one option would avoid escalation costs on the Moriarty project and avoid increased construction costs at Stanton, but at the same time would increase construction costs at Stanton due to it being pushed backwards in the schedule. Greg Smolley stated likely the savings and costs would cancel each other out, but the change would not be completely impossible to do. Discussion ensued. President Pro Tem DeLucia noted that the disruption aspect to students needed to be considered regardless of cost savings. Peter Gauthier noted that the school administration would need to be consulted to see if the capacity existed and where displaced students could be temporarily moved to. Chip Natsis stated that many items within the cost management layout needed to be discussed with school administration. Chip Natsis stated that Downes as a group spent a lot of time assessing the drawings and determining what could be done for cost reduction. Chip Natsis stated the cost management list included many smaller price point items, but those begin to add up. Chip Natsis began to discuss the various line items included in the cost management report for Stanton. Discussion ensued regarding what direction was needed from the board to keep the design team working and progressing forward. Greg Smolley suggested members look over the cost management line items individually and regroup as a quorum, or to form a subcommittee to review the items. Sheila Hayes asked, for example, what the impact versus the savings was to decrease from three to two boilers in the school, as noted on Line 27 of the cost management list for Stanton. James Barrett responded that DRA requested their structural, mechanic and electrical engineers to provide any suggestions to produce potential cost savings and received that recommendation, as a single boiler could fully support the building so the second boiler offered sufficient redundancy. Discussion ensued regarding the rationale behind some of the other recommended items. Chairman Mark Bettencourt asked that an electronic copy of the full presentation, including comments from the design partners, be distributed to committee members. Chairman Mark Bettencourt, William Hull, Peter Gauthier, Alderwoman Stacy Gould and Mark Kulos agreed to meet as a subcommittee to fully review the presentation and cost management line items included. The subcommittee agreed to meet Wednesday March 27, 2024 at 9:00 AM via ZOOM. A special ZOOM meeting for the full committee was scheduled for Thursday March 28th at 6:30 PM. VII. Invoices: ● CSG - Greeneville #12- $10,680.02 Stanton #12- $10,555.46 William Hull made a motion to approve CSG Invoice #12 for $10,680.02 for Professional Services Rendered for February 1, 2024 - February 29, 2024 in regards to the Greeneville Elementary School project. Mark Kulos 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 #12 for $10,555.46 for Professional Services rendered for February 1, 2024 - February 29, 2024 in regards to the Stanton Elementary School project. Gregory Ballassi seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. ● DRA - Greeneville #5 (2/2024) - $138,345.20 Stanton #5 (2/2024)- $168.498.00 Note: includes SLR reimbursement Mark Kulos made a motion to approve DRA Invoice #5 for $138,345.20 for Professional Services rendered February 1, 2024 February 28, 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 DRA Invoice #5 for $168.498.00 for Professional Services rendered February 1, 2024 February 28, 2024 in regards to the Stanton Elementary School project. William Hull 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: None, IX. Adjournment: Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to adjourn at 8:23 PM. William Hull seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Katherine Rose