School Building Committee (2020)

School Building Committee (2020) Regular Meeting City Hall, R00m 335 100 Broadway, Norwich, CT And via ZOOM Tuesday, August 20, 2024 6:30 PM Committee Members Present: Chairman Mark Bettencourt, President Pro Tem Joe DeLucia (ZOOM), Alderwoman Stacy Gould, Peter Gauthier, William Hull, Gregory Carabine, Gregory Ballassi, Christine DiStasio, Mark Kulos and Cindy Beauregard. Committee Members Absent: Sheila Hayes. Ex-Officio Members Present: Bob Castronova (ZOOM) , Acting Superintendent Susan Lessard (ZOOM), Mayor Peter Nystrom (ZOOM), Attorney Michael Driscoll, and Bob Harris. Consultants Present: Mike Zahn from MP Planning Group; James Barrett and Greg Smolley from DRA; Chip Natsis from Downes Construction; Jim Guliano and Mike Faenza from CSG. Citizens Present: None. I.Call to Order and Quorum: Chairman Mark Bettencourt called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. II.Approval of Minutes: William Hull made a motion to approve the July 16, 2024 regular meeting minutes as amended. Peter Gauthier seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Alderwoman made a motion to add the approval of the August 15, 2024 special meeting minutes to the agenda. 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 the August 15, 2024 special meeting minutes as amended. Mark Kulos seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. III.Public Comment: Bob Harris from Norwich Public Utilities asked Mike Faenza if the timeline for ENS measurements had changed at all, regarding the retention basin on site at Greeneville. Mike Faenza responded it currently had not and that site logistics would be developed over the next couple months. Mike Faenza added that Downes Construction would pinpoint when that work would occur and have further discussion with NPU regarding the schedule. Bob Harris asked if CSG was still looking at Q1 to which Mike Faenza responded that it should be accurate. IV.Report from CSG: Mike Faenza reported that weekly design review meetings with administration were ongoing for the Stanton Elementary project. Mike Faenza stated that at the August 15, 2024 special School Building Committee meeting the contemplation of a 5,000 square foot reduction achievable for Uncas and Moriarty to achieve the required reduction in costs was discussed. Mike noted for example one available option being pursued was to remove an art room from both Stanton and Greeneville school, which would eliminate on the order of a 1000 square feet from each. Mike Faenza stated it was determined by administration that a second art room would not be necessary due to tours they went on at schools such Griswold Elementary which only required one art room for approximately 700 students. Mike Faenza stated he relayed this to the CSG design team who was able to make the reductions, which were shown on the plans provided to the committee. The report provided to the committee notes the space reduction for the Stanton building would be approximately 700 gross square feet. Mike Faenza continued that the first payment request was approved and paid out by the state. Mike Faenza stated the second request was finalized and submitted but payment had not yet been approved. Mike Faenza stated that the design team would continue to develop construction document drawings. Mike Faenza stated that the Stanton program budget was revised and approved by the School Building Committee at the August 15, 2024 Special School Building Committee Meeting. Mike Faenza stated that proposed amendments to Ordinance #1820 were rescinded at the August 19, 2024 Norwich City Council meeting. Mike Faenza reported that the project budget included in the packet provided to the committee was updated based on design development figures and reflected the most recent cost estimate provided by Downes Construction. Mike Faenza stated that the current total expenditure for the Stanton Elementary School project was $1,581,147,28. Mike Faenza reported that the updates for the Greeneville project were similar and that weekly review meetings were occurring with district administration to approve spaces within the building. Mike Faenza stated the removal of an art room at Greeneville was also being considered and would be a reduction of approximately 980 gross square feet. Mike Faenza reported that the first payment request was approved and paid by the state and that the second request had been submitted. Mike Faenza stated the program budget for the Greeneville Elementary School project was also revised and approved by the School Building Committee at the August 15, 2024 special meeting. Mike Faenza reported the same update for the Greeneville project in regards to the ordinance amendments. Christine DiStasio asked if nursing rooms were considered in the designs for young mothers to utilize as opposed to a bathroom. James Barrett responded that there were mothers’ rooms associated with the staff and faculty areas and that the nursing rooms were part of the program statement. Mike Faenza continued that the Greeneville budget included in the provided packet was updated with the most recent design development estimate from Downes Construction, which was $78,909,975. Mike Faenza reported that the current expenditure on the Greeneville Elementary School project was $1,549,092,61. Mike Faenza stated that the RFP for architecture services for the Moriarty Elementary School project was issued on July 24, 2024. Mike Faenza reported that a non-mandatory walkthrough was held on July 31, 2024 which was well attended. Mike Faenza stated that the purchasing department received 20 questions which were answered and provided to bidders as part of Addendum #1. Mike Faenza stated that the demographic peer review was completed by MP Planning Group. Mike Faenza reported that the peer review was unable to lower the elementary school enrollment at this time. Mike Faenza stated that additional square footage outside the state space standard was eliminated from the building and the budget to lower figures in order to meet the original appropriation. Mike Faenza stated that this was done with district administration who felt the 5,000 square feet could be removed and still stay within the program statement. Mike Faenza reported that the current budget for the Moriarty Elementary School budget was $74,065,606. Mike Faenza noted that the original educational specifications for the Moriarty project were at a larger amount so they would need to be updated to reflect the new size. Mike Faenza stated the educational specifications at Greeneville and Stanton may also need to be adjusted to reflect the removal of the second art room, as they did not want to present something to the state that is not included within the program statement. Mike Faenza reported that the architect RFP responses were due on August 30, 2024 and upon receiving the responses the committee would have from September 2, 2024 to September 13, 2024 to review the proposals and establish a shortlist for interview. Mike Faenza suggested the interviews could be held the week of September 16, 2024 to align with the September 17, 2024 regular School Building Committee meeting if the committee wished to schedule the architects’ interviews for that day, but noted the owner’s representative RFP for Uncas was due the same day. Mike Faenza stated that a proposal for a new demographic report was included within the provided packet for consideration. Mike Faenza stated that if the proposal is approved and the new enrollment data supports a lower enrollment the building sizes could be adjusted accordingly. Mike Faenza stated this ties back to how the architecture RFP was written and  rather than receiving fixed fee proposals from the architects that would be submitting, it was done as a percentage basis which will allow the flexibility to adjust the budget and not pay for design effort that is unneeded. Mike Faenza continued that the purpose of the demographic report was not to solely change the size of the Moriarty and Uncas building, but that the report would be necessary when completing the grant applications for Teachers’ Middle School and the Huntington building as the state would require more current enrollment figures. ● Report on enrollment peer review Mike Faenza reiterated that the demographic peer review was included within the provided packet and that Mike Zahn from MP Planning Group was on the meeting via ZOOM toa answer any questions. Chairman Mark Bettencourt stated that if the committee receives better numbers for the Uncas and Moriarty schools they would be in a better position and may be able to maintain additional space for programmatic options and opportunities for growth. Mike Faenza reported the current budget for the Uncas Elementary School project was $76,468,026 and that otherwise all updates were the same as those for the Moriarty Elementary School Project. Chairman Mark Bettencourt stated the meeting would go out of order from the posted agenda to discuss Item VII while Mike Zahn from MP Planning Group was on the meeting by ZOOM. The meeting returned to the order of the agenda at 7:36 PM. Mike Faenza reported that demographic peer review completed by MP Planning Group confirmed the district middle school enrollment. Mike Faenza stated that in coordination with the Board of Education administration team, the enrollment at Kelly Middle School would increase to 650 students which would set the enrollment at Teachers Middle School at 425 students which would support a 71,400 square foot building. Mike Faenza reported the updated estimates for a new school option at the Teachers Middle School site was $72,547,456 and $69,277,977 to renovate the Teachers Middle School as-new. Mike Faenza stated an evaluation of the reimbursement rates for a new school and renovate-as-new project were completed and included within the provided packet. Mike Faenza stated the enrollment for either option was 425 students and there would be a space standard adjustment for the renovated-as-new school because the current Teachers Middle School building is 88,000 square feet per the DRA Master Plan. Mike Faenza stated that the renovate-as-new project would currently receive a higher reimbursement rate of 77.14% than a new building as that option is incentivized by the state. Mike Faenza noted the project would not be as simple as demolishing a part of the building as improvements were needed on features of the building that could not be adjusted such as stairwells, corridors and classroom sizes. Mike Faenza stated the reason the building size was evaluated for a renovate-as-new option at 89,949 square feet was due to the need to adjust stairwells and include ADA amenities such as an elevator. (I am not sure how Mike said this, but it was confusing and that is why Mark K. clarified later. Just delete this sentence). The packet provided by CSG listed the state share cost for the renovate- as-new Teachers Middle School project at $42,420,589.76 and the city share cost at $26.857,387.24. The packet provided by CSG listed the state share cost for the Teachers Middle School new school project at $48,708,361.96 and the city share cost at $23,839,094.04. Mike Faenza noted that given the factors that come into play with renovating the Teachers Middle School as-new make it a much more challenging project than if a new school was built within the property. Mark Kulos clarified that even though the total cost of the renovate-as-new final figure was lower than the new school figure, the cost to the city would be higher with the renovate-as-new option. Mike Faenza stated that was correct. Discussion ensued. V.Report from DRA: James Barrett reported the DRA architectural team had been working closely with district administration to get physical space sign offs so there is a mutual understanding. James Barrett stated they would soon be entering similar discussions regarding furniture, fixtures and equipment within those spaces. James Barrett stated he looked forward to the meeting with the Office of Grant Administration and there was a lot of work ahead of them. James Barrett stated that all checklists needed to be completed and moved forward as there was only one opportunity in terms of the final Plan Completion Test), so they could conduct that review with OGA. James Barrett reported that construction documentation had commenced. James Barrett discussed the value engineering achieved at the design development level and noted DRA got within $5,000 of the target amount between the Stanton and Greeneville projects. James Barrett stated the destratification fans were removed in the gymnasiums which was a group decision with district administration. James Barrett reported a decision was made to utilize storefront material in lieu of window systems. James Barrett noted the School Building Committee voted in March to remove all operable windows from the building and utilize all fixed windows. James Barrett stated that with this realization another value engineer potential was to move from a window system to a storefront system. James Barrett stated that DRA would work through with their cost estimators to help the committee understand potential savings. James Barrett stated the next item was the elimination of the exterior sun shades located on the south facing walls of both projects, which was mentioned previously in the design development estimate. James Barrett stated this was pending high performance building standard component testing. James Barrett stated they were still able to achieve the high performance building standard points with the specified system and the eliminated sun shades. James Barrett stated that DRA was giving the recommendation to remove the sun shades after consideration and engineering review. James Barrett reiterated the energy savings rate could be achieved with the glazing applied to the windows. Discussion ensued. James Barett reported that the final cost saving item was the building footprint reduction which was understood after a conversation with CSG regarding one of the art rooms being deemed unnecessary. James Barrett displayed on screen how the existing footprints would be reconfigured to achieve this change. James Barrett noted at Stanton Elementary there was a space savings of about 700 square feet which translated to over a half million dollars in savings. James Barett stated that the space savings at Greeneville was about 880 square feet and about three quarter million dollars in construction cost savings. Superintendent Susan Lessard added that the reason district administration felt they could eliminate the second art room was after seeing Griswold Elementary was able to serve over 700 students with a single art room by utilizing a 6-day rotating UA schedule. Superintendent Susan Lessard noted that Griswold originally had a second art room that they converted to an intervention room after finding it was unneeded. Discussion ensued. Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to approve the four proposed cost savings items listed below as proposed by DRA for the Stanton and Greeneville Elementary School projects: The following reflects the specific preliminary order of magnitude estimates for each school. a. Removal of Destratification Fans from Gymnasiums (-$100k)* b. Usage of Store Front in lieu of Window Systems (-$100k)* c. Elimination of Exterior Sunshades (-$100k)* d. Alteration of Building Footprint (-$1.25M)* Total Project Cost savings will be slightly higher when soft costs are factored in. Gregory Ballassi seconded. President Pro Tem DeLucia understood removing the fans in the gyms but questioned the lost benefit of energy savings versus the $50,000 construction savings per school. President Pro Tem DeLucia made an amended motion for approval of all cost saving items aside from item C; the removal of the exterior sunshades. Peter Gauthier seconded. Discussion ensued. James Barrett noted that the State of Connecticut identifies the high performance building standard as a threshold for supporting public projects and that use of a glazing system in lieu of sunshades met the state standard for high performance. President Pro Tem DeLucia questioned what the savings would be if the glazing and the sunshades were both utilized and  were the building losing an aesthetic effect. James Barrett stated he did not know and that it would require further analysis, but that the energy saving benefit achieved by the sunshades with the glazing in place would be less than without the glazing. James Barrett stated the removal of the sunshades was identified by the School Building Committee in March for potential removal via the value engineering effort, so with that knowledge DRA was recommending this change. James Barrett stated that aesthetically Greeneville would get the most benefit from the sun shades with having three stories, but that there were ‘eyebrows’ on the building to assist with some shading work. Discussion ensued. President Pro Tem Joe DeLucia voted in favor. Chairman Mark Bettencourt, Alderwoman Stacy Gould, Peter Gauthier, William Hull, Gregory Carabine, Gregory Ballassi, Christine DiStasio, Mark Kulos and Cindy Beauregard voted in opposition. The motion failed. The chairman called the roll of members present to vote on the original motion made by Alderwoman Stacy Gould. Chairman Mark Bettencourt, President Pro Tem DeLucia, Alderwoman Stacy Gould, Peter Gauthier, William Hull, Gregory Carabine, Gregory Ballassi, Christine DiStasio, Mark Kulos and Cindy Beauregard voted in favor. The motion passed unanimously. James Barrett continued that DRA was moving into construction documentation work and having regular discussions with district administration to validate spaces. James Barrett stated they would have discussions relative to furniture and interior finishes, color, etcetera. James Barrett stated that because these are publicly bid projects although a direction is identified; you do not know what type of tile or other items you will receive which could affect color. James Barrett explained DRA would identify a manufacturer and color range and then would receive the specifics of what is in hand on bid day. James Barrett stated following that, DRA would return to the committee with a package that pieces those factors together. James Barrett showed three dimensional interior architectural design samples on screen for all to view with color and discussed the various components. Discussion ensued. VI. Report from Downes: Chip Natsis showed the Stanton Elementary design development construction budget of $57,490,679 and reviewed the design development value management items on screen for all to view. Chip Natsis stated that most of the remaining value engineering items not implemented had already been discussed at previous meetings and not recommended based on their value versus cost, Chip Natsis stated there were still remaining cost saving items on the table. Chip Natsis showed similar cost saving items on screen for all to view for the Greeneville school project, with a design development and construction budget of $68,493,870. Chairman Mark Bettencourt asked if there had been any feedback regarding the retaining walls at the Greeneville site. James Barrett responded they had not received the final report yet. Chip Natsis stated they originally hoped for 40% open cut, but there was a lot more solid rock than anticipated so hopefully there could be more open cut which would reduce concrete or versa-block, which would also be a cost savings. Chip Natsis stated he would continue speaking with DRA over the upcoming weeks to further understand the space reductions and begin planning. Discussion ensued. VII. Review and possible approval of MP Planning Group Districtwide Enrollment Projection Proposal: Mike Zahn from MP Planning Group explained that a full demographic report for the entire district would provide the city with a few more years of enrollment data to confirm if schools were too large or too small. Mike Zahn continued that the information would be valuable to the city to confirm all of the data already collected. Mike Zahn noted the middle school data was confirmed by the demographic peer review. Mike Zahn stated there would be about two months of work to be done from the date of the approval of the proposal, but that official enrollment data would not be available until October 1, 2024. The final report would be available sometime after that date. Mike Zahn stated the total cost for the proposal was $9,675. Alderwoman Stacy Gould noted it did not look like the proposal included the three Pre-K programs in the elementary schools. Chairman Bettencourt noted that the peer review discussed how the Pre-K numbers were determined and that district administration  would determine what those final numbers would be. Mike Zahn stated that in Connecticut universal Pre-K did not exist and was more a function of the programming or space allotted and not a demographically driven enrollment number. Mike Faenza stated that the Pre-K enrollment was analyzed and reviewed by district administration and they had grant funding for Pre-K programming that supported 332 students. Mike Faenza stated that a higher number was still utilized when doing the enrollment numbers, which was reflected within the budget. Superintendent Susan Lessard stated the School Readiness Grant provided 332 slots for Pre-K and the district could not exceed that number. Greg Carabine made a motion to approve funding for the demographic study for Norwich Public Schools to be done by MP Planning Group, LLC. Alderwoman Stacy Gould seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. Consent Agenda: a. Invoices: CSG - Greenville #17 - $12,879.40 Stanton #17 - $10,555.46 Moriarty #4 - $19,523.20 Teachers - $9,500.00 DRA - Greeneville #10 - $241,305.56 Stanton #10 - $187,697.86 Downes - Greeneville #5 - $16,000.00 Stanton #5 - $16,000.00 Mark Kulos made a motion to accept the consent agenda including the above invoices. Gregory Carabine seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. IX. Anything else to be brought before the committee: None. X. Adjournment: Alderwoman Stacy Gould made a motion to adjourn at 8:23 PM. Cindy Beauregard seconded. The chairman called the roll of members present and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Katherine Rose