Mountview School Building Committee
Public Hearing Meeting Minutes
September 5, 2012
6PM Mountview School
Present: Chairman Paul Challenger, David White, Gary Kaczmarek, Margaret Watson, Erik Githmark, Chris Lucchesi, Mike Sherman, Jacquie Kelly
Absent: Tom Pandiscio, Nancy Galkowski
Others Present: Mike Pagano, LPA, Bill Senecal, LPA, Elizabeth Helder, Recording Secretary, Matt Brassard, Brassard Engineering, Kevin Seaman, Seaman Engineering, Azim Rawji, ART Electrical Engineering
1. Public Comment
Mr. Ben Woodbury said he had feedback for the PDP. He said he felt the next 8 days were the most important in the project. After reviewing the PDP, he said building on a new site will cost the Town approximately 15% more to build. This increase in costs will come from lack of natural gas on site, and wetlands. The renovating/addition option may cost just as much as to build new and may still leave the building lacking in educational services. It will also have the highest operating costs of all the solutions. The build new on the existing site option suffers from a perception of value of the existing building. Residents will feel that the building is solid and something should be done with it. He felt saving the school for reuse could only by “sold” to abutters as a use for
another school. The building is too large to use the building for municipal office space and it will cost too much to renovate and remove hazardous materials. He said he would support building a new building on the existing site and felt the Committee will choose this option. He encouraged the Committee to find a new entrance to the school. He said the Committee should expect that residents will want to renovate the school; however, it can be proved and explained to taxpayers that it is not the best financial option for the Town.
2. OPM/Architect Update
Mr. Kaczmarek put together a total budget cost across the board and the Committee reviewed the spreadsheet. These numbers are based on the Fogerty estimates (Architect Cost Estimator) and include a 10% CM @ Risk contingency. Mr. Lucchesi said the Committee should differentiate between project costs and construction costs. Mr. Kaczmarek said he had received the preliminary costs estimates from Daedalus, the Owner’s Cost Estimator. He will review the information and email a summary to the Committee.
Mr. White said he did not believe the Fogerty estimates were accurate. He said he felt the site estimates for the Malden Street site were very low and in his opinion, he did not trust the entire document. He also said that he felt that some of the other estimates were too high and must come down. He said he expected that as more clarity on the project is available, the costs would be reduced.
Chairman Challenger said the Committee must determine if the project will be a CM @ Risk project. Mr. Kaczmarek said the Design Development Contingency would be reduced as more information became available. Mr. Pagano cautioned that this theory was not necessarily true. He said that the Committee should not vote primarily on the total cost of the project; the ultimate decision should be made on the scope of the work and the final product achieved.
Mr. Sherman asked if that based on these estimates, if a variable were applied, would one choice behave differently than the others. Mr. Pagano said not really. It is possible in the add/reno that the District might want to change the programs (room sizes) and that will change costs during the construction phase, but it is such a small factor, it does not weigh heavily. The Fogerty estimates provide enough information enough for the Committee to weigh a final outcome on the three choices. The only costs not included in the estimates are outside the scope of work i.e. running natural gas lines etc.
Margaret Watson inquired about modular buildings during an add/reno; will the MSBA reimburse for the purchase of the units. Mr. Pagano said that the use of modular units are guaranteed during an add/reno choice. The State will reimburse to a point but not fully.
Mr. Pagano said LPA has not heard from the MSBA on the PDP filing that was made in August. The presentation being made is a status update on the PSR. The Committee will then have one week to review the PSR and make a recommendation to LPA on September 11th on which Preferred Schematic Solution it will choose. The PSR must be printed on September 21st.
Existing Site: Add/Reno
This option includes a 52,000 addition behind the school, new additions to the gym and cafeteria, an upgrade to all building systems, and haz-mat remediation. The cost estimates for the total project are $55.9 to $58.3M (includes cost to remediate haz-mat and purchase of modules). The construction phase would be a minimum of 30 months (3 summers and 2 academic years). It is critical that the contract be awarded in late winter 2013/early 2014 to allow the contractor time to prepare to come on site June 2014. The final building would be 148,000 sq. ft. in order to meet MABA educational requirements. The basic field layout, parking and entrance/exits would remain the same. Additional parking would be added to the back of the building.
Mr. Senecal presented the proposed addition/renovated floor plans. Mr. Pagano said that LPA worked very hard to make the add/reno solution a viable, usable solution. It is not a “throw away” solution. It is the lowest project cost and uses the existing structure. Disadvantages include a higher risk of change orders due to unforeseen conditions, higher contingencies, a longer, more complicated project schedule, severe impact on students and operations during construction, use of modular units, and some teaching spaces will be undersized. The building will have the highest long-term annual operating costs. This option assumes the use of natural gas.
Mr. Sherman suggested that one of the solutions to the construction inconvenience of the project would be to adjust the school year. Mr. Pagano said LPA has encountered this type of solution before and while it might gain and additional 2 or 3 weeks, the pushback from the community is not favorable. Additionally, any time gained is never enough time to actually make a large dent in the construction process i.e. not enough time to built a wing. Ms. Watson said that any type of adjustment to the school year would have to be negotiated with the Teacher’s Union/School Bus Company, which would cost the District more money.
Existing Site: New
Construction would be located behind existing building and would create a new, 128,000 sq. ft. school. Mountview would be in use during construction, with no change to the volume of traffic on Shrewsbury Street. However, a new relocated/reconfigured entrance when the school is finished would help to eliminate traffic issues that currently exist at the school. Parents and buses would have their own loop around the school. Some athletic fields would be relocated and costs for haz-mat remediation would be reimbursable. A small portion of land would need to be acquired from the Zottoli family. Public spaces would be divided from educational space. A lobby would be centrally located in the middle of the building to divide the two spaces. This is an optimal building designed for WRSD educational
programming with a minimum risk for unforeseen conditions and simplified construction. It will have lower annual operating costs because it will be a smaller building containing the best materials/technologies, have a lower site development cost, and have better traffic circulation and parking on site. Drawbacks include the most expensive solution due to haz-mat remediation and demolition, loss of playing fields during construction, some impact to students and school operations during construction. Cost estimates are 59.3M to 61.8M (including demo and haz-mat remediation) with a construction phase of 27 months. The contract would probably be awarded in late winter 2013/early 2014 to allow the contractor time to prepare to come on site June 2014.
New Site: New Construction
Mr. White commented that there are significant grade/elevation changes on site that will drive up the cost of excavation on this site. Soil conditions and wetlands will also cause problems. He expressed concerns over site preparation at the Malden Street location. Mr. Pagano concurred adding that site costs over 8% are not reimbursed by the MSBA. Costs to develop this site will be greater than 8%. Mr. White said this fact was a reality check for this option.
Mr. Senecal said that the same design would be built at the Malden Street location that was proposed at the current site. Buses and parents would have their own entrances/exits to the property. It would connect the property with the Mayo School. Mr. White said that connecting these two buildings would create a cut through from Bullard Street (Mayo School) to Malden Street (Mountview) and encourage increased traffic and speeding. Mr. Lucchesi concurred that people will use it like people on Bailey Road use Dawson School as a cut through to Salisbury Street (and vice versa). Both agreed that this was not a good plan. Mr. Senecal said that wetland issues prohibited another option. Sewer pumping capacity was discussed. Mr. White questioned whether the plan as presented would work. Mr. White
asked about some cost estimations for installing the type of plumbing required to pump the sewage. Mr. Pagano said off site engineering is not included in the proposed estimate and is not part of the scope of LPA’s work. Mr. Pagano said that he would speak to Mr. Brassard about the concerns. Mr. Brassard said there were elements at this stage that are easy to cost identify. However, there are elements with this design that are difficult to estimate (earth moving). It will be tough to zero in and be accurate on some of these concerns. Mr. White asked Mr. Brassard about earth moving and site prep: will it be a significant undertaking? Mr. Brassard said yes, there would be a substantially more site work involved with this property. Mr. White said storm water management would also have to be considered in the cost. This property will require a major part of the costs during construction and with the final building. Mr.
Brassard said that as a new site, it would be smaller than the existing site and would offer more options. It will still be substantial.
Mr. Sherman said that the estimates do not need to be within $100,000. However, due diligence must be done and if the costs are in the millions, then it is significant.
Chairman Challenger said that the formula used to provide cost estimates used 47% across the board to calculate Holden’s share of the project and that is now untrue because most of the extensive site work will have to be paid out of pocket.
Advantages will be a short construction timeline. Costs to build: 57.4M – 59.8M excludes costs of off site improvements, demo and remediation of haz-mat at Mountview, which are not reimbursable. Construction timeline is 24 months. All estimated costs include construction costs, and grossing factors (fees, testing, FF&E, etc. Nothing in the proposals exceeds the expectations of the MSBA).
Mr. Pagano reviewed a summary of MSBA space variances. Any variances must be justified to the MSBA. Mr. Pagano said the project is getting what it needs. Mr. Githmark will follow up with Dr. Pandiscio regarding the District’s approval of the space variances. Mr. Kaczmarek reported that he received a response from Dr. Pandiscio regarding the media center variances today. Mr. Senecal said he needed a District response for all the space variances for the PSR. Ms. Watson will see that the Educational Subcommittee will approve their August meeting minutes for submission to the PSR.
Mr. Pagano discussed the MA-CHPS scorecard. The Committee should begin to think about decisions on which green building design options it would like to include in the design. However, these decisions do not have to be made until the schematic design phase. Mr. Senecal handed out a follow-up MA-CHPS Scorecard memo from Carrie Havey with the Green Engineer. The memo summarized the discussed from the August 21, 2012 Green Engineer Charette. The Committee also reviewed two memos from Electrical Engineer Azim Rawji regarding renewable energy options and obtaining MA-CHPS points with electrical systems. Mr. Senecal said that 51 “yes”, 42 “maybe” and 32 “no” choices were selected at the Charette on August 21st. 50 MA-CHPS points earn the project an additional
reimbursement from the MSBA.
Mr. Pagano said he was very interested to see the comments from the MSBA on the PDP. Hopefully the MSBA will return them prior to the PSR filing in late September.
Mr. Seaman said some green drawbacks to the Malden Street site would be lack of natural gas; although geothermal could be an option.
Mr. White commented on the electrical engineering and green engineer memos. He said the Committee will be crucified (and rightly so) if the building does not have a renewable/sustainable energy source. He spoke highly of incorporating the installation of photovoltaic power at whatever option is selected. Mr. Rawji said the estimated cost for this type of installation would be $750,000 with a payback period of 9 years which is very reasonable considering the building is being built as a 50-year building.
Chairman Challenger spoke of passive solar use – angling the building to obtain maximum solar use. Mr. Pagano agreed that photovoltaic was an attractive solution. He also discussed wood pellet power.
Mr. Kaczmarek said he has received requests from the community about what it is going to cost to operate the add/reno option and new building option. This will be helpful for the Committee to consider when making a final decision. Mr. Kaczmarek said he had the current operational costs for the school. Mr. White estimated that it will be an additional 20% in operating costs to operate the add/reno option due to its age and projected size.
Chairman Challenger said the Administration should consider whether it will want to reuse the school if a build new option is selected.
Mr. Kaczmarek said he had placed calls for a commercial appraisal quote of the building. These services are estimated to cost $4,000. Mr. White commented that a finance committee member has said they would have a hard time tearing the building down because it is a valuable building. He said he would like to have an appraisal to help quantify what a “valuable building” is. He said it would nice to have an appraisal sooner than later. He also suggested that Jim Robinson with the Light Department could provide an estimate to bring power to the Malden Street location.
Mr. Lucchesi said whatever the value of the building is, who ever buys the building had better be prepared to put 10M into the building to make it a viable building. Does that make it a valuable building? He said it is really not the job of the Committee to show a reuse for the school.
Ms. Kelly firmly stated that the Town has no plans to put municipal offices in the building.
Mr. Sherman again reiterated that due diligence must be done.
Mr. Pagano reviewed the remaining completion dates for the Feasibility Study Schedule.
3. Approval of Minutes
Motion by David White, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 14, 2012 MEETING MINUTES AS APPROVED.
Motion by David White, seconded by Mike Sherman, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 28, 2012 MEETING MINUTES WITH AN AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE A SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH ON PAGE TWO: “8% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST FOR SITE WORK.”
Ms. Watson commented that the WRSD Educational Subcommittee meets twice during April through September and meets monthly for the remainder of the year.
5. Adjournment
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Mike Sherman, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 MEETING AT 9:07PM.
APPROVED:
| 
