Mountview School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
August 14, 2012
6PM HMLD Building
Present: Chairman Paul Challenger, David White, Gary Kaczmarek, Margaret Watson, Nancy Galkowski, Erik Githmark, Chris Lucchesi (arrived 6:19PM), Mike Sherman, Jacquie Kelly, Tom Pandiscio (arrived 6:19PM)
Others Present: Bill Senecal, LPA
1. Architect/OPM/Project Update
OPM Gary Kaczmarek reported that LPA delivered the PDP to him on Monday, August 13th. After reviewing and approving the document, Mr. Kaczmarek that the PDP and a CD were sent overnight to the MSBA on Monday afternoon. Mr. Kaczmarek handed a hardcopy of the PDP and a CD to Chairman Challenger. A third copy of the PDP will be available at the library for public viewing.
Mr. Senecal has begun working on the PSR. Mr. Senecal said that nothing is available on line at the WRSD website or the Mountview website. Information on the efforts of the Committee is available at www.holdenma.gov and the building committee’s website.
A draft of the PSR will be available to the Committee at their September 4th meeting.
A copy of the presentation that will be made to the school committee on August 20th was presented by Mike Sherman. Mr. Sherman will email Rebecca Peterson in the District’s office to let her know that the Committee will require technology to run a power point presentation at the meeting.
Ms. Galkowski said that the Selectmen are scheduled to meet at their regular meeting on September 4th. This will conflict with the MSBC’s meeting, which is also scheduled for September 4th, to review and vote on the PSR. Town Manager Galkowski suggested that the MSBC could come before the Board on 9/4 to make a presentation and ask for an endorsement vote from the Selectmen at that meeting. Chairman Challenger said he thought that the Board of Selectmen had been invited to attend the public meeting on August 28th to participate in discussion and vote their support of the project then. The Manager reminded the Committee that she cannot sign the PSR without the approval of the Board. Dave White reminded the Committee that only three of the Selectmen attended the July
17th public meeting. Chairman Challenger will contact the Chair of the Board and the Chair of the Finance Committee to confirm their participation at the August 28th meeting.
LPA will provide extra CD’s of the PDP to the Administration to distribute to members of the Board and Finance Committee.
The Committee agreed to reschedule its meeting to September 5th.
Mr. Kaczmarek said that the Selectmen will require good project costs on the three options in order to vote on endorsing the project.
Mr. Senecal said that LPA is currently narrowing down the architectural plans for the renovation/addition on the old site and the build new options: building new on the north end of the existing site and on property off Malden Street. They are currently exploring emergency access options via Chapel Lane to make current site work. Currently no land acquisition will be necessary. Designer cost estimations are on going: as the scope of the plan becomes narrower, the estimations will firm up. A traffic study is set to begin on August 15th or 16th.
The Committee discussed the Public Meeting on August 28th: All three options and the relative pros and cons of each one will be presented. Dave White suggested more words on a screen rather than spreadsheets. Less details, more bullets. Mr. Githmark is arranging for a sound system to be available. Mr. Sherman suggested having each option on a separate easel for viewing in order to help focus the audience to the three choices. Chairman Challenger said that he anticipated some local legislators to attend the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. Lucchesi suggested using the Connect-Ed phone system to reminded parents that the public meeting is the being held on August 28th which also happens to be the first day of school. Mr. Githmark will look into scheduling this call.
Mr. Kaczmarek mentioned that the Green Charette meeting on August 21st at 6PM at Mountview is also very important for the project. The meeting is being displayed on the Town LED Electronic Sign and more information can be found on the Town website. Mr. Senecal concurred. The Committee is posted for the meeting at Mountview. Ms. Galkowski expressed concerns about the heat factor at the school. Mr. White said he would bring extra fans. Water will be provided.
The Committee will need to determine whether it is going to pursue LEEDS or MA-CHPS for its green building option. Mr. Senecal and Mr. Kaczmarek said they would recommend choosing the MA-CHPS Certification program.
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO PURSUE A MA-CHPS GREEN CERTIFICATION FOR THE MOUNTVIEW SCHOOL.
Mr. Senecal said he would have the green engineers prepare documentation to for the MA-CHPS program. HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical Engineering consultants from LPA will attend the meeting to provide their input in the process. They will be scheduled on the agenda first.
Mr. Senecal revisited the emergency access situation via Chapel Lane. The challenges to use this road include: not town owned land, acquisition costs, and road improvement/development costs. The Zottoli family has indicated that a small portion of land owned by the family could be acquired at no cost in order to make the road work. However, Mr. Senecal cautioned that costs for road development could exceed $500,000. He asked the Committee what they wanted to do.
Mr. White said he felt that exploring multiple egress access roads on the current site was burning a lot of horsepower that is not necessary. He pointed out that many buildings in town (high school, fire, police, DPW) enter and exit off a very busy road (122A) and make it work. He said he did not think the secondary access road was necessary nor should the committee take away money that could be used for the students. Ms. Galkowski concurred that there is no cost benefit to the road.
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED NOT TO PURSUE LAND ACQUISITION/ROAD DEVELOPMENT OF CHAPEL LANE AS A SECONDARY EGRESS TO THE SCHOOL.
Mr. Senecal said that while the option to build new on the site does not currently require additional land, he said he wanted to keep the offer from the Zottoli family open.
Mr. Senecal updated the Committee on citing the schools’ on their respective properties. The farther west and north you go on the Shrewsbury Street site, the deeper the fill. The Malden Street site uses the same floor plan as Shrewsbury Street, but has considerable wetlands. He added that the existing school rehab/renovation has grown considerably since last presented to the Committee. Because of the structural inefficiencies of the current building, the renovation option has grown to approximately 147,000 sq.ft. Mr. White said it is important to articulate at the August 28th meeting why the renovated sq. ft. option is so much bigger and what that means to the project. Renovating the school could end up costing as much as a new building. A bullet proof case needs to be made that
costs are being driven higher by the current envelope of the building and the temporary housing needs for the students. The project will cost more because premium wages are required to pay workers to work in the building when the students are not occupying it (i.e. second and third shifts). Mr. White also said there are risks associated with a renovation: unforeseen changes to the schedule cost money and the MSBA will not pay for these additional charges. In a phasing project and there is greater risk. A renovation is not always cheaper and easier.
Ms. Galkowski addressed the reimbursement schedule. Renovations get more reimbursement money and MA-CHPS gives extra points for renovations. This issue needs to be considered when presenting at the public meeting. What level of cost estimation accuracy will the Committee have at this stage? Mr. Senecal said that the MSBC really won’t have final costs until the MSBC votes in 2013. Mr. Challenger said he was interested in what is going to cost the town in order to calculate tax rates/impact. People need to be financially educated. Mr. Senecal said he would let Mr. Pagano know that the presentation needs to be minimalist and cover potential financial impacts to the Town.
Mr. Sherman said it would be nice to compare operating costs of the old building vs. a new building. Is there anyway to quantify these costs as part of the presentation? Mr. Senecal said at this stage, there are just generalities.
Mr. Lucchesi said it is ok for the Committee to talk in generalization for reimbursement at this phase. Mr. Challenger said he would like to say “It’s a $50M building that the Town is going to pay $20M for” – that’s the sort of thing he wants to be able to explain. Additionally, Mr. Lucchesi said that the Committee needs to address the fact that operating costs are going to go up. Period. There is more going on in these new buildings – yes, they are more efficient, but a bigger building just costs more.
Dave White asked when the right time to talk about where the money is coming from to the public. Where is the reimbursement coming from? It does not come out of income taxes.
It is a revenue stream that already exists in the State that they are willing to give you. It is an opportunity to get some of your money back. If Holden doesn’t take the money, it will go to another Town.
Ms. Watson asked if FF&E is reimbursed from the State. Certain items are not reimbursed (demolition, books, computers, land). FF&E: Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment are.
Mr. White said that the Committee should meet on September 5th to hear the PSR presentation from LPA and then meet on September 11th to vote on a final design.
Mr. Kaczmarek again stressed that the upcoming Green Charette meeting is important. He will scan in the MA-CHPS score card and email it to the Committee for review prior to the meeting on 8/21. Committee members should come to the meeting prepared to discuss what green options they want to see implemented in the building.
Mr. Pandiscio will help facilitate getting WRSD Chairman Leith’s signature for the documentation purposes.
Mr. Kaczmarek said he has received a draft of what the Town of Auburn did for their phase of the PSR. He emailed educational documentation for the PSR for the Superintendent to complete.
The School Committee’s Education subcommittee meets on August 15th to review the PSR options.
Mr. Senecal left the meeting at 7:50PM.
2. New Business/Community Outreach
The Committee discussed the current school budget crisis. Mr. Lucchesi said people are trying to lump the current budgetary problems being faced by the School District in with the Mountview Project. He addressed the School Committee at their recent meeting to help separate/create some distance between the two: funding a capital project in town has nothing to do with the District budget. It is an educational choice the town is making in conjunction with the State. It is an obligation to the citizen’s from their town government to help meet the town’s goals. It’s about educating the kids. This is how the Town of Shrewsbury successfully sold its new middle school project to its residents. This is the message the Committee needs to generate to the public when asked.
Upcoming Community Outreach efforts include Chairman Challenger making a presentation to the School Committee on August 20th, the Committee conducting a Green Charette on August 21st, having a booth at Holden Days on August 25th, and conducting a second Public Meeting/Tour of the Middle School on August 28th. The Committee agreed it would be nice to have the Committee review LPA’s August 28th presentation prior to the public meeting.
Mike Sherman said the August 28th presentation is the only chance the committee will have to demonstrate what work went into the process. The Committee discussed other possibilities to educate the public that would include running the presentation on local cable and handouts at the meeting. The Committee discussed adding some pictures to the presentation to compare/contrast the existing conditions in a current classroom at Mountview and its deficiencies with a modern, educationally updated classroom. The Committee discussed taking turns giving the presentation on 8/28. After some discussion, the Committee agreed on a presentation format for the meeting. It was agreed to split the sections of the presentation up and then hold discussion with those present after each section is presented.
Chairman Challenger and Vice Chairman White will take turns making the presentation.
The Committee will have a booth at Holden Days. Chairman Challenger said it is important to get the message out: Something’s coming and it’s going to be great. Mr. Lucchesi will provide tables and chairs. Mr. Lucchesi shared ideas for handouts at the booth. A condensed version of the proposed space survey: where we are today vs. today’s MSBA’s guidelines, existing conditions vs. MSBA guidelines presented on an easel board, examples (pictures) of a science classroom built within the last two years comparing it to a current science classroom at the school. A sign up sheet will be offered for interested residents to provide contact information. The handout will also include a message to alert residents about the public meeting on August 28th. Mr. Lucchesi offered to run a
slideshow on his laptop. Mr. Sherman will prepare the artwork for the flyer and public meeting announcement card. Printing informational materials are a reimbursable expense.
Mr. Githmark said that the local cable crew has offered to tape a walkthrough of the school. The Committee agreed to hold off on the video until later in the fall.
Margaret Watson will confirm the technical arrangements for the School Committee presentation on August 20th.
Mr. Pandiscio left the meeting at 8:32PM.
Mr. Lucchesi said he has made some initial contact with some PTO’s. It is important to raise general awareness of the project and generate some volunteer interest. Dave White said it is important to communicate that the Committee needs their help. Their children are the ones that are going to benefit from the project. If it’s going to get done, they have to get active. After some discussion, it was decided that Mr. Lucchesi will hold a meeting of concerned citizens at the end of September to help raise awareness. The project must move forward and gain momentum because the Town is in the MSBA pipeline.
3. Public Comment
No one from the public was present to participate in the public comment agenda item.
4. Approval of Previous Minutes
Motion by Chris Lucchesi, seconded by Dave White, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 31, 2012 AS PRESENTED.
5. Adjournment
Motion by Margaret Watson, seconded by Dave White, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE AUGUST 14, 2012 MEETING AT 8:54PM.
APPROVED:
| 
