Mountview School Building Committee
Public Hearing Meeting Minutes
September 11, 2012
6PM HMLD
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,
1. Public Comment
No one came forward to address the Committee.
2. OPM/Architect Update
The Committee reviewed the three building plan options: Option 1: Add/Reno; Option 2: Build new on existing site; Option 3: Build new on alternate site.
Mr. Kaczmarek handed out owner’s construction estimates from Daedalus. The Committee discussed the variances between the Fogerty (Architect Cost Estimator) and Daedalus (Owner’s Cost Estimator) estimates. The Daedalus quotes do not include a 10% CM @ Risk, which might explain the 3.5M delta on the estimations.
Mr. Pagano said that one of the similarities in the estimates is that both quotes consider building at the alternate site (Option 3) to be slightly cheaper than building new on the existing site (Option 2). Option 3 does not include any money for demolition of the existing school because it is not a reimbursable expense from the MSBA. Mr. Lucchesi said he was not encouraged or discouraged by the cost estimating quotes.
Mr. Pagano said that neither quote is an exact number; those numbers become more refined as an option is chosen and schematic design process continues. The project should be sold as a high a number as possible because if the project is bid low and finishes high, the Town will be on the hook for the difference and it will be the Town’s responsibility to make up the difference. The next round of cost estimating will much more refined and costs associated with contingency will go down.
The Committee reviewed a LPA memo regarding off site work required on all three sites and a cost comparison for each option.
Off site work for Option 3 includes installing a driveway ($35,000), sanitary ($154,000), and power/communications ($137,500) for a total direct cost of $326,500 + a total of indirect cost (+.33%) of $107,745 for a total non reimbursable cost of $434,245. This site will not have any natural gas available to the site. Site work is only reimbursable to 8% of construction costs.
Based on this calculation, total estimates for non-reimbursable costs for each option would be: Option 1 - $678,357; Option 2 - $842,926; Option 3 - $2,065,242.
These estimates need to be added to the total cost estimates for each option. Mr. Pagano said none of the construction estimates include alternate heating/cooling renewable energy options (geothermal etc.).
Mr. White he was prepared to make a motion for discussion purposes.
Mr. Sherman asked if there were any differences in the two sites that would be more advantageous for alternate energy choices.
Mr. Senecal said nothing would compete with natural gas for heating and there was no point in drilling for geothermal. However, the Malden Street site will not be able to access natural gas so it makes sense to drill for geothermal.
Mr. Sherman asked if there was any way to “guesstimate” costs associated with heating with natural gas and heating with geothermal. The Committee discussed operational costs associated with different heating/cooling options. Mr. Lucchesi said it is important that the Committee always evaluate ongoing operating costs for which ever option is chosen.
The MSBA must be invited by the State to become a Model School in the Model School program.
A motion by Dave White was seconded by Margaret Watson to discuss adopting Option 2 for the PSR.
Mr. White said that expensive site improvements and lack of natural gas were two big factors not to consider the Malden Street site (Option 3). He said that his instincts tell him that the cost estimates for site preparation at this site are low and in the end, will be significantly higher. Additionally, he said that while the add/reno option was slightly less expensive, building new on the site will save approximately $50,000/per year in operating costs.
Additionally, he said he did not want to put the students through a renovation project: there is an educational cost to this option. Building new will be a better value.
Ms. Watson concurred with Mr. White’s comments. She said she was also troubled by Option 3 site issues: rocks and water make the risk extremely problematic. Academic intrusion involved by the add/reno option is too great. The high school project is a good example of how an add/reno can disrupt the teacher’s and student’s education process. Option 2 runs the risk of the fewest problems.
Ms. Kelly said Option 2 is the best value for the Town’s dollars. Mr. Githmark said Option 2 is already a community resource and he was not looking forward to maneuvering around an add/reno option.
Mr. Sherman said that while he was in favor of the motion, but would like to play devil’s advocate. He was surprised that LPA presented such a good add/reno option. However, at the end of the day, the building is not just a building; it is a system and which option is going to provide the best system? He asked Mr. Githmark for his opinion.
Mr. Githmark said an add/reno would have still limited many of the classrooms in their size and created a poor flow through the buildings for the students.
Mr. Lucchesi said the cost delta from the lowest to the highest option was 4M. He said it was important to maximize the taxpayer dollar. Educators make the education of children and while a building doesn’t provide the education of the children, it is incumbent for the people to provide a building that is conducive to learning. This building has deficiencies that staff has had to overcome. Option 2 provides a solution to all of the problems. The PSR document will have a high level of evaluation on all three options and the Committee has evaluated information for over a year to come to this choice. He encouraged residents to read the PSR and decide for themselves.
Mr. Githmark said that Dr. Pandiscio did not have an opinion one way for another. Ms. Kelly said Town Manager Galkowski supported the Committee’s decision.
Chairman Challenger commented that he felt the permitting process with Option 3 would be very lengthy. Additionally, he did not like leaving the existing school empty for the Town to dispose of. He said Option 3 was a riskier option. Option 1 would leave the Town will little room/a less flexible structure to work with in the future. Having a daughter that went through the renovation project at the high school, he could not imagine putting the middle school kids through Option 1. A new building will allow for a better educationally designed school.
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Margaret Watson, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPT OPTION 2 FOR THE PSR SOLUTION FOR THE MOUNTVIEW SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT.
LPA needs authorization to begin the schematic design process even though the MSBA has not yet voted on a building design option. Mr. Pagano said that he felt the MSBA will support without hesitation to proceed with the Committee’s decision. While the risk to proceed is minimal, the risk to wait is greater. The MSBA will push back on some of the variances (media center), but these changes will be minor. LPA cannot begin work without the Committee’s authorization.
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO AUTHORIZE LPA TO PROCEED WITH THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN.
Mr. Pagano said the Committee needs to debate which delivery method it will chose to use: 149 vs. 149a. A decision needs to be made by early November. It was decided that the Committee will deliberate this decision in October.
The Committee agreed to meet on September 18th and 25th.
Mr. Kaczmarek will present a Power Point presentation to the Committee on CM @ Risk and the Committee will discuss MA-CHPS alternative energy features at the next two meetings.
The Committee reviewed the Summary of Deliverables. All owner items must be completed by September 18th to be included in the PSR.
3. New Business
Margaret Watson presented the approved meeting minutes of the WRSD Education Subcommittee. The subcommittee endorsed decentralized research and collaborative education spaces.
4. Minutes
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Mike Sherman, it was VOTED 6-0-1 WITH 1 ABSTAINED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 21, 2012 GREEN CHARETTE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. (ABSTAINED: CHALLENGER.)
5. Adjournment
Motion by Dave White, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 MEETING AT 7:38PM.
APPROVED:
| 
