Mountview School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2012
6PM HMLD
Present: Vice Chairman David White, Gary Kaczmarek, Margaret Watson, Erik Githmark, Chris Lucchesi, Mike Sherman, Jacquie Kelly
Absent: Chairman Paul Challenger, Tom Pandiscio, Nancy Galkowski
Others Present: Mike Pagano, LPA, Bill Senecal, LPA, Carrie Havey, The Green Engineer, Joel Wolk, OPM Consultant, Kevin Seaman, Seaman Engineering, Azim Rawji, ART Electrical Engineering, Elizabeth Helder, Recording Secretary,
1. Approval of Previous Minutes
Motion by Chris Lucchesi, seconded by Mike Sherman, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO
APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 AS PRESENTED.
Motion by Chris Lucchesi, seconded by Mike Sherman, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO
APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 AS PRESENTED.
Mike Sherman asked that all approved committee minutes be forwarded to Kelley Gangi to post on the WRSD website. Liz Helder will send the minutes to Ms. Gangi.
2. Public Comment
No one came forward to address the Committee.
3. MA-CHPS Discussion
Mr. Pagano with LPA, Carrie Havey, The Green Engineer, and the Committee reviewed the MA-CHPS project checklist, credits, and costs associated with achieving the credits (some credits will assume additional costs).
Mr. Pagano said the building design assumes the installation of ducted returns. Mr. White suggested that the ductwork access doors would be an achievable credit that should be given full consideration. LPA will include them in the design; they are easy to remove from the design at a later date.
Mr. Rawji said that it would cost approximately $1500/classroom for lighting controls to achieve the 1-point credit (a $75,000 total additional cost to the project). Additionally, this up-charge is only to control the AV lighting feature. Day-lighting and occupancy controls already exist within the design. The Committee agreed not to seek this credit due to the high cost.
Renewable Energy is worth 1-12 credits depending on which options are chosen. Mr. Lucchesi said the Committee had already determined that the community will expect that some type of renewable energy options are installed in the building. However, he would prefer that the majority of the money be spent on educating the children rather than powering the building. It should be used as a supplemental power system. Mr. White said he felt that the project should install some level of photovoltaic panels on the roof. Mr. Pagano discussed the installation of some type of photovoltaic installation at semi-ground level (on top of a covered walkway etc.). Design plans and the buildings’ electrical usage will be determined during the schematic phase. The Committee agreed to maximize the use of
photovoltaic energy as much a financially possible. Ms. Kelly recommended that the architect discuss the installation and use of photovoltaic energy with Mr. Jim Robinson, Manager of the Holden Municipal Light Department. The HMLD has installed this type of renewable energy at the Senior Center and the Public Safety Building.
Mr. Senecal said he felt that the project could achieve 2-points by designing 80% of permanent classrooms without air conditioning. However, some classrooms (SPED) will require air conditioning.
The Committee agreed to pursue a credit point for Plug Load Reduction and Through The Installation of Energy Star Equipment. Mr. Githmark said this would be an achievable goal for the school to attain.
The Committee discussed Energy Management System and Sub-Metering credits. Mr. Seaman felt that the 5.2 credit would be the easier credit to achieve by installing a gas meter on the boiler (2-points). The project will keep the 5.1 credit in the plan for future consideration (1-point).
Flex energy was determined to achieve 1-point (photovoltaic) and possibly 2-points. Ms. Havey will investigate further. Mr. Rawji added that it is also easy to earn an additional 1-point by identifying electric vehicle charging locations at the building.
Indoor and outdoor water reduction credits will be determined by costs. Ms. Havey said some of the credits would be low cost (types of drought resistant grasses in the playing fields) to the installation of a Water Management System (higher). Mr. Seaman said it would be easy to monitor outdoor water usage. Since there aren’t student showering facilities in the plan that will require monitoring, Mr. Seaman felt that it would be easy to achieve 3-points in this category.
There will be minimal cost associated with achieving credits under the Site credit section. LPA asked Ms. Havey to investigate if the project will qualify for achieving 1-point in the Building Layout & Microclimate category.
Ms. Havey said she was still evaluating Durable, Low-Maintenance Flooring costs. Options include rubber flooring and low-PVC flooring. There may be some up front costs associated with this credit. Mr. Pagano said the Shrewsbury Middle School is using linoleum that meets this credit specification.
Mr. Githmark said the school currently uses the “School Dude” Program, a Work Order and Maintenance Management System, which will qualify the project for a credit point. While there are many “maybes” that remain in this category, Ms. Havey said it is still early in the process to determine cost estimates for the project.
After reviewing all the categories, the Committee determined it had added 4 more points to the
“yes” checklist for a total of 56 “yeses” and 37 “maybes.”
4. CM @ Risk vs. Design-Bid-Build Presentation
Gary Kaczmarek and Joel Wolk presented a power point presentation on the differences between a CM @ Risk (Ch. 149A) and Design-Bid-Build (Ch. 149) project.
The key differences between the two are that with a CM @ Risk project, the town would hire a professional service firm which builds buildings and with a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) project, the town would purchase a building in accordance with detailed plan specifications. A CM @ Risk project includes design phase services, starting before the design is completed, is selected based on their qualifications, a price is negotiated, and includes “open book” accounting. A DBB project includes no design phase services, a completed design, lowest responsive bidder (pre-qualified), lump sum payment, and the owner has no say on the team (except for prequalified FSB’s). How does a project choose which method to build their project? Some projects are sufficiently “simple” so that the initial cost
savings with DBB outweighs the value, and new construction on open, clean sites that are not time dependent. A CM @ Risk project is most appropriate for complex projects involving phasing, challenging logistics, and aggressive schedules.
In order to qualify as a CM @ Risk project, the Town must apply to the Inspector General’s office for approval.
Mr. Lucchesi discussed what “risk” the project might undertake to qualify as a CM project. It certainly would be putting extra responsibilities on the OPM. The Committee would need to provide extra money to continue Mr. Wolk’s employment as support to Mr. Kaczmarek and the project.
Ms. Kelly asked under what circumstances/criteria would the Committee choose the CM option. Mr. Wolk said the project would have better quality, end product, control, details, and would know the qualifications of people working on product. Additionally, the project would receive an additional 1% reimbursement from the MSBA.
Mr. White said that he felt the middle school project was a relatively low-risk project.
Ms. Watson asked if the high school project would have ended differently if it had been a CM @ Risk project. Mr. White said that the problem with the high school project was that it went out to bid with incomplete documents, which ultimately caused the extended problems on the project. Yes, it would have ended differently if it had been a CM @ Risk project because a CM project never would have gone to bid with incomplete documents. But, had the Superintendent managed the project better from the beginning, it would have turned out differently too.
Mr. Wolk said that applying for the CM @ Risk certification takes about 3 or 4 months. It will take approximately 10-12 hours to complete the application paperwork ($1000.00)
Mr. Pagano said he agreed with a vast majority of the presentation. The greatest benefit to CM is that it is intended to draw out the best GC’s to build schools – the “cream of the crop” (Gilbain, Turner etc.), and it makes the architect’s job very easy. But you pay for that advantage. He concurred that some GC’s in the DBB process can be brutal to work with. CM’s come into the process early and can contribute significantly to the project. This can be helpful when not working with an experienced architect. LPA is currently working on three CM projects and is familiar with the process. However, there are some downsides to a CM project. A CM is more money for the benefits described. In his experience, the higher the project cost does
not necessarily mean a high level of change orders. Good quality design documents will prevent this from occurring. The one advantage to a DBB project is to get the lowest possible cost. A CM project that does not use the entire contingency will return the money to the owner. Architects like the CM process: there are fewer problems reported to the owner and the GC has a better sense of ownership.
Mr. Sherman asked about the CM negotiation process? Town Counsel would be involved with the process.
Mr. Kaczmarek said he would like to start the CM @ Risk application process with the Inspector General’s office sooner rather than later.
Mr. White said that each person needs to determine/think about whether there is a need to forge ahead with the CM process before determining whether the Committee even wants to do a CM project.
Mr. Lucchesi asked if the market was favorable to building. Mr. Pagano said that many owner benefits associated with the recession have disappeared primarily because there are so few CM GC’s and more building projects. The recession has been so long that the supply side has shrunk; a lot of the GC’s didn’t survive the recession.
A motion was made by Mike Sherman and seconded for discussion by Chris Lucchesi to proceed with the CM @ Risk application.
Mr. Lucchesi said his gut was telling him to proceed with the DBB option. However, he would like to keep all his options open and $1000 seems like a small investment to keep another building option on the table. Mr. Githmark concurred.
Mr. White said that personally, with his experience with LPA and the quality of their final documents, he doesn’t feel that there is a need to pursue a CM @ Risk accreditation.
Mr. Lucchesi said he also had full confidence in LPA’s design documents. He said he was still trying to figure out if there were any advantages to the CM process.
Motion by Mike Sherman, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was VOTED 5-1 WITH 1 OPPOSED TO PROCEED WITH THE CM @ RISK APPLICATION. (Opposed: Dave White).
5. New Business
Mr. Lucchesi will speak with the Mountview PTA on September 20th, and address the Dawson School PTA on October 9th and Davis Hill PTA on October 11th. All Committee members are encouraged to attend and participate in the presentations.
6. Adjournment
Motion by Erik Githmark, seconded by Chris Lucchesi, it was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 MEETING AT 8:42PM.
APPROVED:
| 
