The Board of Finance attended a Board of Education special meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 in the Lecture Hall of Newtown High School, Berkshire Road, Sandy Hook, CT. Board of Education Chairman Elaine McClure called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Kortze, James Gaston, Martin Gersten, Joseph Kearney, Michael Portnoy, Harrison Waterbury, Board of Education members Elaine McClure, Lillian Bittman, Anna Wiedemann, David Nanavaty, Richard Gaines and Kathleen Fetchick; Honorable Senator John McKinney, Board of Selectmen members Paul Mangiafico and Herb Rosenthal; Legislative Council members William Rodgers, Francis Pennarola, John Aurelia, Jan Brookes, Jeffrey Capeci, Gary Davis, Joseph DiCandido, Joseph Hemingway, Patricia Llodra, Christopher Lyddy, Po Murray and Daniel Amaral; Public Building and Site Commission members James Juliano, Robert Mitchell, Thomas Catalina, Anthony D’Angelo and Robert Mulholland.
ALSO PRESENT: Financial Director Robert Tait, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Janet Robinson, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Linda Gejda, Schools Director of Business Ron Bienkowski, High School principal Chip Dumais, Fletcher-Thompson representatives Joseph Costa and Matthew Holst, Morganti representative Ed Barrett, Blades & Goven representative Barry Blades, approximately twenty-five members of public, three members of press.
NEW BUSINESS
Board of Education Strategic Plan. Board of Education planning committee members and staff discussed the Strategic Plan.
Discussion concerning proposed High School expansion project. Mr. Barrett distributed and reviewed “Newtown High School Options Summary October 22, 2008, Note: Option Values are not Cumulative” (Attachment A to original minutes). Included were Options 1, 2 and 3 for consideration concerning the proposed High School expansion project.
Option #1 - Rebidding which included value management of $400,000 to $500,000, even without doing the alternates, would still require additional funds of $3-4 million. Construction could begin mid-February. Option #2 - if the gym is eliminated, we would need to re-design Stair #4 and the bridge and construction would begin in April. Option #3 would keep the gym as an alternate.
Mr. Davis asked how these changes would affect the LEEDS issue. Mr. Costa said that a waiver has been requested but he does not know how the changes would impact this . Mr. Barrett noted that prices have not yet come down. Mr. Juliano had suggested using a domestic hot water system but Mr. Barrett said that this was not part of the value management numbers. Mr. Juliano also suggested a warming kitchen instead of the new culinary area. Mr. Kortze asked how long does it take for the prices to decline to the point where it would matter to us; Mr. Barrett said 3-5 months out because material costs do not drop as fast.
Mr. Kortze asked if certain LEED specs are allowed in the current design specs and could what is not in the design be quantified including what this will cost us. Mr. Costa does not know what we would have to add to this building in order to get LEEDS certification and does not know what the cost would be. Mr. Kortze said that there must be a list of what would bring us up to snuff and that this should be a relevant consideration concerning cost and timing. Mr. Costa said that we could use the present LEED guidelines that are available but that the State guidelines have not been adopted.
Mrs. Murray asked if we would have to re-submit to the State if they gym is re-designed; Mr. Bienkowski said that would depend on the extent of the re-design and the impact on the code requirements. Mr. Gaston said that the Board of Finance was told that re-design of the gym would be a significant design change. He said that the Board of Finance was also told that time is of the essence and he does not feel that re-design of the gym would meet this criteria. Mr. Bienkowski said that the gym would not be re-designed but eliminated in Option #2 and that in that case the architects would have to look at other modifications without a gym. Mr. Gaston asked for clarification as to what does eliminating the gym mean: does it mean that the gym remains as is, that there is no gym expansion or there would be a gym expansion as
presented in the last six months? Mr. Bienkowski said that the proposed gym expansion is already designed. Mr. Gaston also asked why are the tennis courts to be eliminated? Mr. Costa said that the tennis courts could would be on a bid alternate list. Mr. Gaston said that if the tennis courts and practice field are eliminated, people would have to be displaced and would have to use Parks & Recreation courts and fields and what is the rationale in making these alternates? Mrs. Brookes asked if the gym roof could be lowered for a cost savings. Mr. Juliano suggested considering placing the ducts in the steel. Mr. Costa said that we looked at a free standing gym area. Mr. Holst said that we could look at using the existing joyses and moving the ductwork. Mr. Rodgers asked what is the sport regulation for height? Mr. Costa said 25 feet and up.
Mr. Kearney said that we were told that the overrun of the bid was a function of commodity prices. He feels that if the subcontractors had submitted unit prices we could have avoided this. He said we are going backwards and that we should rebid. He asked if we will insist on unit costs this time; Mr. Barrett replied that we will study this. Mrs. Llodra said that we were told that the bridge and stair #4 were needed for safety issues and has this changed? Dr. Robinson said no, this is a necessity.
Mr. Gersten said that now the maximum number now will be 1850-1900 and has the Board of Education considered scaling down the project? Dr. Robinson said that the State has added additional educational requirements and that we want 85% capacity; she said that we are now at 107%. If we downsize we will have something that does not meet our needs. We are seeing a wave not a bubble. Mr. Gersten asked if portables can alleviate the crowding for 3-4 years to which Dr. Robinson replied that they would alleviate overcrowding but not ancillary problems.
Mr. Capeci asked if redesign of the gym would be a factor in the EDO process with the State; Dr. Robinson said that the gym is part of the ed specs. Mr. Nanavaty asked if we will see a decrease in the bid costs if we put it out to rebid. Mr. Barrett said that he has not seen a drop in material costs. He said that the bidders know what the bids are and may be reluctant to rebid with no changes. Mr. Nanavaty asked why there would not be decreases with the seven month delay. Mr. Barrett said that we are not seeing a $6 million level of change. Mr. Rodgers asked if Morganti and Fletcher-Thompson will review the project again with the Board of Education when the LEEDS requirements are known. Mr. Costa and Mr. Barrett said they will look at the guidelines and make recommendations based on these.
Senator McKinney said that after the project is approved by the State Board of Education, it would go into the school construction bonding process. He is unsure whether the waiver will be granted because the LEED regulations are not yet in place. He feels that the regulations will be adopted in the next three to four months.
Mr. Kortze asked why the Board of Education is considering proposing the same scenario when NEASC said that overcrowding had to be addressed. Also he understood that the gym is in integral part of the building. He said that in the spring when asked what was the plan if the referendum failed the Board of Education said that little could be scaled back and we would have to start with a new design. Mr. Costa said that the gym has a cascading effect with tendrils to other areas. He said that it would function as a brace to the new classroom wing.
Mrs. Murray asked what is the most expedient and cost effective way to move forward. Mr. Barrett said selective rebidding with the bidders agreeing to extend their bids. Mr. Gaston noted that H.C. Planning’s populations projections as of June, 2008 were higher than Prowda or Bothwell. He recommends rebidding the entire project and including unit costs. Ms. Bittman said that her research indicates that we should see lower prices in three to four months but would we need to redesign? Mr. Gaston said that the majority of people he spoke to support the project but do not feel that it should cost $45 million. He feels that we bid a the wrong time. Mrs. Llodra feels that we should rebid and not reduce the scope. Mr. Mangiafico is concerned that we are over capacity and that costs are increasing every day. Rebid soon.
Scale back and take out items that do not affect the ed specs. We have $38.8 million to get down to. Mr. D’Angelo said that the voters approved $38 million and do not expect this to be cut; we should rebid. Mr. Juliano agreed with Mr. D’Angelo. Mr. DiCandido said that the escalation factor should be considered and that it could be 6-10% into the entire project. Mr. Rodgers does not think that the narrow defeat of the last referendum should be considered a mandate to operate within the original bonding money and we should not rush to change the scope; rebidding might spare us this exercise.
VOTER PARTICIPATION.
Robert Melchiono, 4 Charter Ridge Drive, feels that we should get an independent bidder and should also include unit prices. Offer incentives for lower bids.
Heidi Brisson, 5 Hemlock Drive, asked if we have bonded all the original money. Without LEEDS guidelines we should sit tight; we have the luxury of time.
Rich Fennarola, 63 Tomahawk Trail, said that the architects designed something that was more expensive than what was approved. He said that not all of the costs are for classroom space; this should be barebones and there is more than barebones here.
Sarah Beier, 7 Yogananda Road, said that there is some information available about LEEDS. Do not eliminate the tennis courts.
Sally McDonald, 5 Beagle Trail, said that we want what we voted for.
Carol Brown, 48 Marlin Road, said that we should rebid. She said there is a provision in the State statutes that allows a municipality to apply for funding for a project that goes over. She feels that we qualify for LEEDS with this project but maybe not for a new project.
ADJOURNMENT. Having no further business, the meeting adjourned a 9:37 p.m.
Ann M. Mazur, Clerk
| 
