MINUTES
LITCHFIELD
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE LIBRARY
FEBRUARY 19,
2004
A meeting of the Litchfield School
Building Committee was held on Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Litchfield Intermediate Library.
Present were: Jack Healy; Chairman,
Malcolm Bramley; William Buckley; Robert Blazek, Lynn Chapman; Kent Gilyard;
John Mullen; Paul Sapiro; Gary Waugh; Jeff Zullo.
Also Present:; Leo Paul, First
Selectman; Peg Perusse, Business Manager; BOE Members: Diane Knox, Wayne Shuhi,
Don Falcetti, Harold Fairchild and Frank Simone; Richard Munday, Tim Callahan
and Ryan Minney of Herbert S. Newman and Partners; Bruce Walpole and Greg
Oneglia of O&G Industries; Public
and the Press.
Meeting was called to order at 7:02
PM by J. Healy.
Motion made by B. Buckley to approve
the minutes as corrected of the February 5, 2004 meeting sec. by R.
Blazek. Corrections were made to add
the word Afinancial@ before Ainformational packet@ in the last paragraph on the first page of the minutes in
the fourth and seventh line from the bottom of the page.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Public Participation - None
Communication
R. Blazek was asked by pose two
questions from the BOS:
1. K. Creed - Will
one or both roofs of the schools will be pitched?
2. B. Dranginis
- Can the present Gym can be saved and used as a spare gym?
G. Waugh reported from the BOE that
middle school staff had concerns about some proposals in the last meeting and
shared their concerns with Herbert S. Newman and Partners.
J. Healy attended a meeting with O
& G to discuss particularly what was going to be included as part of the
renovations. They will go over what we
talked about later in the agenda.
B. Buckley - There is a consensus
that if someone sends a communication to us and doesn=t sign it we are not going to
respond to it.
Architect=s Update and Discussion
T. Callahan passed out drawings and
a first draft of LHS Education Specifications as attached hereto as Exhibit
A. LHS Option B-1: moved entrance point
closer to gymnasium, with administration (principal and assistant principal)
area including guidance office. Drawing
includes demolition of new gym and new piece in front. LIS Option A - Ed. Specs for LIS are not
available yet but drawings includes auditorium expansion and new addition.
The Committee discussion with the
BOE and Peg Perusse the importance of getting the Ed Specs to Newman as soon as
possible. The were supposed to be in by
the end of February and are lagging behind.
Both Diane Knox and Peg Perusse will follow up with that.
T. Callahan met with E. Fabbri of
the playing fields group to work together on fields proposal to have a unified
thought about the site. Also the LHS bus
drop off and parent drop off was an idea from E. Fabbri. Area F at LIS is space to supply water,
electrical and cable connection sites and space for storage. J. Healy - P & Z had a meeting regarding
the initial application for closing of Plumb Hill Road and did approve the
application to go forward. J. Zullo -
Inlands/Wetlands process is still open.
Some questions were raised and the playing fields group will go back
with answers on March 14, 2004. G. Waugh
- Will the lanes have to be expanded at LHS to accommodate two buses? R. Blazek - Are we increasing the burden of
parent drop off? T. Callahn - We have to
do more of a traffic study. This plan
will allow children to get out anywhere in the loop and walk safely into
school. R. Blazek - Last time we talked
about the entrance lobby having a view from principal=s office to give heightened
security. With the new entrance you are
cut off from a view by the boy=s locker room. T. Callahan - That is the problem with moving
the lobby closer to the gym. B. Buckley
- 1. I=d like to recognize Tim=s recommendation to have a traffic
study done. This is not something we
have to do now, but there should be a study to evaluate all impacts. 2. The gym proposal works for high school. 3.
The traffic flow improves, 4. I like the fact that you designated a spot for a
future auditorium. 5. I like the fact that the science wing is in the current
tech wing and will be completely gutted and renovated. Consequently I like what I see. M. Bramley - I am very pleased with how it
turned out. I believe that the reason
the auditorium was moved was that it brought it too close to the property
line. We can not leave the existing gym
standing. The parking, part D, concerns
me, no sidewalks. Is it possible to loop
parking strip at end in area E for it to be an easy drop off? Finally, one of the things mentioned in
prioritized needs was the utilization of the courtyard and LIS. Can O & G price out what it would take
use to use the upper courtyard space for administration offices. We have to determine that the cost would be
prohibitive. Can we prepare that? J.
Zullo - There are no Superintendent=s offices in this building plan. Principal=s offices are being relocated near the entrance. Good job on the loops, it looks viable. G. Waugh - My only concern is having enough
space to congregate during games. I=d be concerned that the lobby is as
small as the current lobby. The
auditorium us in a good place. Can the
gym be moved back to lobby entry line.
Can we turn the gym 90E?
Is there a lot of flexibility where programs will go? K. Gilyard - I want to commend you on your
design. I would like to get an entrance
in the middle of the loops. Moving the
gym bothers me. We have an area at the
end of this hallway for possible expansion and we don=t want to block it off. B. Buckley - The smaller detail is important,
but better saved until after the referendum. Conceptually you have a nice
design and I am ready to here how much it costs. J. Zullo - We have to define as a group at
the special meeting next week what we are coming out with and something besides
just foot prints. J. Healy - During the
traffic study can we at least ask about opening up a one way entrance in the
old driveway/entrance space? T. Callahan
- We should have civil engineers track done how difficult that would be . We have heard its not a good idea. D. Falcetti - I talked to the State and it=s a problem with wetlands and
closeness to the traffic light. D. Knox
- A Media Center is the hub of any building, a nice facility for students to
research, use computers and books, a multi media facility. I believe strongly in that. J. Zullo - I want to state again that there
is no Superintendent=s space being developed here.
Construction Manager=s Update and Discussion
G. Oneglia - Looking back at the
work we did to put the ED 049R together, it cam to $32M. There was no site work, we had budgeted for
some at the bottom at $250,000.00. Two
weeks ago it looked to us, even thought he project increased in size and scope,
we were still within that $33M. B.
Walpole. We have identified the tech
wing falls under program renovation and it=s more costly. SF is
still a concern. We love this scheme
however, we are cautiously optimist that we can stay within the budget. We are concerned. Not having the Ed Specs has
been a detriment to define spaces. We
have construction contingencies built into the $33M. We are looking at $169.00/SF for new
construction. There is not a design
contingency, only construction contingency.
We compared cost per SF for new renovation, targeted renovation, program
and transferred over to new SF. T.
Callahan - We kept the SF contingencies in ED 049R so when we did a CAD
analysis, we hoped to see SF come down.
We need to continue our area analysis but it should come down. J. Zullo - In the realm of conceptualization
are you both comfortable with concept and numbers? B. Walpole - It=s a tough question to answer. If we go with this plan you are right on the
bubble of affording it. Targeted
renovation may mean some spaces get just a paint job, not getting new windows
or floors. B. Buckley - In that $33M it
includes O & G and Newman=s dollar amount, I don=t know that we need to be concerned
with contingency on our soft costs. Bids
show you that you can get a swing of 20%.
We have to say that this is what our consultants say is likely to be
built for $33M. When bids come in we
have to be able to add and delete things.
We should have Ed Specs; whoever they are working for , tell them to get
moving. I would like to compliment you
for that dollar amount. We have to frame
it directly to the public that we may or may nor be able to do it all. K. Gilyard - I am in favor of staying with
this plan instead of chopping things which can be done later on. Ed Specs have to be put together before the
public hearing. I think we should go to
the public with these drawings. This
shows how it works and what its going to do.
L. Chapman - Targeted renovation, the cost is $78.00 per SF. Generally what does that include? B. Walpole - painting, windows, flooring,
changing a function of a room, mechanical, electrical. Program alteration is $126.00 per SF. If we have to install sprinklers in LHS we
are adding another $300,000.00. G.
Oneglia - Steel prices are going way up and we did not figure the increase into
the budget. I can not say how things are
going to be in a year. B. Walpole - We
will come up with alternates that are easily identified, i.e. flooring, ceiling
tile, those would not be a tremendous change but can easily save money. B. Buckley - In the next phase of the
project we=ll develop plan alternates when bid
packages some in to stay within the $33M.
My suggestion is also to go with these drawings. This is where we are now. I intend to vote for going with this plan and
budget. J. Zullo - I think this tells a
good story to the public, we are at the cap and hopefully we don=t have to reduce. R. Munday - We have to work at seeking ways
to reduce SF and looking closely at the scope of the renovation. We are not going to move forward in a relaxed
way. There may be ways we can take cost
out of this building (LIS). Focus on
continuing to ratchet down the project without affecting program.
Motion was made by K. Gilyard to go
forward with this plan to the public with these conceptual drawings dressed up
a bit, seconded by M. Bramley.
G., Waugh - The space underneath the
gymnasium, how usable is it? T. Callahan
- Concrete fame system, floor to floor is 9 feet. No walls are bearing walls, we can put
windows in. There are pipes that run
through there we have to investigate. We
can bring in enough natural light. We
may look at doing something with acoustics.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
.
Communication [Outreach]
Subcommittee Update
L. Chapman - I spoke with Mary
Lawler. The tentative dates for
presentations are: Northfield - March 9TH at 7PM, Bantam March 11TH
at 7PM and Litchfield March 13TH at 10 AM. We are going to develop presentation
materials for next week.
Motion was made by J. Zullo to
initiate a special meeting with the BOS, BOE, BOF and Town Treasurer and invite
the public at the LHS cafeteria to present to the public conceptual plans and
budget and elicit input for next Thursday, February 26, 2004 at 7:00 PM, second
by R. Blazek.
Discussion J. Zullo - we should see if they want to film
next week=s meeting. The BOF, Town Treasurer and BOS need to
develop the anticipated budget.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
T. Callahan - The next step is
Publication. Looking at March 4TH to coordinate and final text for
mailer, but its contingent on the Ed Specs draft being done. J. Healy - Diane Knox and I will get on the
phone with the Superintendent about the Ed Specs. L. Chapman - The mailer shoudl be exactly the
same as the presentations. It has to be
mailed out before March 16TH.
Motion was made by J. Zullo, on the
recommendation of the Communication Subcommittee, the Architect and
Construction Manager have for the Building Committee on March 4TH a
draft version of informational document, seconded by G. Waugh.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Finance Subcommittee:
Treasurer=s Report: - See Attached Exhibit B
The subcommittee has unanimously
voted that we stop meeting with the permission of the Building Committee,
curtail meetings but remain available in the event subsequent to referendum
that a Finance Subcommittee is needed.
Motion was made by B. Buckley to
accept Treasurer=s Report and that it is placed on
record, seconded by J. Zullo.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Motion to adjourn was made by B.
Buckley at 9:15PM, sec. by K. Gilyard.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli L. Green, Recorder