MINUTES

MINUTES

LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE

LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE MUSIC ROOM

MAY 20, 2004

A meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Litchfield Intermediate Music Room.

Present were: Mac Bramley, Acting Chairman, William Buckley; Robert Blazek; John Mullen; Kent Gilyard; Jeff Zullo; Gary Waugh, Stacey Kavle.

Also Present:; John Tindall-Gibson; Peg Perusse; BOE Members, Frank Simone and Wayne Shuhi and Diane Knox; Richard Munday, Tim Callahan, Ryan Minney of Herbert S. Newman and Partners; Bruce Walpole and Greg Oneglia of O&G Industries; P & Z Members Victoria Claman and Catherine Davis; Ed Fabbri; Public and the Press.

Meeting was called to order at 7:13 PM by M. Bramley

Motion was made by J. Zullo to move Communication from 4^TH to 2^ND on the Agenda, seconded by K. Gilyard.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Motion was made by J. Mullen to move Plumb Hill Playing Fields Update from 8^TH to 3^RD on the Agenda, seconded by K. Gilyard.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Communication

P & Z wanted to look at the footprint of the project. V. Claman, Chairman of P & Z gave the BC a copy of set backs from land use office. Ruth Mulcahy will speak with Architect and Construction Manager regarding regulations. R. Munday has already initiated contact with P & Z and Ruth on a regular basis.

Plumb Hill Playing Fields Update

Ed Fabbri had the following updates:

1. Last meeting with SBC, SBA has agreed to put permanent SVC into LIS, a conduit will be put in with CL&P conduit;

2. Brian McCormick is behind in getting a lease agreement finished to reviewed by the Town;

3. A Wood Chip Path needs to be added so students walking up to the fields would be away from the building and not on the road. We would like to extend the sidewalk up to the fields. The Sidewalk should be there for safety. There will be a need to take trees down to add parking and sidewalk.

Approval of Minutes

It was agreed to table the approval of minutes of the April 15, 2004 meeting due to lack of quorum.

Motion made by J. Zullo to approve the minutes with corrections of the May 6, 2004 meeting, seconded by K. Gilyard. The corrections were as follows: Diane Knox last name was misspelled under Public Participation; Under Bus Parking Planning and Zoning was referring to Bantam Planning and Zoning.

Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Public Participation

R. Blazek presented the plan to the BOS who has the following comments:

Bill Dranginis liked the idea of Plan C-2 mixed with C-4. He asked if there can be a wall reserved in the lobby near the gym for the Litchfield Booster Club Athletic Hall of Fame.

Leo Paul was concerned with two entrances.

Dan Coelho Wanted to know how the building meets the needs of the Ed Specs.

Kevin Creed asked if the updated plan would change the reimbursement rate and also wanted to see the facade of the parent drop off.

Copies of Public School Communication to David Wedge were passed out to members.

M. Bramley stated that because not all the key members are here tonight, he hoped that the committee is receiving ideas, not making decisions. He also asked to hear about what went on when four BC members went to Herbert S. Newman’s Office in New Haven.

Kent Gilyard, Stacey Kavle, Lynn Chapman and Robert Blazek along with Greg Oneglia went. They looked at the four (C-1 – C-4) updated/evolved versions of the original plan. The Ed Specs reduced the number of square feet required for building. We need the Architect to explain the plans and how we are handling it with the Ed Specs.

Architect Update

Review Updated Plans C1 – C5

Updated Plans and a comparative chart were passed out. R. Blazek is concerned about what townspeople are going to think who voted for the project. It takes time to get used to new ideas, I found the four plans interesting but still uncomfortable with two entrances at both schools; security, traffic confusion, future location of Auditorium, setback lines with regard to the Gym location and the cost. The cost will go down, but so will the reimbursement rate.

R. Munday – We did a lot of work in a short amount of time. It takes time to assimilate the aspects of a problem and deal with it. Presentation of New Plans:

1. Reviewed Current LHS and LIS Plans;

2. Reviewed original diagram of LHS and LIS that went to referendum;

3. Show LHS in color, referendum scheme.

a. problems with this diagram, redesigned it so it wasn’t necessary to build outside of cafeteria

b. pulled addition back so not as much site work needed

c. task was to redesign the from of school area

d. we received info from the Ed Specs that is was necessary to build as much square footage.

e. Hub (current Lobby) is an efficient space and we wanted to try to get there more quickly and have all wings more readily accessible.

4. Diagram with walkway to front door to central point. Also able to reduce square footage to central point. Existing lot and driveway to be left as they are and have a new side bus drop off.

R. Munday then did a comparison of four schemes using referendum B1 scheme as a baseline.

Discussion:

M. Bramley – Doesn’t perimeter feet increase, increase maintenance and operating cost? R. Munday – The difference in perimeter is minimal and does not affect cost. It is important to break building down into recognizable units. Important that students have a sense that building is manageable for them. T. Callahan - We just met with mechanical/electrical engineers and their talking about adding rooms for boilers, etc. The Ed Specs were received on May 6^TH and there was a reduction in square footage, it went down three (3) classrooms, and a reduction in the music and tech areas. We produced an executive study we want to get it the Building Committee. J. Zullo – Evaluating all plans, it seems redundant to have two entrances. The Gym entrance will not be used regularly except when there are athletic events. How can we push the main entrance closer to the Gym and utilize for games and public use? I appreciate the middle connector and will come to appreciate the bus entrance. All Building Committee members thought that was worth looking at. T. Breslin – That is not a bad set up now, you see everybody. In C2 I like that Seniors have a space to hang out. As the Principal I like to see as much going on as practical. And I like people to see me there too. P Perusse – One thing about having a Gym Lobby is that we can have fire doors there to close off the rest of the building and also for people using the cafeteria, we can close it off. T. Breslin – Students go out of the school a lot, its good to have a good sized separate entrance. The small courtyard can be a senior gathering space. M. Bramley – the 7-8 Science Labs; I like the second lobby near the science labs. J. Zullo – it seems we are driving square footage with hall space. R. Munday – The cent link is where we are adding circulation space. J. Zullo – Is it worth doing a trade study on whether the current tech wing to 9-12 science wing is guttable. Would it be a wash to tear down and rebuild? B. Walpole – We are six thousand square feet now, more than where we were in October 2003. We have the numbers if you want to talk about them. R. Munday asked if the science classroom had to be moved. T. Breslin – The existing science classrooms are too small. Discussion of the driveway will continue after the traffic study is done. J. Zullo – I would like to direct Richard to go back and evaluate with a single front entrance as another alternative design. W. Shuhi – WE haven’t talked about targeted renovation in parts of the building. I am unclear what that is going to end up being.

Construction Manager’s Update

B. Walpole – WE received the first four updates last week and after Monday’s meeting C5 was generated. We went back and reviewed the October 2003 conceptual estimate for LHS and LIS which totaled $32M, Compared with B1 option of $33M. The difference between any schemes C1 – C5 is less than ½ M. For use to tweak the unit cost of estimate at this level of detail we are in the ball park. Again if we are spending money on site work we have to take it from the building. Site cost in any “C” scheme has gone up $125K. We have not done detailed analysis and estimated on LIS. J. Zullo – Clearly the concrete sidewalk is an alternate. B. Walpole – The bathrooms for external use of new field means more money. J. Zullo - We are committed to that. Only the square footage is driving the bottom line? B. Walpole – Until we get more detail, we are comparing the same units. We should try to get square footage down knowing we have these other expenses. G. Oneglia spoke again about steel prices driving the price of all metals up. The numbers are being looked at now are historical numbers. Electrical is 3%-5% more because of conduits. Our numbers could be on the low side. B. Walpole – We talked about escalation cost and whether awe should bump it up, we didn’t in there estimates. R. Blazek – We can’t forget also we have in a rising interest rate environment. R. Munday - Finishes and materials are also differentials. We hope to be working with you and Construction Manager on these decisions. B. Walpole – My advice is to shoot under and have room to move. We have to pick a design soon or we are not going to make the schematic schedule. J. Zullo – Can you be back with C6 design with a single entrance next week? R. Munday – As we move forward with a final design we will still make change as we develop a better understanding. We will be seeking to move the square footage down. As we move toward the end point we hope the building is as economical as it can be. M. Bramley – In two weeks we want to pick something. Can we get C6in the next 7-8 days so we can look at all concepts in 3-4 days?

LIS Update

Reviewed updated plan for LIS

Discussion: T. Callahan – The new construction housing the administration and becoming the new entrance, this is a preferred scheme of the LIS Principal. For Town usage there is no problem keeping the old entrance. We have to keep construction in one spot with cost constraints. The administration feels it is easier to do their job with office in the new library addition. With the new entrance the buildings are looking at each other. R. Munday – Site work is needed now, if it’s a construction zone it’s definitely going to need it. It is unrealistic to expect that we are not going to face a big bill for site work. M. Bramley – Are there more things we have to do tonight? Tim Callahan - Kitchen Consultants, Geo Tech Survey Work, Theater Consultant and Forensic Consultant (he passed out copies of bids). We need action on the Theater Consultant. The Consultants in our fees are: M/E/P, Civil, Code and Structural. The Consultants that are add-ons are the ones I stated above. B. Walpole – I would suggest getting the Theater Consultant on board. Theater Consultant estimate for work is $71K. R. Munday – We can engage him to perform pre-schematic services to define the scope of the work and then get a proposal for that work. G. Waugh – What would that initial service cost? T. Callahan - $5K.

Motion was made by J. Zullo to table this until next meeting, seconded by B. Buckley.

Discussion: G. Waugh – I think it’s a mistake. The $4K to get work done is worth it. B. Buckley – We only have one quote, $71K is a lot of money. To spend $K when it may be only $3K, this budget is too tight. I’m concerned. G. Waugh – This is a result of a competitive bid from a former project. J. Zullo – I think in terms of saving time, talk to Jack Healy.

Call to question. Roll call.