MINUTES
LITCHFIELD
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE MUSIC ROOM
JULY 1, 2004
A meeting of the Litchfield School
Building Committee was held on Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Litchfield Intermediate Music Room.
Present were: Jack Healy, Chairman;
Robert Blazek; Mac Bramley; Stacey Kavle; and Gary Waugh and Kent Gilyard
Also Present: Peg Perusse; Tim
Breslin; Anne Stillman; BOE Members, Wayne Shuhi, Don Falcetti and Diane Knox;
Greg Oneglia of O&G Industries; Public and the Press.
Meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM
by J. Healy
Approval of Minutes
Motion was made by M. Bramley to
approve the Minutes of the meeting of June 17, 2004, seconded by G. Waugh.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Communication
G. Waugh reported that the BOE had
concerns about the traffic patterns, particularly the bus and parent drop
off. They are also concerned with the
change in the new gym.
R. Blazek had
the following communication from the Board of Selectman (“BOS”): The have the same concerns about the
traffic. Otherwise they think the BC is
doing a terrific job and thanks you.
M. Bramley
– Received a communication from the Treasurer regarding reimbursement for trips
by BC members. Some members are going
down to Newman’s office on a regular basis and he wanted BC members to be aware
that they can be reimbursed for that travel.
Architect Update
T. Callahan handed out rough
schematic designs. At this time they are
in between conceptual and schematic design and are working on project scope
narratives, outline specifications and reviewing code. With regard to parking, the Architect is
trying to maintain the current number of parking spaces and looking at parking alternatives
while minimizing site work that has to be done. At LIS they will be losing parking
spaces. At LHS they are looking at
different drop off plans. Both schemes
propose minimal alterations in order for cars and buses to have separate
parking loops for drop off. The Traffic
Consultant was comfortable with both scenarios but preferred that the buses
drop off at current location and the parents drop off on the side of the
school. The Traffic Consultant will put
a report together on how these plans will function.
J. Healy believes a traffic signal
or even someone directing traffic at the intersection with constitution way is
needed. R. Blazek asked about the use
of the old driveway out to Route 202 and its potential use. M. Bramley explained that this alternative
was looked into and the DOT said it can not be used. G. Oneglia reminded the BC that the least
expensive scheme is preferred and still adds $150K to the budget, pricing all
new sidewalks as concrete. T. Callahan
stated that they were talking about doing all of this without widening the
drive. P. Perusse – In the morning the
buses come in at different times. In the
afternoon the buses double us in the top drive and don’t move until everybody
is on board. J. Healy suggested student
parking be put next to the school where buses drop off (in the current
location). The concern of the BC is
when parents and students are backing out and may be in a hurry, other students
are crossing the parking lot, this may be an issue. R. Munday recommended to keep student
parking where it currently is and eliminate the parents in this plan (have them
drop off/pick up on the side) and have a clearly marked pass way for students
to cross where buses won’t park. J.
Healy – For the sake of keeping the meeting going, have the Traffic Consultant
come back for the next meeting and have him think about these issues and come
back with suggestions.
Litchfield
Intermediate School
Architect
and Construction Manger (“CM”) did a walk through this week. Architect reviewed the plan for new
construction with BC: The
Administration room includes the reception area where Secretaries will work,
the Principal’s Office, a conference room, a work room and a storage room. In the area of the new school entrance there
is space set aside where there is theater support, which alternatively could be
behind the stage if there is room. The
Guidance Office could also be in this space that is set aside. General Music (not band or lessons) will be
moved to an existing science room at the end of a hall. After hours we will be able to separate the
music “suite” from the rest of the school.
One aspect that will add cost to the project is the expansion of the
existing stairwells. We haven’t run the
numbers yet to meet the occupancy level.
J. Healy asked if the expansion could be bid as an alternate. G. Waugh questioned if the Architect had
solved the problem of having to use class space for after hour’s theater for
dressing, etc. He is concerned about
Teacher’s things getting moved. R.
Munday – We are looking at this carefully.
The depth of the expansion to the Auditorium is 25 feet long. We don’t know how much we can build and how
much we can afford. M. Bramley asked if dressing rooms and prop preparation can
be in the back of the stage. R. Munday –
That is possible. In order to stay
within the budget, expect shrinkage of this expansion. We need a Theater Consultant to tell us what
we can do at minimal cost and improve the performance of the space. We want to focus on enhancing what is there.
Motion was made by M. Bramley to
authorize Architects to enter into a contractual agreement with Theater
Consultant, Theatre Consultants Collaborative, LLC for programming and
conceptual design with a maximum expenditure of $4,600.00, seconded by K.
Gilyard.
Discussion
G. Waugh
– Once the programming and design is done, the Architect can carry out what is
planned.
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
R.
Munday – The next area is the Cafeteria with the Link. We have to add another room under the Link to
locate a fire pump and we are also required to put in a generator. It would be more costly to bring in water
lines from Route 202. The low water
pressure in this area adds a premium to the fire code. M. Bramley – Can we talk to Aquarian Water to
see if they can help do something about the water pressure? T. Callahan – It is actually the piping that
was brought to the schools in 1958, it’s too narrow. K. Gilyard – On the Town’s vision plan, they
want to use the two schools as Shelters, run by the volunteer
firefighters. R. Blazek – Can the
generator cost be under a Federal Funding Program? M. Bramley – Wouldn’t the Federal Government
have to help use with the piping? G.
Waugh – Do you need the fire pump and generator in a particular location? J. Healy – The pumps are loud and they do
come on during the day, it’s not something we want near the classrooms.
A.
Stillman – we are worried about the sound between the cafeteria and gymnasium
above. R. Munday – We can not make it
100% sound proof. The ceiling is low; it
will be a little noisy. M. Bramley – The
double doors between the cafeteria and the link, how wide are they? Will there be access to the courtyard? R. Munday – It’s going to be a logistical
issue during construction. It should be
wide enough to get small equipment into the area. I would like to see a low maintenance
solution and removal of the trusses.
Litchfield High School
-
Architect
is working on the scope of renovations, how to handle the mechanical systems, understanding
the building three-dimensionally, the scope of renovation of mechanical systems
and how we can reuse existing parts of the systems. The hot water piped system in the school is
only 20 years old and looks to be in good condition. The big changes in mechanical code relates to
fresh air. There is not much fresh air
in this building. We will have to
improve delivery of fresh air in this building. T. Callahan – Two boilers now servicing the
majority of LHS are about 20 years old.
Over time it used much more energy to give off heat. There are now systems that are much more
efficient. Mechanicals are critical to
the cost of this project. We are looking
at a two pipe delivery system because the ceilings are low. This is the simplest system.
Gymnasium
– We are looking at a flat wood roof.
The code does not actually allow you to build a flat roof. There is a minimum pitch of ½ inch. We believe this is a better roof and you’ll
have a long warranty. We are looking at
wood not only to control the cost, but to bring in a natural feel to the bare
bones school.
R.
Munday – The issue with the existing school us that some of the walls are load
bearing and are supporting the roof structure.
G. Waugh
– I am concerned about the micro laminate beams. Do we create a scenario that is inflexible in
the future by not using steel?
Consultants - Additional Service Proposals
T. Callahan
– We would like to have the approval of a Technology Consultant, Food Service
Consultant and Existing Facilities Survey.
At this point we want Leavitt Associates do an initial report of
facilities. We have also asked him to
look at the Turner Reports on moisture.
We know LIS much better but we also know that LHS is the driver of the
construction costs. $4,700.00 covers a
study of the exterior of the building.
We have used Leavitt Associates before and they are an excellent consultant.
Motion
was made by M. Bramley to authorize the Architect to enter into a contract with
Leavitt Associates in the amount of $4,700.00 as Forensic Consultants, seconded
by R. Blazek.
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Food
Service Consultants McFarland, Kisler will coordinate both kitchen and food
service areas, how we use the service area in LIS Cafeteria and reuse the
existing LHS food service area. The
Consultant will talk to the school’s vendors.
Motion
was made by R. Blazek to hire the Flood Service Consultant, McFarland, Kisler for
the amount of $24,610.00, seconded by G. Waugh.
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Information
Technology Consultant, Project Management Team for wiring, cable, etc, as well
as telephone and security. We have used
them on numerous occasions.
Motion
was made by R. Blazek to hire the Information Technology Consultant Project
Management Team in the amount of $39,100.00, seconded by M. Bramley.
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
T.
Callahan – The Planning and Zoning meeting is happening on July 9, 2004 with
Ruth Mulcahy. We are looking at an
October submission for reviewing and September looking at DEP submission. O & G is working on a schedule with
regards to that.
R.
Munday – We are moving forward with schematic design. The important thing coming out of that is a
number. It is vital that we have that
number. We have been thinking about ways
to bring the project cost down and ways to preserve the program scope. One way to reduce square footage of new
construction, another is looking for other ways to solve mechanical needs, a
third is construction material alternatives, and the fourth is an idea to
renovate the existing gym rather than build a new one.
R.
Munday reviewed a plan (Concept D-5) which included leaving the existing gym
and renovating.
The BC
asked Tim Breslin, Principal at LHS his thoughts about this idea. He liked the clear separation of the 7-8
& 9-12 wing. He had concerns about
the hallway extension but later realized the 7-8 wing was equal in length to
the 9-12 wing. On the whole he could
live with it and in some ways he thought it was better.
R.
Munday explained that locker spaces can be renovated. An Aerobic and Weight Room would be located
next to the Gym. Another aspect of the
new idea has to do with the mechanical link.
The existing Gym is the hub of hot water circulation of the building. If it’s demolished the boilers would have to
be relocated from this optimum space to a less desirable space (in the current
Tech. Wing). Even if the Gym is demolished, R. Munday suggested saving the
basement and rebuilding a new Gym in the footprint of the old one. The run off on the basketball court is an
issue. It is currently 7’ and should be
10’. The bleachers may be able to be
located on both sides of the court to solve this problem. We can add space and save the Gym. If this works we can create a cushion of
funds. In every design phase we
recommend a study of alternatives. With
this idea, it doesn’t matter what grade level you are in, the students are
equidistant to the shared facilities (art, library, music, cafeteria). T. Breslin – Not only does it reduce
travel, it also centralizes, the 7-8 graders stay in their own wing. R. Blazek – I think the new Gym was a
significant part of the LHS project. A
discussion followed about the voter’s reaction to this change.
M.
Bramley – Fearing the escalation price of everything, if we were to say okay
and if the numbers still didn’t work out, can you offer a renovation as a cost
saving alternative to new a Gym on the same footprint? R. Munday – We could do that. If we know we had this alternative plan in
our back pocket to chop the greatest amount of money to construction costs, we
would have an obligation to do that.
Construction Manager Update
G.
Oneglia reviewed cost estimates as follows:
ED-049R
$32M cost estimate – we asked voters for a $33M project.
Referendum
Design – A very tight $33M estimate with no money budgeted for site work.
Design
C-5M – Very tight money wise. We don’t
know the impact of the rising cost of materials.
Site
work – LHS $155K on top of $350K we have already allotted. LIS $313K.
The fire pump and generator were not in the budget. As of Tuesday we didn’t think the new concept
D-5 was saving money. On Wednesday, the
Architect tightened up the 7-8 area and talked about the plan for the existing
Gym renovation. Based on that, there is
a possible $900K savings to use the existing Gym. Demolishing the Gym and rebuilding on the
same site will not save money. G.
Oneglia handed out a cost summary with base estimates. The ultimate problem is that you have a $33M
budget. We can save almost $1M
renovating the Gym.
J. Healy
– If we had to go with concept D-5 are we still on schedule? R. Munday – We would need more time to
conclude schematic design phase. It
would take a week or two additional time on LHS. G. Waugh – Have you considered
other alternatives to raise the contingencies?
R. Munday – We feel we have been aggressive about bare bone
finishes. T. Callahan – We believe both
projects deliver the criteria in the Ed Specs.
G. Waugh – The Gymnasium space was a dominant concern at the three
public hearing. R. Munday – We will be
addressing the amenity needs of the students and the public and can seek to
address the run off. S. Kavle – In
terms of what the public is expecting we are providing a new lobby space, many
of the concerns of the public can be corrected with renovations. Do we need to choose a plan tonight? R. Munday – I suggest we move forward with
C-5M and find out how much it will cost.
M. Bramley – Concept D-5 has a flexibility that C-5M does not.
Motion
to adjourn was made by R. Blazek and seconded by K. Gilyard at 10:05 PM
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Kelli L.
Green, Recorder