MINUTES
LITCHFIELD
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE MUSIC ROOM
JULY 15,
2004
A meeting of the
Litchfield School Building Committee was held on Thursday, July 15, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. in the Litchfield Intermediate Music Room.
Present were: Jack
Healy, Chairman; Robert Blazek; Mac Bramley; Stacey Kavle; Gary Waugh; Lynn
Chapman; John Mullen; Kent Gilyard and Jeff Zullo
Also Present: John
Tindall-Gibson; Peg Perusse; Tim Breslin; Anne Stillman; Richard Munday, Tim
Callahan, Fernando Pastur; Ryan Minney of Herbert S. Newman Partners; BOE
Members, Wayne Shuhi, Don Falcetti and Frank Simone; Greg Oneglia and Bruce Walpole of O&G
Industries; BOS Member Bill Dranginis; 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 July 1, 2004, seconded by K.
Gilyard.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. Lynn Chapman abstained.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Communication
R. Blazek had the following communication from the Board of
Selectman (BOS): They are concerned
about the rising cost of the in project.
They are split in favor of renovating the Gymnasium.
G. Waugh reported
that the BOE still had concerns about the traffic patterns; particularly the
bus and parent drop off.
J. Healy reported that the contract for the Geo Tech. work
was sent to Michael Rybak for review.
Attorney Rybak had comment and the contract went back to T. Callahan.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. S. Kavle and J. Mullen abstained.
Presentation of Gymnasium Options
Herbert S. Newman& Partners
We are all concerned about the
construction budget and a number of related
issues:
1. The scope and budget of project are
same with no allowance for the unknown and issues related to the construction
environment including the considerable increase on the cost of building
materials, specifically steel. The
Construction Manager (CM) has raised concern whether or not this project C-5M
can be done for $33M. We have been
looking at ways to save money.
2. As we move forward, other needs have
become apparent at LIS. We have been
looking for ways to save money. We
believe we can save a great deal of money if we renovated the existing
Gymnasium rather than demolish it.
Richard Munday review plan C-5M
including the new addition, the front entrance, the location of the
administration offices, new gymnasium and other classrooms. This plan calls for the demolition of the
existing Gymnasium and building a new Gym in a different place. He questions whether it would make sense to
save the Gym, if it can be renovated and it deficiencies addressed.
Richard Munday then reviewed concept
D-5 including a new administration (same as C-5M), existing gyms stays with
renovations, a new wing of 7-8 classrooms.
At the center of the school will be the common areas shared by grades
7-12 but classroom areas will be separated 7-9 & 9-12. The new concept was given to CM for pricing
to see if a cost savings will emerge.
He believes Concept D-5 will better
serve the school. It creates separate
academies and centralizes the shared functions.
Another alternative to this plan is building a new Gym on the current
footprint. If it came down to the fact
that this was not possible due to the budget, we can default to a renovated
Gym. This plan offers protection from
the uncertainty of the construction climate.
Bruce Walpole of O & G
Industries estimated at the last meeting that concept D-5 would be
approximately $800,000.00 less than C-5M.
He also stated that with the site work that has to be done, Plan C-5M
will be over $33M. Whatever the outcome
D-5 would protect the project scope.
Kent Gilyard stated that if the BC
goes with the plan to renovate the Gym it had to be in the plan and budget that
the run off and locker rooms be addressed.
Richard Munday O & G allowed for addressing al issues connected to
existing locker rooms. An Aerobic room and weight room will be added as
well. It will be renovated to address
functional deficiencies.
Mac Bramley From my perspective we
are way ahead for ourselves. If we are
above budget I asked if there were any program alternatives. The answer was No. This design gives us the
flexibility to stay within the budget and stay within the Ed. Specs. I commend the Architect for coming up with an
alternative plan.
Gary Waugh reminded the BC that the
critical issues involving the Gym was Lobby Space, Enhanced Bathroom
Facilities, Locker Rooms, Bleachers on both sides of the Court, the Run Off and
the Leaky Roof. These issues would have
to be addressed before I could get behind a renovation.
Robert Blazek also said that it has
been decades that people have complained about the Gym. He asked if there will be a need for an
administrative staff in the 7-8 grade wing.
Richard Munday pointed out that travel of the 7-8 graders from the
office and common areas is equidistant to the 9-12 graders. Tim Breslin, Principal at LHS thinks that
concept D-5 is a better plan. He does
not foresee, for the 7-8 grade wing, having to hire additional administrators.
Bruce Walpole In October 2003 we
had a plan with no new Gym for $32M. In
January 2004 we had a project that came to $33M with no site work. We have no money for run off and no money to
move bleachers. The scope we can afford
is D-5 as a renovation.
Jeff Zullo I dont think the site
work is sacrosanct. I am concerned about
presenting concept D-5 with no change in the Gym. Richard Munday We are learning about the
importance of the run off and bleachers in a renovation scope of the Gym. We can include these things, but will have to
find the money somewhere else. Jeff
Zullo The current concept of building the new Gym stands with this
Community. Can we continue with
renovation of the Gym as an alternate to building a new Gym on the footprint of
the existing Gym.?
Richard Munday We have finished
schematic design of C-5M. We can give it
to O & G and get the cost estimate.
We will know in a few weeks what the cost is. Jack Healy The schematic design is part of
your basic services. If we decide to go
with D-5 in the next few weeks, will that work be part of basic services.
[After much discussion the Architect concluded that if D-5 was chosen
tonight (with a plan for a new Gym) that work will be part of basic
services. In the meantime O & G will
do a cost estimate of plan C-5M and concept D-5 as part of their basic
services. If then the BC were to go
back to C-5M after choosing D-5, there
will be additional cost.]
Stacey Kavle asked if BC felt C-%M
was a superior plan that D-5. Richard
Munday stated that they believed D-5 is a better concept because it gives
alternatives, the mechanical systems will remain in plan and they can deliver
more for the budget with concept D-5.
Bruce Walpole explained that the
renovation would be more than Targeted renovation but not gutting of the
building.
Robert Blazek asked about the
reimbursement rate and was told it would be higher for a new Gym, but we will
not know what the reimbursement rate is until the end of the project. The fact
is the BC must stay within the $33M gross.
Stacey Kavle We are presented with
two plans, one of which, down the road, will give us some cost saving
alternatives, the other will not. The concerns about the Gym that I heard were
about the Lobby and the appearance. It
would be irresponsible of us to go forward without examining plan D-5.
Greg Oneglia In October there was
so much new square footage (SF), program renovation SF and targeted
renovation SF. Against that SF we
applied unit prices. We came up with a
$32M project. The BOS decided to go with
a $33M referendum. As the plan
progressed a plan to demolish and rebuild the Gym became a part of the
plan. We then came up with a plan for
$33M with no contingency going into the referendum. We had escalation in numbers but nothing for site
work. Now there is dramatic site work at
both schools. If there is a budget
crunch the only place money could come out is targeted renovation. That is when concept D-5 was developed. With the schematic design phase complete we
can develop a very accurate estimate. We
believe C-5M will be over $33M and D-5 gives us room. The tremendous steel and material escalation
has shocked the construction industry.
Mac Bramley explained that the
current plan does have 2.5% per year construction contingency and 5% change
order contingency. The contingency O
& G was talking about was the $1M cushion we had in October.
Public Participation
Bill Deacon We need a new
Gymnasium. We have to establish a plan,
get an estimate and make a decision about what is in and what is out.
Bibi Veerman It seems to be poor
design on the part of the Architect firm.
If the mechanical systems under the Gym are so important, why was this
not thought out and included in the C-5 plan?
John Mullen We hired Newman, we
knew the cap was $33M, now we have a new design to save money, but is it going
to cost us more in design money to get there?
I understand that C-5 is going to be over $33M which we can not do. D-5 is a better option to keep the cost under
budget.
Richard Munday We have an
obligation to explore options and make recommendations. We have done that. My concern is being reasonable in the amount
of time we spend on a design concept when we have another concept being
considered.
Mac Bramley asked how long it would
take to price C-5 and was told by the CM they were planning on having it at the
next meeting on August 5, 2004. Jeff
Zullo We dont have a firm estimate on C-5.
To make a decision to change course tonight is irresponsible. Tim Callahan All numbers are within striking distance on both
plans. There is more of a comfort zone
and contingency with D-5.
Kent Gilyard A couple of us on the
Design Committee have been going to New Haven with Tim Breslin, Greg Oneglia
and Bruce Walpole. D-5 evolved out of
discussion and problems that came up. We
have a plan that administrators like, it is easy to work with and gives us room
in the budget. Furthermore it functions
better. Site work costs are
astronomical, the pipe lines, the paving.
Do the best with the Gym and if we have to decide to renovate, we will.
Lynn Chapman It would be a shame
to bring C-5 this far and not have it priced out. If we need to schedule a special meeting to
keep us on track, we should do that. Mac
Bramley O & G is pricing C-5 anyway.
I was going to make a motion to recommend a parallel pricing. We can
go to D-5A with new Gym and cut alternatives or if we are still over we can
renovate the Gym.
Motion was made by M. Bramley to go
ahead with D-5 with a new Gym for Schematic Design, seconded by K. Gilyard.
Discussion
Bruce Walpole The Schedule is
based on a plan that Schematic Design will be done and Detailed Design will
begin today. If the BC accepts this
Motion we will still be on schedule. If
we then go back to C-5 we will be off schedule.
The C-5 estimate will show the BC and Community that we can not support
C-5. Jack Healy We have taken many
votes to get to C-5 and modify the plan, it is a continual process. Jeff Zullo I think D-5 is much more
complicated and a major mistake for the BC to take.
Motion Carried. Vote on the Motion:
J. Zullo No
R. Blazek No
L. Chapman No
G. Waugh No
K. Gilyard Yes
J. Mullen Yes
S. Kavle Yes
M. Bramley Yes
J. Healy Yes (breaking the tie)
Traffic Consultant Presentation
Sharat Kalluri, Traffic Engineer of
Wilbur Smith Associates and Raymond Gradwell, Civil Engineer of Diversified
Technology Consultants Reviewed sketches of several alternative plans for LHS
and LIS Parking and Drop off, made recommendations and answered questions
relating to sizes, numbers of spaces, patterns and congestion of drop off and
pick up. They are also working on trying
to have minimal site work.
BOE Member Frank Simone thinks the
BC can save a lot of money leaving parking the drop off as is. Tim Breslin disagreed.
Concepts of the Exterior of LHS and LIS
Richard Munday spoke briefly about
concepts of the exterior of LHS and LIS.
The current buildings include load bearing walls, pained concrete
blocks, roof overhangs. He would like
to use these features in the new construction.
Some suggestions for new construction were as follows:
LHS
Enlarge
windows on cafeteria; use load bearing construction in most areas but at
administration office build out of stud
construction and use horizontal painted metal siding; raise ceiling at entrance
and have a canopy. He also reviewed
drawings of new Gym and potential roof alternatives.
LIS
Punch
openings in existing Gym walls and put in small windows; stage expansion should
be metal and painted a bright color; the Link to cafeteria should also be a
bright color also of corrugated metal with glass; New Library/ Administration
Wing should be painted a different bright color and a lot of glass at the
entrance. At the bottom level want to
cut in and drop of the sills to bring in more light.
Finance Update
After tomorrow there will be no more
opportunity to get travel reimbursement.
Playing Fields
Jeff Zullo The fencing around the
fields is estimated at $75,000.00 to be installed by summer 2005. The BC has committed to fencing and
bathrooms, phone lines and data cable.
Motion to adjourn was made by M.
Bramley at 10:15 PM and seconded by K. Gilyard.
Motion Carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli L. Green, Recorder