MINUTES
LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
LIBRARY
A
meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was held on
Present
were: Jack Healy, Chairman; Bob Blazek;
Mac Bramley; Bill Buckley; John Mullen; Jeff Zullo; Gary Waugh; Kent Gilyard;
and Lynn Chapman. Stacie Kavle arrived
at
Also
Present: John Tindall-Gibson; Peg
Perusse; Tim Breslin; Anne Stuhlman; BOE members, Frank Simone, Wayne Shuhi,
Diane Knox; Leo Paul and Cynthia Politano; Richard Munday and Tim Callahan of
Herbert S. Newman Partners; Steve Collins of CES; Bruce Walpole and Bruce Geban of O & G Industries; Public and the Press.
Meeting
was called to order at
Approval
of Minutes
Motion
was made by Bill Buckley to approve the minutes of the
Motion
carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. Bob Blazek abstained.
Public
Participation
None
Communications
Bob
Blazek gave copies of the cost estimates as outlined in the newspaper to the
Board of Selectmen.
Lynn
Chapman received an email inviting her to a Litchfield Education Foundation
meeting where they will discuss a “sell a brick” fundraising project to help
fund the sidewalks at both schools.
Mac
Bramley said that he and Stacie met with HSNP and O&G and covered lots of
ground regarding both projects. This
information will be presented later in the meeting.
Finance
Committee
Leo
Paul introduced Cynthia Politano who is the new Town Finance Director. She is a CPA with experience with the Big 4
in Government Accounting and familiar with financing and construction
projects. She stated that she recognized
that it takes lots of hard work and was sure that all would be very proud when
the projects are completed. She
cautioned the committee to work on what can be agreed upon as opposed to where
there is disagreement.
Mac
Bramley mentioned that the BC Finance Sub-Committee met with Ms. Politano and
discussed procedures for processing payments and gaining reimbursement from the
State Department of Education. It was
agreed that the Board of Education will receive and prepare invoices for review
by the Finance Sub-Committee who will make a recommendation regarding payment
to the full Building Committee. They
discussed the timing of receipt, review and approval of invoices in order to
ensure prompt handling of all payments due.
O & G will be invited to the next Finance Sub-Committee meeting to
be sure that any schedule developed will mesh with their timeline for handling
contractor requests for payment. The
next meeting of the sub-committee will be held prior to the next scheduled
Building Committee meeting. The Sub-Committee
also requested that information regarding finance costs be forwarded to them
once developed by the Board of Finance, First Selectman, Finance Director and
Town Treasurer with input from the town’s financial advisor.
Discussion
regarding the make-up of the Finance Sub-Committee in order to ensure a quorum
of members at each meeting followed.
Presently, there are four members on the Sub-Committee: Mac Bramley, Bill Buckley, Kent Gilyard and
Jeff Zullo.
Motion
was made by Bob Blazek to define the Sub-Committee with three regular members
and one alternate.
Discussion
Kent
Gilyard volunteered to act as the alternate member.
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Architect
and Construction Manager Presentation of Cost Estimates and Alternatives –
Workshop Session to discuss alternatives
Richard
Munday noted that members of HSNP and O&G met this week to review the
estimates. Bruce Walpole distributed
handouts containing estimates and reviewed them relative to both C-5M and D-5
designs for the High School. He
explained that for comparison purposes, the same upgrades were included in both
design estimates. Therefore, both design
estimates include sprinklers and three new boilers. If they find that it is more cost effective
to do smoke barriers and firewalls, they may make a recommendation to take out
the sprinklers. He discussed the
reduction of windows in both schemes and that there may need to be some “adds”
for required site work. In both schemes,
the food service areas stay as is. He
discussed using CMU walls as opposed to drywall in corridors and will use high
density materials in exposed areas. At
this point $500,000 could be saved by using the D-5 design and if there is a
recommendation to use the existing gym even more could be saved. Right now we are still a half-million dollars
over without taking any “adds” noted on the handout.
Jack
Healy asked about the “deducts” that had been discussed regarding the
consultants and Bruce replied that they are not included on the list
presented. Tim Callahan said that he has
a spreadsheet indicating those “deducts”.
Jack added that if you look at the bottom of the page and take all of
the “deducts” and none of the “adds” we would be under on the D-5 by $489,476
and the C-5 by $263,617. It demonstrates
that there are larger savings to be had with D-5.
Bill
Buckley questioned where the differences were.
Bruce replied noting that the differences are in the suggested “deducts”
from one scheme to the other.
Bob
Blazek asked why they wanted to replace the boilers as they may last another
five to ten years. Bob questioned if boiler
replacement would be reimbursed by SDE if they choose to do it later on in a
capital project. Bruce stated that they
would not be reimbursed.
Gary
Waugh questioned the differences in the estimates of site work and stated that
it appeared that D-5 is slightly more expensive in that area by approximately
$25,000.
Mac
Bramley noted that in either D-5 or C-5M schemes the existing driveways are not
impacted by the building project.
Bill
Buckley asked if there is funding for some site work because we will have to do
what is needed for handicap access, etc. in order to obtain a CO (certificate
of occupancy). In a response to Bill’s
question, Bruce stated that they will certainly do what is needed to get the
CO. He also mentioned that a new built
up roof will be included in all new construction and the existing roof will
also be replaced with a built-up roof.
Jeff
Zullo asked that in the C-5M and the D-5 designs is it correct that the paved
loop on the East side is not included.
If this is the case should we be keeping the new entrance? Bruce said that unfortunately he doesn’t have
the charts showing the suggested changes and he’ll bring them to the next
meeting in order for the members to have a better sense of what is “in” and
what is “out” based on the lists of C-5M and D-5 “deducts” and “adds”.
Bruce
Walpole stated that, even if we decide to take these “deducts” as listed, we
can put them in bids as “add alternates” so that if funds become available due
to changes in the economy, we can still do them. He also mentioned that we need to take an
inventory of the furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) that we have and
determine what we can keep and what we will need to purchase. The same is true of Technology.
Dr.
Gibson stated that the amounts listed for both projects for FF&E amounts to
approximately $600,000 which is not enough to purchase all new. As far as the funding of Technology, he isn’t
sure where that number came from. It’s
approximately $811,000 for both buildings and we aren’t sure what it
includes. It apparently includes
everything but the conduit for the wiring and there is approximately $100,000
for LIS and $110,000 to $210,000 for LHS.
To replace approximately 275 computers and 75 printers and servers, etc.
would it be better to look at funding replacement of this equipment out of the
capital budget as opposed to bonding them in the project? Mike Chadukiewicz who is the technology
consultant will be reviewing the ed specs to determine what can be done. He had suggested to replace all as there may
be demolition that will interfere and therefore make replacement more cost
effective.
Lynn
Chapman asked if the BOE would take another look at the square footage listed
in the ed specs as there is still an 800 sq. ft. store and 200 sq. ft. closets
listed.
There
was also some discussion regarding the possible savings realized if we don’t
have to buy modular buildings to be used for swing space. It was noted that the modulars
are included in the LIS budget not the LHS budget.
Jack
Healy said that he believed that it was more important to get the building
built rather than buy computers.
Bill
Buckley said that at the last meeting they were going to wait until they could
see both schemes, the C-5M and the D5.
He said that they’re not that far apart dollar wise. He noted that the decision cannot be made for
dollars alone. We need to look at other
advantages of looking at one scheme rather than the other. Has there been any consideration of double
loading the corridor in the Guidance connection? He also questioned that they should take a
look at the “deduct” for window replacement.
There needs to be a consideration for the long term energy use and its
effect on the operating costs before a decision to eliminate them is made –
same issue regarding the gymnasium.
The
members developed a list of other potential “deducts” which could apply to
either scheme as follows: Eliminate the
side entrance, replace glass only (energy cost?), technology, double load
Guidance corridor, boiler replacement (long term cost of energy vs new energy efficient boilers). In addition they identified two other options
that would only apply to the D-5 option:
Renovate the existing gym and use of other mechanicals.
Bob
Blazek asked Dr. Breslin if he could see the need for additional staff in the
future between the two plans especially in the area of an additional Assistant
Principal. He replied that there should
be no differences in staffing between the two plans.
Richard
Munday addressed the advantages of the D-5 design:
Dr.
Breslin stated, when asked, that the D-5 design provides good separation of the
younger students for most of their day.
He said that he would like to do this design if at all possible. Diane Knox and Dr. Gibson both echoed Dr. Breslin’s comments and said they agreed that D-5 was the
desired design.
Bruce
Walpole mentioned the savings in keeping the gym the same size as the current
footprint which is 8,000 sq. ft. with an additional 3,500 sq. ft. devoted to
locker space @ $30 sq. ft. could be $400,000 – $500,000. He also mentioned that the D-5 plan allows us
to use the existing boilers while under construction, which would be helpful,
otherwise we would need all new stuff in place before we move along.
Bill
Buckley noted that at this point in the project, this is what we should be doing,
that is going through this process in order to understand what options are
available and what the related costs or savings would be.
Jack
Healy mentioned that once new space is built programs can be relocated to that
space which then allows the current space to be repurposed to other program
uses.
Jeff
Zullo asked if there is only $91,000 difference between the two designs, why go
to renovating the existing gym just take some of the “deducts” plus $57,000 out
of technology and get everything.
Motion
was made by Bill Buckley to select the D-5 design and continue to value
engineer at future meetings to get where we need to be, seconded by Mac
Bramley.
Discussion
Need
to find out the condition of the water line to find out if we need to replace
or keep, perhaps use a booster to get the pressure necessary. Jack volunteered to contact Aquarian
regarding what help they might be able to provide.
Motion
was made by Gary Waugh to move the question, seconded by Mac Bramley.
Motion
carried. All votes were in the
affirmative except Jeff Zullo, Stacie Kavle and Bob Blazek who voted in the
negative. There were no abstentions.
Motion
carried. All votes were in the
affirmative.
Richard
Munday began a presentation regarding the
The
second sketch suggests that they build a cafeteria at the north end of the
school with school administration located in the present library, build a new
library at the north end as well and add to the art classroom. Savings would be approximately $50,000 to
$100,000.
The
third sketch shows the cafeteria under the gym, adding a new school
administration space in the courtyard behind main lobby, leave the library as
is and leave the art room as is.
The
fourth sketch shows that all construction take place at the north end of the
school. It suggests that the space under
the gym be abandoned which greatly reduces the renovation costs. It shows a new cafeteria, kitchen and serving
area with a new library/media center on the second level. The cafeteria would be located at the back of
the stage and would serve as the additional space needed for back of house
space during productions. The school
administration would be relocated to the present library and the new library
would be slightly smaller than the full ed spec requirement for sq. ft. This scheme reduced the area of renovation by
3,000 sq. ft. and new space from 7,200 sq. ft. to 5,425 sq. ft. At a cost of $189 per sq. ft. the savings would
be approximately $340,000.
Motion
was made by Bill Buckley to authorize the architect and construction manager to
move forward with option D (#4) with the understanding that we’ll continue to
look at further cost savings, seconded by Jeff Zullo.
Discussion
Members
asked Dr. Stuhlman if having the cafeteria at the other end of the building
would be a problem for access to the recess area. She responded that it would not be a problem
as exercise is always a good thing for this age group. Members also would like to have further
discussion on how the cafeteria would serve the theater area with its need for
back of house space.
Motion
Carried. All votes were in the
affirmative. There were no abstentions.
Tim
Callahan handed out a listing of updated estimates of fees. Steve Collins handed out a summary of their
findings regarding the present condition of plumbing and mechanicals at both
the
Motion
was made by Bill Buckley to adjourn at
Motion
carried. All votes were in the
affirmative except Jeff Zullo who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Perusse
Peggy Perusse
Recorder