Back to School Building Committee Meeting Minutes
Minutes for Meeting: 7:00 P.M., January 18, 2012
Members Present: Ray Estes, Tim Collins, Stefan Vogelmann, Peter Bradley, and Sandra Cleary
School Resource Staff: Dorothy Galo, John Ferris, and Roger Boddie
Professional Team: Jim Jordan, Adam Bonosky, Andrew Chagnon, Kristy Lyons, and Mary Mahoney
R. Estes calls meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
Minutes for Building Committee meeting January 4, 2012 were approved as amended.
M. Mahoney reported that MSBA Legal is reviewing the Project Funding Agreement as executed by the Town. This week MSBA forwarded contact information for their Project Commissioning Agent. The agent will report directly to and be paid for by MSBA. The agent assigned is Foreman Building Commissioning LP of Manheim, PA.
J. Jordan provided an update on project phasing plans, noting as site design has developed trade coordination was performed to progress the phasing design. The plans are revised since the last presentation to the Building Committee to reschedule gymnasium abatement and demolition to follow school dismissal June 2014 and defer construction of the new bus loop to start late June 2014 with completion November 2014. This change was incorporated following review by MEP and structural engineers of the accelerated gym demolition plan and their student safety concerns and additional costs involved with isolating the gym while maintaining the adjacent main building entry that serves as a conduit for all students, staff and public entering the existing building. A. Chagnon reviewed the re-phased new main entry/bus loop designed to allow continued use of the existing gym until late June 2014. The plan includes temporary site provisions to allow safe access to the new building and bus queuing while the new bus loop/main entry is constructed.
A. Chagnon distributes revised phasing plans with a note that the plans continue to be a work in progress. Plan review begins with examination of the new site layout plan depicting the deletion of basketball courts and field building and refinement of the new parking and roadways. A. Chagnon then reviewed the scope and schedule for each phase.
• Phase 1 includes site and new building development with sub-phase scope and schedule components for summer 2012 that include: utility, temporary parking, and mobilization work. Once contractor designated areas are isolated site development and building construction will start. During the summer 2012, the existing bus loop will be adjusted with added pavement to the south landscape island for a stacked bus queuing area which has been accepted by the owner. Contractor demarcation lines are clearly defined and access restriction for trades denoted to ensure the safety and operational needs of the school. Utility and roadway work proposed for Rosemary Lane during summer 2012 was reviewed. T. Collins observed the plan includes a comment prohibiting parents from entering the site 1:45PM-2:15PM. Discussion ensues regarding how parent access will be policed, sidewalk condition along Rosemary Lane maintained and options for off-site pick up or waiting planned. R. Estes notes that the owners of locally available parking facilities should be contacted to review effects of prohibited access and possible remote parent parking.
• Phase 2 includes substantial completion of the building in May 2014 and development of the new parking lots and entry patio with completion August 25, 2014. The phasing plan also requires that the contractor provide and maintain access for owner deliveries to the new school during the entire phase period. As previously noted the new bus loop will be a sub-phase with construction continuing until November 2014 due to the need to demolish the existing gym beginning in June 2014 to open land area for the proposed loop. Ai3 to add language to plan identifying abatement and demolition of gym immediately at the start of summer recess. Once the building area and new parking lot are turned over to the owner (projected for August 25, 2014) then contractor demarcation will be adjusted to contain operations and building abatement and demolition will begin.
• Phase 3 includes development of new playing fields once the existing building is demolished. Phase calls for seeding new fields spring of 2015. Committee discussion ensues regarding when the new fields will be available for play and plans to notify Town recreational and sporting groups of schedule.
Dorothy Galo arrived at 8:13 P.M.
M. Mahoney reported that members of the professional team met with Hingham Department of Public Works (DPW) representatives; Roger Fernandes, Randy Sylvester, and Harry Sylvester on January 12, 2012 to review the site designs and proposed utilities. The meeting went very well with DPW finding no issues with designs and providing as-built information on the existing site drainage system that was not included with the record as-built documents. DPW was also informed of the project permitting schedule. Roger Fernandes requested that DPW be informed of any substantive changes to the design resulting from permit process or further design development.
A. Chagnon reminded the Committee that there will be a project permit presentation to a joint meeting of the Hingham Conservation Commission, Board of Health and Planning Board on January 23, 2012 at 7PM. The Town's third party review engineer has contacted PARE Corp. and a meeting is in planning to review the site and utility design documents prior to the January 23rd presentation. The Town's third party review engineer is Seacoast Engineering Co. from Duxbury, MA. R. Estes reviewed project representatives' role and format for presentation on January 23rd.
J. Jordan reported on progress with energy related designs and LEED goals for the project. Energy modeling is ongoing and as the 60% construction documents are completed specific information related to mechanical/electrical equipment and lighting plans will be loaded into the analysis. J. Jordan recapped the LEED scorecard discussions from the January 4, 2012 Building Committee meeting. Final decision on inclusion of PV array and/or other energy conservation components is pending completion of the energy model and related analysis.
R. Estes reminded the Committee that there is a meeting with members of the Town's Energy Action Committee on February 7. J. Jordan reported that the energy model for the building will be complete for the meeting and can be reviewed along with building designs, system efficiencies, LEED scorecard and proposed infrastructure for future photovoltaic (PV) installation.
R. Estes reviewed outreach efforts with the Town's Energy Action Committee (EAC) to provide technical assistance and advice on options available for PV installation, including analysis of payback or alternative third party funding. Hingham Light Plant was also contacted for input based on their involvement with the High School PV project and possible trade information on utility funded programs. Based on contact with EAC, representatives are in attendance to provide EAC input on PV and other energy conservation considerations. R. Estes introduced Brad Moyer and Otto Harling representing the EAC and Gary Tondorf-Dick, architect and member of the Planning Board who was asked by the EAC to consult in its efforts. B. Moyer thanked the Committee for the opportunity to be involved with the Middle School project and reviewed EAC work during the past year conducting energy audits and utility use analysis at Town owned facilities aimed at determining cost effective actions to save the Town energy dollars. Based on Chairman Estes' request, the EAC has evaluated PV array inclusion in the Middle School project. EAC agrees that waiting for the energy model of the school is the best approach to examining energy conservation components for the building. Regarding PV inclusion, current projections do not look favorable, meaning it will not result in desirable energy savings. Based on the proposed PV array of 43KW, there can be calculated an approximately $7,000/yr reduction in energy costs, which when installed using bond financing will not result in a net savings. SREC (solar renewable energy credits) are available and could enhance the annual exchange, however based on the size of the proposed array and the 10-year rate program for SRECs, the payback remains unfavorable. Finally federal credits are available in the market but Hingham's project would not be eligible. Hingham Municipal Light (Light Plant) did install the PV array at the High School under a pilot project; however, based on that process and experience, they are not expected to be a reliable source of funding for the PV array proposed for the Middle School. The Light Plant is receptive to buying PV technologies if it is found to be viable economically. Based on EAC investigation, payback for PV installations are far more favorable for residential application, but there certainly is a benefit for the Middle School to include infrastructure to make the building PV ready with the hope that costs and payback may become more economical. T. Collins noted the building as proposed will include infrastructure to allow for future cost-effective PV retrofit. R. Estes noted that last week's Boston Globe included an article regarding renovations at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. The project was a LEED Gold design and included many of the same energy efficient components of the Hingham Middle School but with the addition of geothermal mechanical system. Of interest is that the geothermal component was funded with private donations. O. Harling reiterates EAC goal of pursuing energy initiatives that prove most cost effective for Town facilities. The Light Plant was contacted regarding options for private/public agreements to provide PV array on lease basis but to date no response was received. Based on audit and evaluation, O. Harling suggests hot water generation by solar should be considered for the Middle School project due to its more favorable payback. Also high performance insulating windows should also be considered. Gary Tondorf-Dick was asked to attend meeting to review a pilot project he managed for MIT installing new high performance windows. G. Tondorf-Dick reviews types and progress of improvements to window assemblies to increase thermal performance and extend functional life span. MITs investigation resulted in discovery of a vacuum filled thermal glass assembly the provided 2½ times the R-value of standard thermal or argon filled assemblies placed in stainless and/or bronze frame. MIT has performed pilot projects using such assemblies with success. O. Harling notes cost is a big factor in evaluation of product. However, capital cost baseline is not yet available for the product and not enough data is available on projected lifetime of assembly. The EAC would like to obtain the window area for the Middle School to conduct further analysis on the viability of using such high performance materials. R. Estes asks for the total window area for Middle School. J. Jordan reports 20,267 sf. Discussion ensued regarding available manufacturers, lifespan, availability and cost basis for assemblies.
R. Estes reminded Committee that 60% construction documents (CD) for site, civil, landscaping and septic were issued on January 6, 2012 with copies to cost estimators for the OPM and designer for their independent cost estimations. J. Jordan reports that the cost estimators and representatives of Ai3 and KBA conference on January 17th to reconcile the estimates and evaluate scope and budget. OPM and designer reconciled cost estimates were distributed to the Building Committee for review and discussion. J. Jordan reminds Committee of the design progress schedule, including second phase of 60% CD cost estimating for building and MEP systems in early February that will result in full estimate reconciliation and submission to MSBA by February 17. R. Estes reminds Committee of the Board of Selectmen request for a scope and budget update at the completion of 60% CD phase. Based on the proposed design schedule and Selectmen meeting schedule all should plan on update report at the Board of Selectmen meeting that could be scheduled for February 16 following the Committee's meeting on February 15 during which it will review the building cost estimate and focus on additional value engineering efforts. J. Jordan reminded the Committee of additional design considerations that have developed since schematic design due to design progress and Town requirements that have affected costs for the project. The additional considerations include: separation of water and sewer lines resulting in force main and drainage system rerouting, Tennis court rehabilitation following construction period temporary parking use, addition of temporary parking facilities, and evolving project phasing requirements. J. Jordan reviews the process of estimate reconciliation including scope designation, quantity take-offs, and unit price comparison. Committee discussion ensued regarding 60%CD cost estimates as compared to schematic budget, work category reconciliation and costs, and inclusion of previously approved value engineering items. P. Bradley noted that previously approved value engineering items need to be confirmed to ensure budget accuracy.
J. Jordan reported on user meetings conducted since the last Building Committee meeting. Meetings were conducted with staff from Library, Science, Wood Applications, Auditorium, Technology and Kitchen to further refine design approach. The meetings also served to confirm equipment lists for wood applications and fitness center. Programming meetings are now complete.
J. Jordan reviewed contract scope for hazardous material investigations which includes visual observation and sampling/testing surface materials. Universal Environmental Corporation has provided a proposal to perform invasive/destructive tests of existing wall cavity and building foundation to verify existing assemblies and confirm scope of haz-mat abatement. Committee discussion ensues regarding the type of testing and proposed locations. T. Collins moved to approve additional destructive testing as proposed by Universal Environmental Corporation for a lump sum amount of $3,200, contingent upon including at a minimum (2) masonry test cuts and (2) foundation excavations to review differing sections of the existing building, second S. Cleary. Unanimous vote to approve the additional destructive testing.
J. Jordan reported on a meeting and site inspection conducted January 16, 2012 by representatives of Ai3, Hingham School, ICD, and KBA to review reuse of existing inventory. The meeting confirmed that certain existing furniture can be reused and will be loaded into the new school FF&E program. There will be no additional design fee associated with inserting existing inventory into the FF&E program.
M. Mahoney reported that there has been good response to the Request for Contractor Qualifications (general contractors and subcontractors) and contractor interest forms are being submitted. So far, there is interest for all trade categories, although calls are planned to ensure the best response. Statements of Qualifications are due January 31, 2011. Discussion ensued regarding prequalification committee planning for distribution of work and timelines for evaluations.
M. Mahoney reported on (4) invoices presented for Committee consideration/approval. The invoices for consideration were as follows:
• Ai3 invoice #0005B-1101.00 totaling $279,339.55 for basic services for 60% CD phase.
• Ai3 invoice #0008E-1101.00 totaling $13,128.50 for extra services to be added to basic services performed including site permitting, WWTP modifications and printing reproductions for design for 60% CD phase.
• KBA invoice #7 totaling $16,753.33 for work performed through December 2011.
• Garrity and Knisely invoice 2812 totaling $1,800 for legal advice related to OPM request for proposal and proprietary specification requirements.
S. Cleary moved to approve invoices as reported, second by P. Bradley. Unanimous vote to approve all four invoices.
M. Mahoney presented an updated design/construction budget that includes all invoices presented tonight for Committee consideration. Based on project commitments and expenditures the project is on budget.
R. Estes reported that at the Board of Selectmen meeting on January 17, 2012, Selectmen voted to waive Building Department permit fees for the project.
R. Estes reminded the Committee that future meetings are scheduled 7 P.M., February 8 and February 15, 2012. (February 8 meeting subsequently moved to 8pm start).
Bob Daley, Hull Street, Hingham, MA expressed interest being involved with contractor prequalification process and commends the Committee for including infrastructure for future photovoltaic array in the project. R. Estes thanks Mr. Daley for his offer to assist the Committee but advises that the prequalification committee was previously established based on Commonwealth regulations and guidelines and outside participation is not permitted.
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.