HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-13-SC-min
SC 10/13/12 Page #1
LEXINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Jonas Clarke Middle School, Auditorium
17 Stedman Road, Lexington, MA
Present: Dr. Paul Ash, Superintendent, Margaret Coppe, School Committee Chair;
Alessandro Alessandrini, Vice Chair; Members: Mary Ann Stewart, Bonnie Brodner and
Jessie Steigerwald
Absent: Sam Alpert, Student Representative
The Minutes were taken by Jean Curran, Recording Secretary
The Meeting convened at 10:10 a.m.
I. Call to Order and Welcome:
The Chair called the meeting to order and invited public comment.
There were no public comments.
II. Agenda
Margaret Coppe explained that two years ago it was discovered that the Joseph Estabrook
Elementary School had unacceptable levels of PCBs and it was decided that a new
elementary school would be needed. With the help of the Massachusetts State Building
Authority (MSBA), a debt exclusion and Town Meeting appropriation the funds were in
place to begin going forward with the school project. In late May the Committee was
notified that costs were increasing due to the economic climate but the scope of the
project had not changed. The Committee met Thursday, October 11th, with the
Permanent Building Committee (PBC) to see how costs could be cut without impacting
the scope of the project and close about a $1,000,000 gap.
The Committee and PBC went through each line item to find ways to reduce the costs.
There were certain line items that the Committee was not comfortable eliminating and
wanted to review those items at today’s meeting. The Committee is going to the Board
of Selectmen on Monday, October 15th to talk about funding as it has become apparent
that there is a need to ask for more money. A special Town Meeting will be held on
November 19th. The timing of putting out bids and signing contracts is important to keep
everything on schedule.
Ms. Coppe stated that today we are looking for the Committee’s view on the Value
Engineering items that were not decided Thursday night. These items include the 2 pipe
system and/or 4 pipe heating and cooling system, the speech reinforcement system,
whether to replace the receiving elevator with a dumbwaiter and some smaller items.
There was much discussion from the Committee on these items.
SC 10/13/12 Page #2
Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities took questions and comments from the
Committee regarding (i) size of the gap, (ii) air conditioning systems, (iii) contractor fee,
(iv) contingency fee and what would MSBA be comfortable with, (v) funding agreement
with the MSBA, (vi) Gross Max Price working under M.G.L. Chapter 149A after all bids
submitted, (vii) potential costs could be higher than the 60% and that is the reason for the
high contingency, (viii) should the Committee go with the 2 pipe system versus the 4 pipe
system which was in the original plan, (ix) entire budget package in terms of materials
and costs which have risen and still working with Shawmut to identity those items to
reduce the gap, (x) air quality, (xi) need for more money, (xii) risks associated with
higher costs during the demolition of the existing school, and (xiii) the greenhouse.
Ken DiNisco, President, DiNisco Design shared that the PBC agreed to take the $240k
credit for not using a 4 pipe system due to cost constraints. Mr. DiNisco stated the true
cost can only be determined when the system is bid. He also explained that a bid
alternate can be used during the bidding process whereby bidders give two separate bids.
However he noted that this will discourage some bidders in participating in the process
because of the need to prepare two estimates. He recommends that the Committee decide
to either go with the 2 pipe system or the 4 pipe system in order to broaden the range of
bidders. There were questions and comments from the Committee with respect to the
need for the 4 pipe system.
David Kanter, Town Meeting Member and member of the Capital Expense Committee,
shared his opinion regarding asking for additional money at Town Meeting. His feeling
is that there needs to be enough money available when the contracts are awarded at the
end of December. He reinforced the message that this is not additional money to be spent
but only to ensure that we can move on with the bid schedule. December 31st is a crucial
date to get the best possible bid packages and he believes that we need to go with
$2,000,000 to fund it. He requested a simple list of major drivers so he can go to Town
Meeting and be able to state the list of items that increased and were out of anyone’s
control as well as planning for anything that may arise during the demolition phase. He
also provided his thoughts on the speech reinforcement system.
Dr. Ash addressed his concerns regarding dipping into the contingency fund too early and
running the risk of not having enough funds to complete the project. He also noted that
there are approximately 12 other communities racing to get their bids out so December
31st is a crucial deadline. He also concurred that we need to assure Town Meeting that
the School Committee will not increase the scope of the project.
Sandra Trach, Principal, Joseph Estabrook Elementary School recommended having the
whole building outfitted with the speech reinforcement system.
Pat Goddard raised the issue about whether Shawmut should procure the landscaping or
whether the town should procure landscapers. The issue revolves around the hiring of
union or nonunion workers.
SC 10/13/12 Page #3
Margaret Copped invited public comment.
Betsy Sarles, 36 Turning Mill Road inquired who makes the final decision on cuts
regarding enhancements.
Dr. Ash shared that the PBC needs to live within its appropriate charge and if the
Appropriation Committee goes out of their scope, PBC will get to decide.
Kamala Soparkar, 88 Winter Street expressed her concerns regarding replacing the wood
stage floor with linoleum flooring. She also suggested that the Committee ask for a
significant amount of money when they go to Town Meeting in order to be able to fund
the majority of the items.
Paul Kalous, Owner’s Project Manager with Collaborative Partners spoke to the sound
reinforcement system and that if the system is not installed it might pose problems with
the MSBA. He also spoke on the Funding Agreement which included an air conditioned
building. He also does not recommend doing an alternate bid because the project will
begin bidding on December 20th and will end on December 31st. He stated if the bid
documents are really clear with no alternates they will be more appealing to contractors
because they only have to price one system. We will get much more competition.
Tom Harrison, questioned Patrick Goddard whether (i) they have considered using heat
pumps as an option, (ii) had he considered package deals and whether the seal is plastic,
(iii) was there any way to expedite the HVAC bidding process, and (iv) who purchases
the large bulk materials for the project (general contractor versus vendor).
Patrick Goddard responded that the analysis of air conditioning was discussed with the
Energy Conservation Committee. The selection of what is in the design documents in
this system will be what is most cost effective for the town and will be quieter with the
chilled beam. Mr. Goddard explained the bidding process and the vendor
prequalification process. He then explained that the vendors will be purchasing the
products.
Sarah Kuli 6 Coach Road expressed her views on the PBC meeting that was held on
October 11th and felt that PBC’s outlook was very narrow and lacked the understanding
on how the building would be used. She hoped the School Committee would continue to
advocate for those that use the building.
Margaret Coppe responded that the PBC is aware of educational concerns, but their
charge is to look at the numbers and keep the project on the budget that has been
approved to date.
Betsy Sarles, 36 Turning Mill Road, questioned when the bid documents will be ready
and will it be before or after Town Meeting.
SC 10/13/12 Page #4
David Kanter responded that on November 28th they would be finalizing the documents
and they may go out by the end of November depending on the meeting with the BOS on
Monday evening.
The Committee discussed taking a vote.
Motion to Not Accept the Credits on Line 8 – Switch to 2-pipe chilled beam
system ($240,000); Line 20 – Eliminate speech reinforcement system (entire
system) ($162,375) and Line 21 – Eliminate speech reinforcement systems
from 16 classrooms ($81,600); and Line 42 – Replace elevator at receiving
area with ground loaded dumb waiter ($40,000) (Brodner, Steigerwald) The
Motion was Approved (5-0)
The Committee further discussed the other line items that were accepted or deleted.
Sharon, Estabrook parent, expressed her thoughts on the stage flooring, acoustics and the
impacts for outside dance troops that use the school.
Ken DiNisco responded regarding the flooring and stated that he will pursue the issue of
tap dancing and other dance studios using the linoleum flooring with respect to resiliency
and acoustics and will provide a separate memorandum on that issue.
Scott Kosofsky, 36 Turning Mill Road expressed his thoughts on the type of flooring that
should be considered for the stage and acoustics in the room.
Motion to Adjourn (Stewart, Alessandrini) The Motion was Approved (5-0)
The Meeting Adjourned at Noon
Documents: Meeting Agenda; Plan for Getting to Budget for 10.11.12; Email from Pat Goddard
to Lynne Pease regarding Board of Selectman Agenda Item – Estabrook School Budget Update
Voted by the School Committee November 27, 2012