MINUTES
FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008, 6:00 P.M.<= o:p>
PRESENT: =
Public
Buildings Committee
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; David Demirs
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Peter Dzioba
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Robert LeBlanc
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Robert Porter, Chairman
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; John Waiculonis
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Facilities Subcommittee
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Kevin Killeen
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Tom Lambert
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Richard Mazzamaro, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: &=
nbsp; Public
Buildings Committee
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Brian Bellagamba
= ; &n= bsp; = ; <= /span>Remo Ceniccola
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; John Chipko, Vice Chairman
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Karl Kuegler, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; <=
/span>Board
of Education
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Todd Griffin
OTHERS PRESENT: Gina Calabrese, Chairman
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Fred Khericha, Kaestle Boos Associates
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; David King, Kaestle Boos Associates
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Todd LoFrese, Assistant Superintendent of Schools
1.&nb= sp; Convene Special Joint Meeting - 6:00 P.M.
Mr. Porter, Chairman, Public Buildings Committee, Called the Special Joint Meet= ing to Order at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Mazzamaro, Chairman, Facilities Subcommittee, Called the Special Joint Meet= ing to Order at 6:00 p.m.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 2
2.&nb= sp; Roll Call
Mr. Porter, Chairman, Public Buildings Committee, executed the Roll Call.
Mr. Mazzamaro, Chairman, Facilities Subcommittee, executed the Roll Call.
3.
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: I just passed ou= t a document that some of you may have seen before. It contains the cost impact of som= e of the Planning and Zoning Commission conditions of approval that occurred when they granted our application approval with conditions on February 20, 2008. We have since reapplied= to the Planning and Zoning Commission to request consideration to have these conditions removed due to the cost impact on the project, and our request to them is they consider the project in its entirety and not just the site applications. As you’ll= note we’ve asked for:
&= nbsp; Ju= dson School, Item #1, Concrete Sidewalks - we’ve asked for relief from mak= ing all of the sidewalks concrete, and then also at the bottom of the page, Item #6, relief from having the rooftop mechanical units screened.
&=
nbsp; Pa=
ge
2,
&=
nbsp;
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: What article are= you talking about?
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: Item #4 and #7.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We also had to return to the Plann= ing and Zoning Commission for field approval for every athletic field at the Hi= gh School. The condition of appr= oval for our permit at Watertown High School specifically disapprove the athletic fields, and at that meeting they said we were free to come before the Commi= ssion again and reapply, which is what we have done. When we reapplied at the initial me= eting, the Planning and Zoning Chair explained to the Commission and the public who were in attendance that when you bring an application before them again, th= ey are free to consider the application in its entirety so what that means is = they can choose to look at any of the items that they previously approved and perhaps change their mind and consider something different, they could also consider adding some other conditions to the projects that were not there before.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 3
&= nbsp; So with that in mind I personally became a little concerned at Judson and Polk= Elementary Schools, that we may be setting ourselves up for something that we may not = like to hear, such as street improvements on Hamilton Lane, cause I’ve lea= rned that the Police Commission again has considered this item; I’ve heard commentary about making an additional driveway at Judson Elementary School,= all of these obviously would have an impact cost-wise on the project, but I gue= ss more importantly would have a significant impact on actually starting construction this Summer, which any significant delay like that in all like= lihood would be catastrophic to the project. So my initial thought coming into tonight’s meeting was to gain the consensus of both the Facilities Subcommittee and the Public Buildings Committee and perhaps see how the public hearing goes and during public participation at the public hearing, if we’re getting the types of questions that insinuate that we may be getting a condition that we donR= 17;t like, perhaps at that time we would withdraw our application for Polk and Judson Schools, accept the conditions that were already placed upon us and = move forward with Watertown High School because we have to go for Watertown High= School regardless because of the fields. But the more I thought about that and as we work with the Planning a= nd Zoning Commission, the administrators in the office, the focus has primarily been on the items we requested relief for, and there hasn’t been sign= ificant deviations from our request, so perhaps another course of action would be to let’s proceed the full course, see how it goes tomorrow evening, and = then coming out of tomorrow evening after the votes are taken we see where we are and at worst case we can then approach the Town Council for relief if the action that Planning and Zoning takes is not satisfactory. So I’d be interested in the Facilities Subcommittee and Public Buildings Committee member’s opini= ons on that course of action.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: I think I agre= e with the latter. (Inaudible) let t= he meeting take its course and why ruffle feathers right off the bat and see w= hat happens, and if it turns out in the end it’s not what we wanted then I think we would (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Killeen: I am so for movi=
ng
forward with the projects because we had a historic mandate in this Town to
improve education in the Town of
&= nbsp; Mr. Lambert: The only thing I= can add to that is I agree with Rich and Kevin, I think we should go forward and see how it goes and then let them run with the ball and see where it lands. The only thing that I = would like to see massaged a little bit is the possibility of that rear field, th= at seems like it’s going to be a real bone of contention at the high school. If we have to give something up, to me that would be what to give, because it’s so expen= sive and (inaudible) so many, the grade (inaudible) and the site line is just pr= etty bad, in fact there’s, I don’t want to drop it now but I want to= see how it goes.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 4
&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: But Tom, that wo= uld be a value engineering thing. Th= at would be on the premise of estimating the cost of changes against what we c= an do in which case I think that will be one of the principal considerations.<= /p>
&= nbsp; Mr. Lambert: We can always do that afterwards, I suppose.
&= nbsp; Ms. Calabrese: I am in comple= te agreement with my colleagues on the Board of Education, I think we need to = move forward with this. It’s probably wiser to get through the hearing and then make our decision.
&= nbsp; Mr. Demirs: What is the problem with the fields? Is it the drainage?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
LoFrese: Well a variety of
issues starting with the Mills Complex, they’re looking for some
additional drainage calculations which we have provided to them so they will
have that in advance of the meeting so hopefully the Mills Complex, all of =
the
information that they are looking for has been provided and hopefully they =
can
move forward with that field. The
rear fields, from my belief, there is a misunderstanding on field #4, that
it’s strictly a softball diamond and that it’s not providing an=
ything
else except that small area. =
In
reality, and tomorrow evening we’re going to go into more depth with =
this
item, in reality it’s providing simultaneous use fields, a full size
soccer field and a softball field at the same time so by eliminating that f=
ield
#4, you’re eliminating the opportunity to use 2 fields in the back
simultaneously. They’ve
expressed some concerns about the slope, I believe that we’ve met all=
of
the technical requirements. T=
he
State of
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Two other things are being pro= jected on my take at least, was the safety issue.= It appears they ‘re going to make us provide a considerable am= ount of fencing which I don’t think we know exactly what they are talking about at this stage of the game.
&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: (Inaudible) we were actually g= oing to make that grade safer anyway.
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: It’s design= ed properly. They’re sayin= g that it is designed properly is what they admitted, what they are saying is safe= ty, there should be fencing to keep people from sliding or whatever sport they’re going to do, but we have other fields where we don’t ha= ve fencing. Secondly they talked about the cost of the field which is not in t= heir purview, so that issue needs to go away.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 5
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: When the project passed at referen= dum we started doing obviously active design and the survey revealed that there wa= s a significant area of wetlands where we originally planned to place the 2 fie= lds, so when we contacted the Army Corps of Engineers they said the long applica= tion process, we’re going to require you to consider alternatives regardle= ss, so we had to consider other options and our other options were eliminate on= e of the fields and move it up higher which would have resulted in a 40 foot high retaining wall, and obviously a significant expense to build that and then there’s inherent safety issues with a 40 foot high retaining wall, and then another option which is what we ultimately decided to move forward with which was the design that was presented before the Commission. So that will obviously be brought o= ut tomorrow evening as well.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: Have we mentio= ned fencing, probably like a 4 or 5 foot chain link fence. You’re talking about the tie= red slope along the top?
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: Yes.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: One fence alon= g the top tier so that they can’t get down?
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: We don’t know. It’s also at the = top (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: Budget buster.=
&= nbsp; Mr. King: No.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: 4 or 5 foot fe= nce so no one could slide down?
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: (Inaudible) safety issue right off the bat.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: 4 feet wouldn’t, but 8 f= oot would.
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: I could see a 4 foot fence.
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: We probably should go to the meeti= ng and figure it out there, as Mr. Lambert said.&= nbsp; Todd, if it doesn’t go through you’re going to call for relief from the Town Council. What relief would you seek?
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: In conversation = with the Town Attorney, it’s my understanding that the Town Council holds = the authority to waive zoning regulations on municipal projects.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: So did everyon= e on Public Buildings get this?
&= nbsp; Mr. Dzioba: With your clarification of what Pla= n B, this seems like (inaudible) find out exactly what they want.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 6
&= nbsp; Mr. LeBlanc: I agree. I have a question, that relief that he’s speaking about, what is that?
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: 824.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: So the consens= us of both the Public Buildings Committee and the Facilities Subcommittee of the = Board of Education is to direct Mr. LoFrese to sit through, go through the entire Planning and Zoning meeting tomorrow and make a decision based on the outco= me of the (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: Thank you.
4.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
LoFrese: Part of the State
review process when we bring our plans to the State Department and we did t=
his
for Watertown High School, Polk Elementary School, and Judson Elementary Sc=
hool
in February, is that they receive the plans initially and then they do a
cursory review of the items that are in the plan and then they provide a le=
tter
in writing to us notifying us of when they expect to complete their complete
review. In the case of Judson=
and
&= nbsp; An= other option to move forward is to hire an independent consultant to assist in th= is process and that is what is before us this evening. I’m going to pass out a prop= osal from Mr. Christopher Laux, who is here this evening, as well as Mr. Dave Ki= ng and Mr. Fred Khericha to answer any questions in regards to this proposal.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This will allow us to complete the review locally, have the review completed by the end of April which would g= ive Kaestle Boos time to respond, get our notification from the State which rel= eases us to go out to bid, and in essence pick up the weeks that we’re losi= ng due to the backlog at the State Department.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Mazzamaro: Is this affect=
ing
solely the
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: It’s only = the Watertown High School Project that is affected by the delay, however weR= 17;re trying to bid the projects simultaneously for bidding competition.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 7
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: So it’s not just the constru= ction, it would also delay the bidding process?
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: Right, (inaudible) classrooms and = we have them pack their classrooms and construction doesn’t start, they’re back to where they were, we’d obviously be spending mon= ey for naught.
&= nbsp; Mr. King: Actually I think that Todd explain= ed the reason why we’re talking about it very well. One of the points is that we belie= ve it’s to your advantage to bid all 3 projects at the same time, that w= ay contractors are able to offer discounts because they are able to order grea= ter quantities of material, order the same materials for all 3 projects which benefits facilities in the long run, and makes things easier, and I think offers an opportunity for the Town to save some real dollars. We believe that currently the bidd= ing climate is very aggressive, we believe there’s not a lot of projects = out there for bid and that contractors are looking long and hard for projects to bid upon and that will result in a better bid price. So if we’re able to conduct a= n independent review with an independent reviewer for the high school, we’re going = to be able to bring that date back into line with the State’s review of Judson and Polk and realize our goal being able to bid everything all at on= ce.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: How can the St= ate, if it’s a 3 school project, it’s under one bond, why wouldnR= 17;t they take a look at all 3 schools as one project?
&=
nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: It’s actually 3 separate bon=
ds and
3 separate grant applications and in the State’s eyes it’s 3
separate projects. It’s
actually 3 different architects at the State who are reviewing the plans.
&= nbsp; Mr. Lambert: This is just to save time?
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: Yes, to save tim= e.
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: If we can bid all 3 projects at on= e time and understand a good savings, this is a very small amount of money to spen= d to move the projects forward.
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: I believe this is something that the Facilities Subcommittee feels comfortable with it, I thi= nk that’s important for the Public Buildings Committee to hear and then = the Public Buildings Committee would actually need to vote this evening to hire= Mr. Laux under the terms of this agreement and then obviously we could proceed.=
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: Does there hav= e to be an action item on the Board of Education’s agenda to allow them to enter into a contract?
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 8
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: (Inaudible) this project is specifically under the auspices of the Public Buildings Committee by a Town charge, the Public Buildings Committee is the one who has the authority to enter into this contract.
&= nbsp; Mr. Mazzamaro: I’m happy with this, I agree= with this.
&= nbsp; Mr. Lambert: I’d like to move forward= .
&= nbsp; Mr. Waiculonis: Has the State= ever had any problems with an independent reviewer doing this?
&= nbsp; Mr. King: That’s a good question. The answer to that = is a qualified no. As Todd mention= ed, by State law they are burdened to complete their review of a school project wi= thin 30 days. And if they are unab= le to do so, they are required to tell you that they are not able to do so, when = they will be able to do it, and give you the option of going for an independent review. Now when the Bureau of School Facilities reviews a school project they have a very specific checkl= ist that they go through and a very specific way of looking at things and things that they want to see and have you do and include in the documents, so that when they get to the point when they had to offer the people the option of going for an independent review, they are very particular about who does th= is reviewing because ultimately they’re going to review it anyway and it= may be in a period of time after the school is constructed or while it’s under construction, and they’ll say if you miss something we’re going to come back and say you have to do it, so the list of approved folks= is limited. We are fortunate in = being able to bring to you a proposal from Mr. Laux because Mr. Laux, as of late,= has held the office of the State Building Inspector, he has recently decided th= at he’s had enough of that and would like to do this on a different level. And he has contacted m= e and he can talk to you about it, but he has contacted them to find out if I wer= e to do the review, now he’s the person, they’re calling him to ask questions, he’s going to tell them what the issues are.
&= nbsp; Mr. Waiculonis: There’s a lot of experience = there.
&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: Is this his firs= t job since he retired?
&= nbsp; Mr. Laux: Today is the 7= th? The 8th? I’ve been retired for 7 days= . Retirement isn’t as easy as I thought it was going to be. T= he phone hasn’t stopped ringing since I re-established my practice. Just in terms of background, IR= 17;ve been a registered architect for about 33 years, during that time I was in t= he construction business for about 13 years and I was also a municipal building official for 8 years and recently a State Building Inspector for 10 years a= nd 8 days. It only takes 10 years = to be able to retire. I have a significant amount of experience in plan review. To answer your question, actually it’s the second one I’ve done since I retired, I did one this afternoon, but that doesn’t mean that I’m a rookie at this.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; I
guess it’s the position of being State Building Inspector essentially=
you
are set forth as the code guru for the State of
&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: You stated in your terms of computa= tion that (inaudible) for plan review and further (inaudible). If we have a problem with the certification thereafter, how is that addressed? I would hope that it would be pro = bono unless there were issues that weren’t addressed during your submissio= n to (inaudible) documents. #2, it= seems like a very small amount to (inaudible) between $875.00 on the low amount, $1,200 on the high amount. Ev= erything else seems like a great idea but I was kind of looking at the low amount (inaudible).
&= nbsp; Mr. Laux: Well essentially th= e work will be completed at the time that I had the plan review. I may have not us= ed the correct terminology, but the intent there is that what will happen is t= hat I will provide the architectural firm first of all with weekly reports so t= hat they can start to address some of these things in a more timely manner, but once I give them the full code review sheet, they will then make the changes. Then that comes back= to me and I have to verify that those changes were in fact made, and in that poin= t in time, my real review work has been completed at the time that I hand in the document that says that it’s done, and that happens hopefully the end= of April, we have a drop dead date of May 3rd in here as a very final date, and I don’t have a problem with that. In fact I think it may be done sooner than that, but the = actual work that’s left is really relatively minor to do.
&= nbsp; Mr. Killeen: And so if I’m understanding t= he process, once you submit your documentation, you’re certifying that t= he code compliance has been met and the issues or discrepancies that exist in = the project is outstanding (inaudible) comments on that. You run into issues where certific= ation is questioned at any point?
&= nbsp; Mr. Laux: No. Generally once it’s done, it’s done. Now that’s not to say that t= here won’t be issues that come up during construction, that’s essentially a different issue. That’s a question of did the fellow who got the contract build= it like the picture.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 10
&= nbsp; (T= ape #1, Side A ended – may have missed some).
MOTION: (Mr. =
Dzioba,
sec. Mr. Demirs) to hire Christopher Laux as the Independent Reviewer for <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">
&= nbsp; Di= scussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; MO= TION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
5. =
Discussion
and Possible Action regarding the
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: We’ve had initial meetings wi= th Kaestle Boos, the interior designer with the building principals. There has also been follow-up meet= ings and actually there is one more follow-up meeting scheduled this week for ea= ch of the schools to visit at Kaestle Boos to go through color chips, color samples, etc. It’s our = plan to bring the Facilities Subcommittee several charts and boards that will be showing you what the interior finishes of the school will look like and see= king approval from the Board of Education and then ultimately the Public Buildin= gs Committee. Hopefully we’= ;ll be in a position by early May where all of these approvals are in place so I j= ust wanted to update both of these committees on the process that’s occur= ring currently to pick the interior finishes.&n= bsp; We’re talking about the color of floor tile, color of bathroom tile, colors on the laminates for the cabinetry, paint color, etc.
Mr. Killeen: (Inaudible) interior design (inaudi= ble)?
Mr. LoFrese: Yes.
Mr. Killeen: So that will be coming forth (inaud= ible)?
Mr. LoFrese: Yes, they present it to the princip= al and a small committee at each school.
&= nbsp; Mr. Porter: I, for one on the Buildings Committ= ee, want to see good, high quality finishes, colors don’t really matter to me.
&= nbsp; Mr. LoFrese: One thing I will say, color-wise for large quantity (inaudible) paint, we have district white, slightly off white and that makes up the large portion of (inaudible) in all the buildings.
Mr. Mazzamaro: Todd, you said that you presented to Facilities by when?
Mr. LoFrese: Hopefully the end of the month.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
APRIL 8, 2008
PAGE 11
6.&nb=
sp; Adjournment
MOTION: (Mr. Dzioba, sec. Mr. LeBlanc) to Adjourn the Special Joint Meeting at 6:35 p.m.=
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Special Joint Meeting Adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respectfully submitted,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Robert Porter, Chairman
Public Buildings Committee
Approved: _______________________________
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk