Pre-Referendum High School Consolidation Committee
April 12, 2012
A meeting of the Pre-Referendum High School Consolidation Committee was held at Enfield High School Library, located at 1264 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT on April 12, 2012.
1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 7:04 PM by Randy Daigle
2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Apruzzese-Desroches, Mrs. Brennan (arrived at 7:11), Mr. Brown,
Mr. Dague (arrived 7:10), Mr. Daigle, Mr. Droney (arrived at 7:20), Ms. Drzyzga, Mrs. LeBlanc,
Ms. Osada, Mr. Sargalski, Mr. Stokes
ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Pongratz, Mr. Sepulveda, Mr. Kalagher
ABSENT: Mr. Lempitsky
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to accept minutes of April 3, 2012 and April 5, 2012 by Mrs. Apruzzese-Desroches
Seconded by: Ms. Osada
Abstained by: Ms. Drzyzga, Mr. Sargalski
Motion passes by a show of hands
4. OLD BUSINESS
Judy read some questions that were sent to her. The first question is in regards to set-back that a three story building would require to a residential neighborhood. The community member is concerned about the new addition (A-Wing). The second question was: Is there an elevation plan for the exterior? A concern about the curved exterior was also brought up. The community member wrote that curved walls are difficult to add on to if at a later date it was needed, and that it cost more to construct a curved wall instead of right angles and straight. They thought it was a beautiful plan, they were concerned about the practicality and the possibility of reducing costs by making it less beautiful.
Randy states it will be parallel with the existing building which is in the approved set back site. There will be an elevation plan. Randy reminds that this is “conceptual, schematic”, this is not locked in stone.
Judy asks if it is true that curved walls are more expensive to build.
The architect states that it is not true. They have been asked this many times. They have analyzed it every way and so has the American Masonry Institute. In a project of this scale curved wall vs. straight wall will be negligible. You’re building square feet and volume.
Judy asks if you can add on to a curved wall.
The architect states you can add on if you need to, but with where the curve is I don’t anticipate that for an addition. You can add on just as easily. Normally you don’t add on to classroom window walls and block out natural light.
Kyle stated that he showed the plans to his band teacher. He wanted to know what the square footage would be in the band room.
Art replied that he sent him an email with the size of the stage, storage, and band room. He thinks the teacher has his questions answered.
Jaime stated she had some colleagues look at the plans, and they were concerned about the space.
Randy states it is between 1,100 and 1,200 and those are recommendations. They are not fire codes. They are suggested square feet based on occupancy. Randy states if we were to bump the wall out a foot or two that is not a big deal. Whatever we need to do to make it the best environment.
Jaime states liability issues are a concern, if something were to happen. She mentioned CT. High School Safety, National Clearinghouse of Educational Facilities, NSTA, their liability suggestions all say at least 50 square foot per student (a CLAB), that would add up to a little over 1,400 square feet.
Architect states we were at 1,100. We talked about bumping a wall. The estimate is based on what you approved last week. The cost is broken down per square foot.
Wendy asks if we have a number of how many students we’re expecting per classroom? It sounds like a big disparity when you’re talking about a difference of 200-300 feet. Divide that by how many students, so how many square feet per student does that actually make?
Architect states there is no requirement. The code looks at it backwards. If you want to build a 200 square foot lab, you’re allowed to. You’re not allowed to put 200 children in that 200 square foot lab. The code doesn’t dictate how big the space has to be, the code dictates how many students will be calculated in that space before it becomes a hazard. She is right, the number is about 50 SF in a CLAB per student. Unlike a classroom that is about 20 SF. The code looks at it depending on the use of the space.
Wendy asks how many students are you basing that on?
Jaime replies 24.
Art states that all of the CLABS don’t fall into the same category, a chemistry lab at 50 SF per person might be applicable, a geology lab, maybe it is not. Some classrooms in the sciences are more classroom than lab.
Jaime states the recommendations for CLABS from the National Science Teachers Association is 60 square feet. We want to do this to have a 21st century education for students. I want to make sure that we have the space to allow that to happen.
Art states in the next part of the process when we start to build construction documents, we’ll get to that detail. Did they give you gross or net square footage in those recommendations?
Jaime states it is net square footage, not gross.
When you put the sinks and cabinets in and then 50 SF after that, you’d have science labs the size of this library.
Maureen asks if we are basing this on the 1,700 number of the demographers report? What point do you run this by the fire district?
Randy states yes, enrollment of 1,710.
Art replies when we get the construction documents.
Randy states these are just schematics, just estimates. If it passes, then the second committee will do design development, schematic design then contract documents. Then it gets submitted to them. They work with them all the way.
Maureen states they had mentioned it would be good to touch base now.
Architect states that a committee like this approves a plan and everyone thinks ‘great, when do we start building’. There is about a year long process from when we start our documents to when we complete them for a project of this scale. We’re talking 12 months, thousands of hours, it hasn’t started yet. That design process is about 12 months. Through that 1st schematic phase is when a lot of what you’re asking gets hashed out. This is the feasibility stage. We’re in the very infant stage of laying out a building. We understand there are a lot of pieces to get from here to there. Some of this is very premature at this stage. We’ll answer some of those questions. I want to answer that 1,200 SF as opposed to 1,400 SF. It is no requirement of the building code. We build what you direct us to build. Historically, we see labs typically in the 1,000 to 1,200 range, very seldom 1,500 SF CLABS. Typically in a high school of this size, 1,200 is the high end of what we see.
John asks about the A Wing addition, the hallways and circulation factor.
Randy states by eliminating the center you will have 15 more classrooms, you’d have to extend that wing. That would be 3 stories. If you shrink it and put one hallway in the middle, all those classroom have to get added on.
Judy states looking at the first floor, I see computer science, SPED, art classrooms. I see 2 computer science rooms that would be long and skinny that go out mid-way to the SPED classroom and the art rooms are doing the same thing.
Architect states they looked at a single load or double load corridor. A single loaded corridor is one that feeds only one side, a double feeds both sides. A double loaded corridor is going to be more efficient. If we were to make the entire addition a double loaded corridor, it was coming out much too far and into our embankment. We were concerned about the travel distance. It would add on another 100 feet to the building. We have explored it. We’re trying to come up with a shape that is compact enough, fits our program, fits on site. We have to stack 3 floors. I agree, a single loaded corridor is slightly less efficient that a double loaded corridor. We chose to do two 8 foot wide corridors. Not two 16 foot wide. There will not be bottle-necking there. We were trying to reduce the travel time for the students with a building that is 1,000 feet long.
Judy asks Jaime did any of the science teachers have an issue with the science being on two floors?
Jaime states they share a lot of equipment and material.
Brien stated that scheduling depends on what students request.
Judy states everybody has to take 3 science courses. We have more ability to manage that on two floors to allow the sharing.
Steve states it may be difficult to do that. Every year is different. Maybe put chemistry and physics on one floor and life sciences on another.
Steve states we want to match up the STEAM appropriately.
Architect states that one of the committees objectives was to hold STEAM pure and get all of those 5 pieces in this addition. Putting science on two levels I wasn’t sure you’d be comfortable with that. We had to make some compromises. We want to build a building that will work for the next 50 years. We need to hear how you want to envision your operation.
Brien states what he is hearing from science staff is that operating on two levels is not optimal, because of the equipment they share. There is no elevator there. Moving equipment would be problematic. They would prefer to have it on one level.
Wendy asks do you have chemistry people sharing their equipment with earth science people? And, physic’s people sharing their equipment? If you made one floor two of those and the other floor two of those, are you still going to have that problem sharing the same equipment between the two floors?
Jamie states that they share a lot. The chemical are all stored in one similar location to keep track of what we have.
Randy states that part of the FFE will be providing the equipment. We’re not going to build a room and not buy furniture. Each classroom will get what they need.
Tina states when she hears we will have a 2 million dollar savings each year in part that is true, but she thinks we need to invest it back into the system. It will support what we’re putting in place. Not just the high schools, for all the schools.
Architect states one of the biggest problems they frequently see is that you only know what you know now and how you operate now. You have to think forward in creating 16 ideal CLABS that are going to be fit out in the FFE package. You have to step forward. If we properly fit out these classrooms, you shouldn’t have to worry about sharing the equipment. If two levels is going to be problematic, an elevator is something we may want to explore. If it is that type of detail that is going to make a difference, we want to hear it.
Steve states we will hopefully be able to add to our sciences, possibly courses like marine biology, astronomy, geology. There are so many courses we could be offering with the new curriculum. They will have to fit into the 16 CLAB spaces as well. It won’t be just the 4 that we talk about.
Architects states there will be generic CLABs, set up for 3 or 4 different uses.
John asks about the lower level of the STEAM addition. Auto shop and wood shop get deliveries often. Trucks pull up. It looks like they would have to go through auto.
Architect states they aligned those two doors. We could put in a large overhead door, so you could drive a panel truck right up to the door of woodshop.
John states he would have to send kids back and forth to load the trucks. That could be up to 4 hours of kids unloading lumber.
Wendy asks if you could swap 2 food labs and woodshop?
Architect states he is not opposed to swapping the food labs with woodshop, getting wood shop on the back of the building. It is a valid point, as long as the committee doesn’t object.
Steve asks if there will be a bay door?
Architect states there would be bay delivery door for panel trucks/wood delivery. We also heard last week about fumes from auto with that space being below other academic classrooms. The mechanicals will all be part of this process. Tech Ed spaces are directly above it since it is part of the same program.
Randy states it is very schematic. As far as flipping classrooms, we know we can accommodate it.
Architect states they have given thought to all of the concerns. It is critical that the plan has validity. If there is something that stands out, we want to solve it now. It is worth making tweaks to the plan.
Maureen states it may be premature to go the fire department at this time, I am assuming you take into account emergency access.
Architect states we design around this all the time. We run this by the fire department. The building codes and fire codes are very rigid. Building codes allow the local fire marshall to modify those codes. We will give him the courtesy of reviewing the plans before going to referendum. So at least we have his blessing.
Maureen states she is on the fire commission for district 1 and they are well aware.
Architect states they know it is coming.
Judy asks if there was any feedback from SPED, because they were all over the floors.
Brien states usually they prefer to be spread out for more inclusion. He has not heard from anyone.
Art states it was their original request.
Architect states the department was intentionally dispersed.
Brien asks about the increase need for administrative offices. You will need at least 3-4 vice principals for 1,600-1,700 kids.
Discussion on Update on Website item 4b.
Art states that we need to designate a URL address. Some suggestions were:
epshscc.org or toehscc.org
Randy asks for feedback.
Greg states when this committee is complete, the building committee will step in and you may want to get away from the wording of ‘referendum’ - something generic, on-going.
Art states it isn’t pre-referendum. It is high school consolidation or town of Enfield high school consolidation.
Judy asks if high school consolidation is spelled out.
Art states no it is epshscc.org or toehscc.org
Wendy states aren’t we trying to go with something that wasn’t just a string of letters.
Randy states it was all open for suggestions. Do you have something?
Wendy states ‘students first’ or something upbeat and not specific. Do we want to go with literally what it is?
Pat states you’re going to get a demographic of people in town who are going to look at it and get the wrong idea about students first.
Wendy states she suggests staying away from the eps address because isn’t that the one that is the facebook site?
Randy states that is not ours.
Wendy states she would not start it with eps. Let’s not confuse the two.
Randy asks toeconsolidation?
Maureen asks enfieldhcc?
Maureen states you can be jazzy without using eps.
Maureen states hccofenfield is available.
Judy suggests a link on the town website and the schools website.
Greg asks about adding 2016 in the address. What do you plan on doing to market that the website is out? You want to inform the community. Be positive.
Steve asks hsconsolidation.org
Maureen states eps is on every website. What if it was hccofenfield?
Randy agrees. It’s catchy. People would remember that. Any discussion or thoughts?
Judy states we may need a back-up.
Wendy states hsccofenfield?
Randy asks for a motion to accept hccofenfield.org as the website for the committee
Maureen makes a Motion that hsccofenfield.org would be the 1st choice for the website and the backup would be hccofenfield.org
Pat seconds the Motion
Motion passes by a show of hands
Randy asks if there is anyone who has been on the website yet and if so, is there any questions or comments.
Maureen asks if the demographers report will be on there (Prowda’s). She feels it is compelling. The link for course requirements should be clearer of when they are being required.
Randy asks if it would be a benefit to show what we currently have as requirements and what the changes to course requirements would be.
Brien states post the document that we received a few meetings ago about the new course requirements and post it on the website.
Art states he gave it to Debbie and it is already on the website.
Judy states anything that we have should be out there.
Tina states that the JI called her and she will respond to them. They were asking about the status of the website and any cost estimates.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Architect’s Report – Made a few changes that was discussed last week. Lower level is the same. Main level made one music to computer lab. STEAM addition is larger. Bumped the size by 7,500 SF to increase the science labs up to 1,200 feet each. Created a light well. Possibly do a light well so the interior classrooms get natural light. Increase the size of the lobby, more forward. Plans are a little different from last week. A few tweaks. Our concern was how to get light to the interior space. Scheme 1 was last week’s presentation and tonight is scheme 2, so we can keep track of what we’re talking about. Scheme 1 is a building about 306,000 square feet. Scheme 2 is 315,000 SF. Added about 9,000 by adding the light well, increasing the size of the science classrooms and by adding the front lobby. Lobby is about 1,000 SF. The CLAB increase was about 2,000 SF. 6,000 is the light well. This additional square feet would cost about 3 million to build and 3 million in reimbursement that you will lose. Every time now that you add square footage it is double in its value, we lose the reimbursement number. Trying to balance program request with the bottom line. We just wanted to run the numbers for the sake of discussion.
Randy states the classroom and lobby increase are essential. When you walk into a brand new building it should be inviting. As far as the light in the corridor, there are other ways of achieving getting light in.
Wendy agrees. Science room size is not negotiable.
John agrees. There should be other ways of getting lights in, fiber optics possibly. He has a question about the hallways in the mechanical tunnel. Questions the hallway in the B wing.
Architect states they wouldn’t move walls in the tunnel for storage.
John states there is always the need for storage.
Art replies that you now have to sprinkle everything. Fire department will allow storage if there are sprinklers.
Architect states corridors are wide. Lockers will be replaced.
Wendy asks about the concession room.
Architect states they are still thinking about it.
Architects explains the divisions on the document that was distributed. Carrying about 3 million in abatement; lead, asbestos, PCB’s. We have to think of the worst case assumption with a building of this size and age. Keep in mind these are estimates. There are some assumptions in this estimate. Demolition is based on square footage. Soft costs are all the other costs that are not bricks and mortar. Fees, Consultants, Construction Managers. Some are logical and obvious. Some we have to discuss. We’re carrying an inflation factor of 2% (8% over 4 years).
Randy asks if we are building to LEED (energy modeling).
Art states we have to build high performance building, (HPB).
Architect states that the State of CT requires any town building a new school to be a high performance building. You don’t have a choice if you want the State reimbursement. HPB is a little more cost effective than LEED. Energy modeling analyzes energy consumption.
Architect continues the discussion about the soft costs. We need to know what to keep and what to yank. Professional fees, printing costs, Acoustical Consultant, Lighting Consultant (zeroed out), Security Consultant, Voice, AV, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Geo-Tech Consultant, Kitchen and Food Service Consultant.
Art asks if the Kitchen and Food Service Consultants also consult on the food labs.
Genaro asks in regards to the role of the commissioning process, how much relation is there between the commission process with LEED in terms of achieving the optimum performance?
Architect states a commissioning agent is now required. You have to have one. They are responsible for that cross coordination between our engineers and between LEED component/High Performance building component.
Genaro asks who established the level of the commitment of the commission.
Architect states they do with the committee. The town will hire a commissioning consultant just like you would hire an architect. It is not his contract, it is your contract. Collectively, the architect in the town establishes the criteria you want the commissioning agent to be.
Genaro asks about State of CT Energy Funds. Could we get those funds?
Architect states they seek out those funds. The town will, too.
Art states you have to declare them as income.
Randy states that in some towns the CM or CA hire the commission agency.
Architect continues an Exterior Envelope Consultant is listed as needed. They deal with water infiltration. Very critical component. Buildings are getting tighter to meet the high performance standards. Traffic studies will need to be done.
Wendy asks if we will get a traffic light?
Architect states that is what the traffic study will tell.
Greg states Route 5 is State. We can request. This is not the first time we’ve heard this.
Steve asks where are the parking lots?
Architect states they will be in the front plus, where D wing is.
Architects continues, BSF which is a review process up at the State. Site Surveying, Testing (Radon, PCB), physical testing going to labs. Theater and Stage Consultant. Special Inspections – required by the State, a third party that comes out to inspect every aspect of the building. Commissioning Coordination. Other professional fees, one that is up for discussion. Is there is going to be a Program Manager for this project? A Program Manager is to administer the paperwork at the State.
Art states we will need someone. Randy agrees.
Architect states you could get someone who has been in the industry, a consultant who understands the reimbursement process. It is normal on the big projects.
Architect continues that a CM is needed (Construction Manager). Commissioning Agent, required by State of CT. Material testing. Digital Photography, a lot of firms specialize in this to photograph everything being built, so in 20 years you can see where everything is (in the walls). FTP Prolog Fees (software). Administrative Costs (town expense). Insurance. Legal Ads. Interest during the construction. Furniture (moving of), students moving from one wing to the other. Construction Manager wants it done in one night. Need the speed of getting the furniture moved overnight. Local plan review. The CM is the one who administers this contract.
Architect continues that tangible items are part of the soft costs. FFE is the largest of them. It is all the loose furniture. Auditorium pieces and gymnasium pieces are part of FFE. Technology is also part of FFE, equipment that you purchase (smart boards, white boards, tablets, etc.). Contingency and allowances are included. We don’t nail down at this early stage - every nut and bolt. Some things could change. You may need additional classrooms for example. Owner contingency is things you could change and design contingency is what the architect could change.
Architect states there will be some Bonding Cost. Building Permit Fees. Management and custodial needs. Custodians to be here nights, weekends - cleaning. Environmental Conditions, that would possibly be for building during the winter. IAQ (indoor air quality). Final cleaning. We recommend that you carry some contingency.
Architect explains ineligible and limited eligibility for reimbursement.
Randy requests DRAFT on all the documents so the public understands that these are not final plans.
Architects agrees and states it will constantly change, these are not final plans and will put DRAFT on all the plans in every page.
Randy explains CMR vs. CM at risk.
Judy asks if this level of detail have to be decided now (CM or CMR).
Art states it would be the next group of people.
Architect explains he needs to put it all out there.
Art explains a CMR will pan out as a savings for us.
Judy states in the last big school project did we have numbers for FFE?
Art explains the excess that we had from the elementary schools paid to do the athletic fields.
People could look at the number bonded over 30 years for things that are not going to last that long (furniture, etc).
Randy states you can’t build a building and not furnish it.
Judy states even if it says DRAFT all over it, some people may believe that this is final.
Randy states it must have DRAFT all over it.
Architect asks what do you want to start striking off of the soft costs?
Genaro asks when is the start date.
Randy states approximately 14 months after it passes.
Genaro asks do you involve the commissioning agent in the design process?
Architect states we recommend that the commissioning agent be hired up front. Just like the CM be hired up front. We recommend that they be at the first meeting. That is the Town’s contract but we recommend the earlier the better. We design collectively, not just one of us.
Genero states that within the industry it is said that for every dollar you invest in commissioning process you get $4.00 back in five years time. It is worth it, in the efficiency of the equipment that you use, the installation of the equipment and the people who will be operating the equipment.
Randy states that 90% of building complaints are MBP related. Commissioning is very critical.
Greg states that he wants this referendum to pass and wants a good school for the future. I would recommend that you brief the Council at this juncture. Perception is important. GM is flawed. It is not a viable document.
Randy states we need to educate them. They didn’t even have the new high school standards at that time.
Judy states she agrees with Greg that Randy and the architects need to go to the Council and explain where we are and what we’re looking at. Get some reading from them if they would take this and approve a referendum.
Randy agrees, he has no problem with that. We need to talk to the Town and determine the process.
Judy asks if we are changing something on this?
Architects states we talked about eliminating the LEED Service Administration, the digital photography. You could take out FFE, or revisit it later.
Randy states he doesn’t want to build a new building and put old furniture in it.
Genaro asks about environmental section. Testing?
Brien asks about the long term use of digital photography. Is it worth it?
Steve asks about the Program Manager?
Randy states we need to talk to the Town to see what they want to proceed with?
Motion made by Brien Brown To Eliminate LEED Services and Digital Photography
Seconded by Pat Droney
Ms. Apruzzese-Desroches (Against)
Motion passes by a vote/show of hands: 7-1
Motion made by Judy Apruzzese-Desroches to Expand the Size of the CLABS
Seconded by Jaime Drzyzga
Motion passes by a vote/show of hands: 8-0
Motion made by Randy Daigle to increase the Lobby Entrance
Seconded by Pat Droney
Ms. Apruzzese-Desroches, Mr. Sargalski, Mr. Dague (Against)
Motion passes by vote/show of hands: 4-3
User Group Comments
Liaison Group Comments
Committee Member Comments
Pat Droney states he would like to make a motion that any correspondence/comments coming from the committee be from one voice. I’d suggest it be generated by the Chair. Was a little shocked to see some of the draft plans in the newspaper.
Judy states she will second it just for the sake of discussion because we she doesn’t think we can do that. Once this is public, anyone could be sitting here and request a copy of it and they have to get it. They can do whatever they want to do with it. The J.I. contacted Tina who is an elected official, she can’t refuse to answer him.
Pat states what he is trying to say is that being perceived as the voice of the committee has to go through Randy.
Judy states we have to be careful because anytime one of us speaks it is viewed as coming from the committee.
Steve asked how many people received copies of the plans?
Art states he sent a set to Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Town Manager on Monday.
Judy suggests that Randy go to the BOE and TC and explain them. The problem is that the plans are out there without someone who can explain them. The next step is people will look at the numbers and again, they need to be explained. You need to get in front of the curve.
Randy asks when the TC and BOE meets again.
Genaro asks if the issue of confidentiality applies here.
Judy states this is a meeting held in public, which is different that a public meeting. We can’t have executive sessions. Anyone can come, entitled to hear everything.
Randy asks if the motion is going to get voted on or will it be tabled?
Judy Moves to Table the Motion that any correspondence/comments come from the Chairperson.
Seconded by Pat Droney
Motion passes by a show of hands
Architect states that the policy in his office is that they do not speak to the press.
Randy states the community needs to understand this is PRELIMINARY/DRAFT. Please post that on all your documents.
Motion to Adjourn by Pat Droney
Seconded by Judy Apruzzese-Desroches
Motion Passes by a show of hands
Submitted by: Ellen Smith