HomeMy Public PortalAbout20230411 - Elementary School Building Committee No. 2 (ESBC-2) - Meeting MinutesHopkinton Public Schools
Elementary School Building Committee-2
MINUTES
HCAM Studio,Main Street
April 11,2023-6:00-8:00 PM
In attendance
Building Committee:Tiffany Ostrander (Vice-Chair),Mike Shepard,Tim Persson,Susan
Rothermich,Carol Cavanaugh,Bill Flannery,Jen Devlin (SC-Alternate),Anne Carver,Lya
Batlle-Rafferty
Other Town:None
OPM/Designer:Dan Colli (PE),Robert Bell (PE),Chris Eberly (Vertex)
Absent
Building Committee:Shahidul Mannan,Jagrut Jathal,Jon Graziano (Chair)
I.Call to Order
Co-Chairperson Tiffany Ostrander called the meeting to order at 6:04pm
II.Public Comment
None
III.New Business
1.Approval of Meeting Minutes
a.Motion to approve minutes of March 28,2023.Motion by Mike
Shepard,seconded by Lya Batlle-Rafferty,Vote 4-0.
2.Update on MSBA PSR Comments and Facilities Assessment Subcommittee
(FAS)Meeting
a.Chris Eberly presented an update on the presentation made before the
MSBA FAS on March 29,2023,including issues discussed.
b.Chris Eberly discussed the PSR comments received by the District from
the MSBA on April 3,2023.Review of some of the major issues
contained.The team will formulate responses and return them to the
MSBA by April 17,2023.
3.Vertex Presentation on Chapter 149 (DBB)vs.Chapter 149A (CM)Construction
Project Delivery
a.Chris Eberly presented a comparison of the two construction delivery
methods allowed by Massachusetts law,and how they relate to the
proposed Elmwood Project construction and schedule.
b.The ESBC will be asked to select a method in June when the schematic
VOTED TO APPROVE 2023-05-09 2023-04-11 Pg.1 of 4
design package is estimated.
c.Tim Persson asked about savings from bids,noted that contract will define
how buyout savings shall be handled.
d.Bill Flannery asked if open book accounting was the reason for credits
back at the end.Vertex explained that credits often result from risk
management funds (holds,allowances or contingency)that weren’t spent.
e.Bill Flannery asked if the difference in the 5-6%CM premium would
cover some of the design work that would be done.Explained how
preconstruction services are provided based on what is requested during
procurement,and additional staffing also contributes.These premiums often
result in lower change orders,but it doesn’t off set the full premiums.Dan
Colli noted that drawings are the same for both procurement methods,but
CM will provide additional laborers and other staff and can adapt to needs
more directly.DBB will provide the staff that is requested in the
specifications.
f.Mike Shepard asked if Elmwood is a simple project.Chris Eberly
explained aspects for CM at Risk and DBB that each provides value as it
relates to Elmwood project.Mike noted that Marathon project had a great
experience with CM at risk.
g.Noted that in the market has seen a shift in contractors offering DBB as
CM premium has increased.Explained that there are good and bad CMs,
and also good and bad GCs in DBB.
h.Discussed difference in service from a CM vs.DBB,the differences in
amount of work for Owner and Designer during construction in each
scenario,and ways to handle changes and schedule in CM vs.DBB.
i.Tim Persson asked about adding an addition in construction as occurred in
Marathon project.Dan Colli noted that in both situations could be a change
order.MSBA did not reimburse for such a change.Chris Eberly noted in
both methods rules for change order markup can be set,but the CM would
offer services to help fine tune the cost.
j.Reviewed the DCAMM certification process,and the prequalification
process to ensure only qualified contractors or filed subs can bid.Noted in
CM,non-filed subs can be vetted with the CM.
k.Vertex highlighted the differences in schedule between the DBB and CM.
l.Explained how prevailing wage and supplementary conditions can affect
the wage rates under change orders.
m.Lya Batlle-Rafferty asked how the project could account for the additional
students under the MBTA housing requirements.Dan Colli noted that it
could be designed and accounted for as an alternate.Chris Eberly noted
VOTED TO APPROVE 2023-05-09 2023-04-11 Pg.1 of 4
that it would likely be ineligible when reviewed by the MSBA.
n.Jen Devlin asked for position Vertex and Perkins Eastman are leaning for
procurement.Chris Eberly noted the decision will be made in June when the
entirety of the scope is known,and schedule and lead times are better
known,but that the project is leaning toward DBB.Dan Colli noted that the
project is better suited for a DBB project.Robert Bell noted that CM
sometimes pushes for cost savings,and that may challenge the goals on the
project.
4.Recap of Recent Meetings (reviewed out of order from advertised agenda)
a.Robert Bell reviewed the focus group meetings held with Elmwood and
Hopkins Faculty and Staff.
i.Follow-up meeting will be held with the same groups to review
layouts and room data sheets in June.
ii.Robert Bell noted plan changes:
1.Moving some social emotional learning spaces to lower
floors
2.Pairing ESoL spaces for staff collaboration
3.STE rooms may be available to health education
4.Possibility to pair STE options with media center
iii.Anne Carver shared that staff was excited about the conversation
and heard good feedback from staff.
b.Community forum on April 4th had most community members attend.
i.Bill Flannery asked about recording availability for Community
Forum,which will be located with HCAM.
c.Chris Eberly shared the mechanical systems focus group meeting held
today and the next steps in advance of a presentation to ESBC on May 9,
2023.
5.Perkins Eastman Presentation on Design and Building Massing Development
a.Robert Bell presented changes to the site plan.
i.Updated committee on revisions to site roads and separation
between bus and drop-off/pickup separation.
ii.Reduced impervious from 7 to 5.7 acres with latest plan.Still
working to bring down below 5 acres.
iii.Highlighted changes to the floor plans.
b.Robert Bell presented updated building massing and elevations.
i.Highlighted design opportunities available to break down the
building’s scale.
ii.Highlighted options and opportunities for building materials.
iii.Highlighted opportunities for natural inspirations and concepts for
VOTED TO APPROVE 2023-05-09 2023-04-11 Pg.1 of 4
inspiring design options.
iv.Committee members shared their opinions on the opportunities
shared.
6.Review of upcoming meetings
a.Chris Eberly shared upcoming meetings.
b.Highlighted upcoming working group school tours.
c.Bill Flannery asked whether there is anything the Committee should be
asking about costs.
i.Vertex highlighted how the team is working through mechanical
focus group to identify options for the mechanical systems,
ii.Perkins Eastman noted that they are still collecting scope and
sharing opportunities with the committee.Robert Bell noted that as
they make selections,they will be looking at life cycle costs to
make comprehensive decisions.
7.Motion to adjourn by Bill Flannery,seconded by Mike Shepard.Vote 4-0.
Adjourned 7:39pm.
End of 4/11/23
VOTED TO APPROVE 2023-05-09 2023-04-11 Pg.1 of 4