Concord Middle School Project Project Manager Report February 2021

CONCORD MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECT

PROJECT MANAGER’S REPORT FEBRUARY 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary

2. Project Dashboard

3. Project Cash Flow

a. Draft Cash Flow Summary, dated February 28, 2021 b. Draft Cash Flow Graph, dated February 28, 2021

4. Schedule Update

a. Draft Project Schedule, dated February 5, 2021 b. Recap of Project Schedule

5. Cost Analysis

6. Meeting Minutes

a. Design Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – Janaury 15, 2021 b. Design Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – January 22, 2021 c. Design Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – Feburary 4, 2021 – to be approved at next meeting d. Design Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – February 18, 2021 e. Design Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – February 25, 2021 – to be approved at next meeting f. Concord School Building Committee Meeting Minutes – February 11, 2021 g. Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – January 13, 2021 h. Sustainability Subcommittee Meeting Minutes – January 28, 2021

Executive Summary

Town of Concord Concord Middle School Project

Executive Summary This Project Manager’s Report for the Concord Middle School Project is submitted by Hill International (Hill), and covers activities through the month of February 2021.

Project Progress The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. All project related meetings are continuing to be held via Zoom Video Conferencing.

Over the month of February, the Design Team continued working on the Feasibly Phase of the project. Hill and SMMA attended different subcommittee meetings, meetings with different constituencies (students, League of Women Voters, Select Board, School Committee, Public Safety and Finance) and a Community Forum on February 24. On February 4, the Design Team presented on the Educational Programming and provided recommendations for the Space Summary to the Design Subcommittee. On February 18, DSC met to review SMMA’s Space Summary on the Educational Plan previously presented. On February 25, the subcommittee voted on recommendations for the gym sizing, auditorium sizing, alternate PE, team commons, World Language, Media Center, Maker Space and Teacher Planning to present to the School Building Committee. The Sustainability Subcommittee met on February 26 to review the project goal of Net Zero Ready which included discussing proposed feasibility recommendations to the School Building Committee and review of the Energy Zero Code (E-Z Code). The Sustainability Subcommittee reviewed the sustainability framework, metrics for success, and next steps.

The Concord Middle School Building Committee met on February 11, 2021 to discuss the Educational Plan that was approved by the School Committee on January 26, 2021. Hill International discussed the Construction Delivery Method describing Massachusetts General Law Chapter 149 (design-bid-build) and Chapter 149A (Construction Manager at-Risk). The advantages of Chapter 149 is the documents are complete and the bid process is traditional system where lowest price on bid day gets the job. Advantages for Chapter 149A allows you to interview the construction management team early in the design process and the Construction Manager can provide design assist, site logistics and scheduling. SMMA presented updates to the Building Committee on the progress of the Design Subcommittee noting the space summary was based on the approved Educational Plan. SMMA recommended a space summary of 95,330 nsf and 142,995 gsf which accommodated a 7,000 nsf gym and an auditorium. SMMA also noted the updated construction cost is around $555/sf which would bring the construction cost to around $80M.

Milestones The following milestones were achieved over the month of February 2021: . Completed initial Space Summary and presented to Design Subcommittee on February 4, 2021 . Discussed Project Delivery Method at February 11, 2021 School Building Committee Meeting . Design Subcommittee Proposed Space Summary Recommendations on February 25, 2021 . Sustainability Subcommittee Proposed Sustainability Recommendations on February 26, 2021

Milestones projected for the coming months are: . Finalize Project Delivery Method . Complete Project Budget . Complete Preliminary Feasibility Study Report

Project Manager’s Report February 2021 Page 1 Town of Concord Concord Middle School Project

. Start Schematic Design Phase . Agree on dates to authorize Schematic Design and Design Development Phases

Issues . Ongoing COVID-19 pandemic can affect CMSBC’s capacity to gather community input. . Hill presented a request for an amendment to their contract for the extension of the feasibility and schematic phases.

Schedule Major milestones are as follows: . OPM Selection Completed Aug. 28, 2019 . Designer Selection Completed Nov. 18, 2019 . Feasibility Study Tentative Completion date of May 24, 2021 . Schematic Design Tentative Completion date of Dec. 6, 2021 . Special Town Meeting Tentative date of Dec. 10, 2021 . Town Vote To Be Determined . Design Development . 60% Contract Documents . 90% Contract Documents . 100% Contract Documents . Bidding . Construction . Substantial Completion (New Building) . Demolition of Existing Building and Add New Fields . Closeout

NOTE: Project Team is still waiting on confirmation from the Town of Concord for next town meeting date.

Budget On April 8, 2019 Concord Town Meeting passed, by overwhelming majority, an appropriation not to exceed $1,500,000 to study the feasibility of constructing a new Middle School, which may be located on the Sanborn School Site.

Based on the Feasibility Study completed by Finegold Alexander, the estimated Total Project Cost may range from $80M to $100M depending upon the solution that is agreed upon by the Owner. This Total Project Cost translates to a potential Total Construction Cost of $60M to $80M.

On December 5, 2019 Hill met with the Finance Subcommittee and presented the cost analysis for the Concord Middle School using the similar Middle School Project costs from the MSBA. The projected total project cost for the new Concord Middle School with 5% escalation is between $80M - $109M and the projected cost with 7%

Project Manager’s Report February 2021 Page 2 Town of Concord Concord Middle School Project escalation is between $83M - $122M. The project budget is not yet finalized until the Design Team meets with the users and community to determine the programming, building size and enrollments.

Hill International contract for Feasibility/Schematic Design is $299,800 and SMMA contract for Feasibility/Schematic Design is $889,400.

Hill requested an additional $5,500 to contract the cost estimator, PM&C, to provide cost estimate for Feasibility Study to compare and reconcile with SMMA’s cost estimate. Hill got approval from the Leadership Team at the end of March 2020 and has completed the work. Amendment #1 was approved on September 1, 2020 for adding Feasibility cost estimate by PM&C for comparison and reconciliation with SMMA’s cost estimate.

Cash Flow Total project budget is $100,000,000. Total encumbered to date is $1,194,700. Total spent on construction to date is $0.00. Total spent to date is $761,332. 64% of total encumbered.

Project Team Summary Awarding Authority Town of Concord (ToC) Client Town of Concord / Concord Public Schools Owner’s Project Manager Hill International, Inc. (Hill) Commissioning Agent TBD Designer SMMA CM / GC TBD

Project Manager’s Report February 2021 Page 3

Project Dashboard

Town of Concord Concord Middle School Project Dashboard February 28, 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Accomplishments this Month Current Issues & Areas of Focus Current Progress Photos Completed initial Space Summary and present to Design Subcommittee on February 4, 2021 COVID-19 Pandemic Discussed Project Delivery Method at February 11, 2021 School Building Committee Meeting Final Feasibility Report Design Subcommittee Proposed Space Summary Recommendations on February 25, 2021 Sustainability Subcommittee Proposed Sustainability Recommendations on February 26, 2021

Projected Major Tasks next Month Finalize Project Delivery Method Complete Project Budget Complete Preliminary Feasibility Study Report Start Schematic Design Phase Agree on dates to authorize Schematic Design and Design Development Phases Schedule Summary - Upcoming Milestones Diversity Compliance Project Cash Flow - Plan vs Actual Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Acutal Start Actual Finish Metric Target Actual $1.4 Designer Procurement 9/25/2019 11/18/2019 9/25/2019 12/9/2019 Feasibility/Schematic Design 11/19/19 7/1/2020 11/19/19 Designer's WBE/MBE 17.9% TBD $1.2 Town Meeting (Proposed) 10/10/21 Millions $1.0 Town Vote (Proposed) 3/10/22 Contractor's WBE/MBE 10.4% TBD $0.8 Secure Finance and Execute Contracts TBD Design Development TBD $0.6 Contract Documents TBD $0.4 Estimated Expenditure Bidding TBD Construction TBD $0.2 Actual Expenditure Move-in TBD $0.0 Demolition Existing Building TBD Closeout TBD

PROJECT FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Scope changes from the Original Scope BUDGET COST CASH FLOW N/A Baseline Budget Authorized Changes Approved Budget Committed Costs Uncommitted Forecast Costs Total Project Costs Expenditures to Balance To Spend Description Costs Date

Site Acquisistion$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Construction$ 80,000,000 $ - $ 80,000,000 $ - $ 80,000,000 $ - $ 80,000,000 $ - $ 80,000,000 Design Services$ 8,281,000 $ - $ 8,281,000 $ 889,400 $ 7,391,600 $ - $ 8,281,000 $ 474,042 $ 7,806,958 Administrative$ 4,279,595 $ 5,500 $ 4,285,095 $ 305,300 $ 3,979,795 $ - $ 4,285,095 $ 287,280 $ 3,997,815 Project Budget Transfers FF&E $ 2,677,500 $ - $ 2,677,500 $ - $ 2,677,500 $ - $ 2,677,500 $ - $ 2,677,500 N/A SUBTOTAL$ 95,238,095 $ 5,500 $ 95,243,595 $ 1,194,700 $ 94,048,895 $ - $ 95,243,595 $ 761,322 $ 94,482,273

Construction Contingency (Hard Cost) $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 $ - $ 4,000,000 Owner's FFE Contingency$ - $ - $ - $ - NA NA NA$ - NA Owner's Contingency (Soft Cost) $ 761,905 $ (5,500) $ 756,405 $ - $ 756,405 $ - $ 756,405 $ - $ 756,405 SUBTOTAL$ 4,761,905 $ (5,500) $ 4,756,405 $ - $ 4,756,405 $ - $ 4,756,405 $ - $ 4,756,405

PROJECT TOTAL$ 100,000,000 $ - $ 100,000,000 $ 1,194,700 $ 98,805,300 $ - $ 100,000,000 $ 761,322 $ 99,238,678

Page 1 of 1

Project Cash Flow

February 28, 2021 Concord Middle School Estimated Project Cash Flow Thru SD Phase

Commissioning Designer & Month OPM Agent, FF&E & Construction Contingency Estimated Outlay Actual outlay Est Cum Act Cum Consultants Misc.

1 Oct-19 $38,290 $38,290 $25,110 $38,290 $25,110 2 Nov-19 $20,550 $20,550 $34,595 $58,840 $59,705 3 Dec-19 $18,790 $18,790 $20,660 $77,630 $80,365 4 Jan-20 $18,790 $75,645 $94,435 $88,210 $172,065 $168,575 5 Feb-20 $18,790 $151,290 $170,080 $167,735 $342,145 $336,310 6 Mar-20 $24,070 $161,376 $185,446 $101,535 $527,591 $437,845 Feasibility Study 7 Apr-20 $22,670 $105,903 $128,573 $110,125 $656,164 $547,970 8 May-20 $21,590 $106,361 $127,951 $100,465 $784,115 $648,435 9 Jun-20 $21,590 $96,275 $117,865 $73,474 $901,980 $721,909 10 Jul-20 $22,290 $96,275 $118,565 $15,520 $1,020,545 $737,429 11 Aug-20 $24,430 $69,318 $93,748 $3,785 $1,114,293 $741,214

Pause 12 Sep-20 $53,450 $26,957 $80,407 $720 $1,194,700 $741,934 13 Oct-20 $0 $2,590 $1,194,700 $744,524 14 Nov-20 $0 $0 $1,194,700 $744,524 15 Dec-20 $0 $16,798 $1,194,700 $761,322 16 Jan-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 $761,322 17 Feb-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700

Study 18 Mar-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 19 Apr-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700

Restart Feasibility 20 May-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 21 Jun-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 22 Jul-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 23 Aug-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 24 Sep-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 25 Oct-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700

Schematic Design 26 Nov-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700 27 Dec-21 $0 $0 $1,194,700

Subtotal for FS/ SD $305,300 $889,400 $0 $1,194,700

3/9/2021 Page 1 of 1 Town of Concord Concord Middle School Estimated Project Cash Flow Graph February 28, 2021

$1,400,000

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

Estimated Expenditure Actual Expenditure $600,000

$400,000

$200,000

Schedule Update

Concord Middle School Executive Summary Schedule Feb 5, 2021 DRAFT

Schedule Scenario Option A - No "Early" Release of Design Phases

No "Early" Release of SD Special Town Meeting Special Town Election December 10, 2021 March 10, 2022 Escalation Projection @ 2023, Q2 should be 9% Projected School Opening March 25, 2025 Project Re-Start & Schematic Design Design Development / Construction Documents Bid / Construction Punch List & Feasibility Study May 25, 2021 - Dec 6, 2021 Mar 18, 2021 - Apr 4, 2023 Award Jun 14, 2023 - Nov 18, 2024 Move-In Dec 9, 2020 - May 24, Apr 5, Nov 19, 2024 - 2021 2023 - June Mar 24, 2025 13, 2023

NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Schedule Scenario Option B - "Early" Release of Schematic Design & Design Development

"Early" Release of SD, allows for cushion between SD Special Town Meeting Special Town Election December 10, 2021 December 17, 2021 Completion & Town Meeting Escalation Projection @ ALT Special Town Election 2023, Q1 should be 8% March 10, 2022 Projected School Opening January 6, 2025 Project Re-Start & Schematic Design Design Development / Construction Documents Bid / Construction Punch List & Feasibility Study May 10, 2021 - Nov 19, 2021 Dec 30, 2021 - Jan 17, 2023 Award Mar 28, 2023 - Aug 29, 2024 Move-In Dec 9, 2020 - May 24, Jan 18, Aug 30, 2024 - 2021 2023 - Mar Jan 5, 2025 27, 2023

Dur Schedule Name Activity Start End ation July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June BASELINE SCHEDULE (Contract) 2019 09-11 Master Schedule Draft Feasability Study 11/19/19 04/03/20 136 2019 09-11 Master Schedule Draft Schematic Design 04/06/20 09/24/20 171 2019 09-11 Master Schedule Draft Design FS/SD 310 2019 09-11 Master Schedule Draft Town Meeting 11/10/20 11/10/20 0 2019 09-11 Master Schedule Draft Town Vote 12/28/20 12/28/20 0 Accelerated Scheudle (updated contract) 2020 02-06 CMS Schedule Draft R5 Feasability Study 11/19/19 03/26/20 128 2020 02-06 CMS Schedule Draft R5 Schematic Design 03/27/20 08/18/20 144 2020 02-06 CMS Schedule Draft R5 Design FS/SD 273 2020 02-06 CMS Schedule Draft R5 Town Meeting 09/16/20 09/16/20 0 2020 02-06 CMS Schedule Draft R5 Town Vote 09/30/20 09/30/20 0 Initial COVID Pause (before pause) 2020 05-12 CMS Schedule Feasability Study 11/19/19 06/12/20 206 2020 05-12 CMS Schedule Covid Pause 06/16/20 08/28/20 73 2020 05-12 CMS Schedule Schematic Design 08/31/20 03/23/21 204 2020 05-12 CMS Schedule Design FS/SD 11/19/19 03/23/21 490 2020 05-12 CMS Schedule Town Meeting 04/15/21 04/15/21 0 2020 05-12 CMS Schedule Town Vote 06/01/21 06/01/21 0 Updated COVID Pause (after pause) 2020 12-07 CMS Schedule Draft Feasability Study 11/19/19 03/15/21 482 2020 12-07 CMS Schedule Draft Covid Pause 06/16/20 12/01/20 168 2020 12-07 CMS Schedule Draft Schematic Design 03/16/21 10/21/21 219 2020 12-07 CMS Schedule Draft Design FS/SD 702 2020 12-07 CMS Schedule Draft Town Meeting 10/05/21 10/05/21 0 2020 12-07 CMS Schedule Draft Town Vote 11/23/21 11/23/21 0 Current Proposed Schudule 2021 01-26 CMS Schedule Draft Feasability Study 11/19/19 05/24/21 552 2021 01-26 CMS Schedule Draft Covid Pause 06/16/20 12/01/20 168 2021 01-26 CMS Schedule Draft Schematic Design 05/24/21 12/08/21 198 2021 01-26 CMS Schedule Draft Design FS/SD 750 2021 01-26 CMS Schedule Draft Town Meeting 12/10/21 12/10/21 0 2021 01-26 CMS Schedule Draft Town Vote 03/10/22 03/10/22 0

Cost Analysis

Concord Middle School Project Preliminary Cost Analysis

3/1/2021 Concord MS Notes SF $/SF % Estimate

New Construction 142,995.00 $ 348.00 $ 49,762,260.00 Includes ZNE Ready goal and LEEDv4 Silver certifiable benchmark Demolition / Hazmat $ 1,500,000.00 Per AMF Feasibility Estimate in May 2020, rounded up to $1.5M Site Cost $ 7,500,000.00 Per AMF Feasibility Estimate in May 2020, less lower field work and a reduction in site development TOTAL DIRECT $ 58,762,260.00

Design Contingency 12.00% $ 7,051,471.20 Based on AMF Feasibility Estimate, May 2020 Escalation 8.00% $ 5,265,098.50 Assumes bid in Q1 2023 GC 5.00% $ 3,553,941.48 Based on AMF Feasibility Estimate, May 2020 GR 2.50% $ 1,865,819.28 Based on AMF Feasibility Estimate, May 2020 Permits (waived) 0.00% P&P Bond 2.00% $ 1,529,971.81 Based on AMF Feasibility Estimate, May 2020 Profit 2.50% $ 1,950,714.06 Based on AMF Feasibility Estimate, May 2020

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 79,979,276.33 CONSTRUCTION COST PER SF $ 559.32

SOFT COSTS @ 25% $ 19,994,819.08 Includes design, OPM, and other professional services, FF&E, owner contingency, utility fees, security, technology, etc. TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 99,974,095.41

ROUNDED DOWN FOR TARGET $ 555.00 Provides an approx. $800K cushion to $100M budget limit

Meeting Minutes

Design Subcommittee Concord Middle School Building Committee Meeting Minutes - January 15, 2021 Approved: February 4, 2021 Virtual Meeting conducted via Zoom

PRESENT: Court Booth, Dawn Guarriello, Russ Hughes, Laurie Hunter, Charlie Parker, Chris Popov, Matthew Root.

PRESENT FROM HILL INTERNATIONAL: Peter Martini and Ian Hill

PRESENT FROM SMMA: Kristen Olsen.

Court Booth called the online meeting to order at 7:30 AM. He noted that the meeting was recorded. The minutes of Nov. 19 and Dec. 9, 2020 were approved. Russ Hughes was welcomed to the Subcommittee (DSC). The SBC will vote his appointment to the DSC. The original charge for the DSC was reviewed, with a similar description provided by SMMA. No changes were made in the original charge of August, 2019. The DSC calendar was discussed. Subcommittee meetings are schedule for Jan. 22, Feb. 4, Feb. 25, March 16, March 30 and April 8. At the February 25 meeting the DSC will vote recommendations that will be considered at the March 4 School Building Committee (SBC). Kristen Olsen reported that SMMA will be meeting with various stakeholders in the near future to review or add new input that will inform revisions in the space summary that is forthcoming. Some of this information will be available for the DSC meeting on Jan. 22, the balance before the meeting on Feb. 4. The space summary will be accompanied by rationale and explanation. DSC member questions related to the earlier feasibility work are being reviewed by SMMA. All additional questions for this phase, leading up to the updating of the space summary, should be sent to Kristen Olsen, cc Laurie Hunter, by early next week. All the questions will link to feasibility and space design; some may also inform the work on the Education Plan. It was noted that the Community Forum planned for 7 pm on Jan. 25 may be a suitable time for some and difficult for others, with various times necessary for future outreach and forums. The gym and auditorium proposed plan and alternatives of March 26, 2020 is the current “starting place” for any revisions that the DSC will be receiving and examining. DSC members were asked to share ideas about their most pressing questions for this stage. Information about the necessary performance and physical education space is needed in order to evaluate future space summary proposals. Discussion followed that suggest member thinking about how to consider the next space summary exercise.  Specifics about uses are required, such as how many band or chorus or drama events are typically scheduled, and event requirements. A spreadsheet furnished by the educators outlining these activities will be important for the DSC. Acoustic requirements for the performing space/s should be known. Auditoriums in all the others schools accommodate about half of their student populations. Is the Recreation Dept. involved in gym discussions for space that might exceed school needs?  What kinds of compromises about space have other middle schools made, and how might they inform our deliberations? For an MSBA project, space not approved is funded in full by the district.  Utilization of planned spaces needs to be explored further. SMMA has been working on this and DSC will see this work soon.  Our experience with the CCHS auditorium and its stage can inform this project, especially around stage setup and breakdown and safety.  Educational uses and scheduling for spaces such as maker space, library, and other spaces that are not traditional classrooms need to be understood more fully.  Input or influence from the community should not be concentrated on a few selected interest groups to the exclusion of the general community.  Will the SBC discuss and agree upon any benchmarks for utilization of space in the new facility?  Class size data shows some inconsistency across different sources that will require attention.  Parking and its relationship to possible gym and auditorium use must be calculated, as are other dependencies. Public comments. Cooperative agreements, such as those at CCHS, may be models for how the new facility could provide benefits to the community beyond the educational requirements. The plan for the community forums – format, etc. – will need to be presented. A satellite television studio as an extension of Minuteman Media Network (Town of Concord) would be a useful addition, perhaps connected to the media center. The next meeting is on January 22 at 7:30 AM. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 AM (motion by Guarriello, Popov) by roll call vote.

Meeting video available at: https://concordps.zoom.us/rec/play/7N- 6IxITk2D19qy6hVDtYTGHdeAwPK9gt0IHoFqXCEGLVyU3Ig4N64T- bzTD0BYpqoLySnN1R4cEwtYY.7ShY5A5lw5rZuY2j?startTime=1610713849000&_x_zm_rtaid=Jyi7yRIYRR621ouxBJ92 ZA.1611195212166.346cb7e4c2987eec1a97579c0511cdac&_x_zm_rhtaid=741 Design Subcommittee (DSC) Concord Middle School Building Committee (SBC) Meeting Minutes - January 22, 2021 Approved: February 4, 2021 Virtual Meeting conducted via Zoom

PRESENT: Court Booth, Dawn Guarriello, Russ Hughes, Laurie Hunter, Charlie Parker, Chris Popov, Matthew Root. PRESENT FROM HILL INTERNATIONAL: Peter Martini, Ian Parks, Duclinh Hoang PRESENT FROM SMMA: Kristen Olsen, Michael Dowhan, Phil Poinelli Court Booth called the online meeting to order at 7:30 AM. He noted that the meeting was recorded. The meeting focused on an update with slide presentation by Kristen Olsen, SMMA. It was intended to prepare for receiving and reviewing an updated Space Summary and rationales (DSC Feb. 4 meeting) and Space Summary recommendations to the SBC (Feb. 25) for its meeting on March 4. From slide presentation, the following aspects are currently under continuing review:  Program and Square-Footage of Building  Site Constraints, Conditions, Program  Conceptual Site and Building Plans  Building Materials and Massing Utilization analysis “Complex for Middle School, team teaching model. Any proposal must be confirmed through a ‘test’ Master Schedule.” Spaces other than classrooms, and approaches, were presented and discussed, including:  Learning Commons  Media Centers  Teacher Planning  Special Education  Cafeteria/Cafetorium  Gymnasium  Auditorium Site constraints such as property size, slope, septic, existing building, and setbacks were reviewed. SMMA has received questions and comments from DSC members and they will be organized in a single document and provided to DSC in the next several days. Karlen Reed (Public Access Advisory Committee) stated that the committee that advises the Select Board on matters of public access television will have the CMS project on its next agenda, considering the value of taping-broadcasting at the new school. Dawn will see that the SBC is represented at the meeting. The next meeting is on February 4 at 7:30 AM. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 AM (motion by Guarriello, Root) by roll call vote. Meeting video available at: https://concordps.zoom.us/rec/play/NpQmJS6urGoe0VfY3xTxsdgXvvVZ-eGytW1xmk8kMV3- cDpZ3feLoKaoguKm6Fn4ck0wV1GlkO3qBuRf.WYwv5zMMv06C_7KI?startTime=1611318724000&_x_zm_rtaid=GYt eOt6URPmGbSiFv_wPPA.1611799541049.6bfcfb2cce472b153d998c75024f4a32&_x_zm_rhtaid=136 Design Subcommittee (DSC) Concord Middle School (CMS) Building Committee (SBC) Meeting Minutes - February 4, 2021 Approved: Virtual Meeting conducted via Zoom

PRESENT: Court Booth, Dawn Guarriello, Russ Hughes, Laurie Hunter, Charlie Parker, Chris Popov, Matthew Root.

PRESENT FROM HILL INTERNATIONAL: Peter Martini, Ian Parks, Duclinh Hoang PRESENT FROM SMMA: Kristen Olsen, Michael Dowhan, Matt Rice

Court Booth called the online meeting to order at 7:30 AM. He noted that the meeting was recorded.

Attendance by roll call.

The minutes of January 15 and January 22, 2021 meetings were approved by roll call vote.

SMMA presented information with a slide deck organized around five areas. Slides attached. Class Size & Teams Space Needs & Use Study Space Summary - Annotated Cost Analysis Alternative Program Scenarios

The current space summary (a “ground up” review), references to the Education Plan, and current utilization projections were reviewed. Recent recommended revisions call for an additional 1,000 NSF for the gym (7,000 total), 2 art rooms, 2 music rooms and an auditorium, 1 technology classroom and 5 language classrooms.

New utilization figures were presented by SMMA, adding Teacher Planning as a scheduled activity. This will not allow for comparisons against MSBA or selected benchmarks. Kristen proposed that utilization in scheduled rooms was 90%; Mr. Parker noted an earlier conclusion of 70% for utilization of rooms that are scheduled, and requested the data to support the new SMMA figure. The SBC does not have a utilization guideline. Hill International does not have an opinion on the matter. Dawn noted that she does this kind of work and believes that flexibility for the future is important when considering utilization of a building.

The current space summary calls for 95,330 NSF, 142,995 GSF. This represents a 1% reduction from previous space recommendations. Mr. Booth noted that the number is now closer to the 125,000 GSF referenced at Town Meeting, and that there will be limited sharing of classrooms. Ms. Guarriello stated that the classroom sizing is lower than that of MSBA guidelines, and Mr. Booth noted that Concord’s class sizes are also smaller; per-pupil space is greater than MSBA calls for. The dining area will accommodate 3 lunch periods, scheduled by grade level. Musical performances calling for event seating greater than 270 will require use of the CCHS auditorium. Mr. Cameron stated that all ensemble practices must be at CCHS also; about 10-12 CMS activities annually will be scheduled at CCHS. Mr. Popov asked about site constraints and possible gym size; Ms. Olsen referenced the 15% limit on impermeable surface for the property. Space for specialized programs that can accommodate programs that previously required out-of-district placements are included, with room for growth. Mr. Root referenced the kitchen, and it was noted that it’s a full-size all-electric facility to serve the building, and includes dishwashing that is necessary for sustainability purposes.

Preliminary cost estimates now total about $1oo,000,000 ($79.98m construction, plus 25% soft costs), based on construction cost projections of $555 sf “absolute limit,” requiring diligence with material choices. All costs (demolition, fields, parking, escalation mark-ups, etc.) are included. The separate lower field will not be improved within this project. The escalation estimate is 8% annually, included. Ms. Guarriello noted that, based on her experience, she is comfortable with the $555 estimate; it may affect decisions on materials choices, and the building will be beautiful and durable. Mr. Parker noted that the current $100m cost estimate provides the project with no buffer. Ms. Guarriello believes that there is a comfortable contingency. Mr. Booth noted the range of opinion about the cost estimates, suggesting uncertainty at this stage. Hill International will continue to examine the estimates in order to verify cost estimates. Ms. Guarriello and Mr. Parks recommended that the work continue with the space and cost estimates as presented today.

Alternative scenarios that were considered include: Teaching world languages in team classrooms Removal of alternative physical education space Removal of auditorium Reduce gym size by 1,000 nsf (to 6,000)

The information reviewed and discussed at the meeting will inform a DSC recommendation on the SMMA space summary, “up or down,” on February 25. An affirmative vote will indicate that the space achieves the current and future needs outlined in the Education Plan. The completed version of the Plan, approved by the School Committee in January, will be available before the February 25 meeting.

Mr. Cameron informed the SBC about a recent meeting at which students reviewed the space summary. Mr. Booth stated that he remains concerned about meeting budget expectations. Mr. Martini noted that Hill International is focused on project schedule at price.

Public comments: Tracey Marano explained the extent of the theatre arts program at CMS, and supported attention to auditorium needs. Over 100 students are involved, with 3 productions, with high audience demand. Smaller performance space may necessitate more performances, higher costs, and use of CCHS. Pat Nelson expressed her enthusiasm for the clear vision that is driving the project.

Adjournment 9:32 AM, motion by Ms. Guarriello, second by Mr. Popov, by roll call.

The next meeting is on February 18 at 7:30 AM.

Meeting video available at: https://concordps.zoom.us/rec/play/HcCWVdKxw3vUhMoNitM7w6Aouwkk9SuxG5P1M4F- f3_6EXzCr3s5CuMUteEvaFwq4cLT9RDFC9qmf4px.sLIINWa9xe61iPCU?startTime=1612441984000&_x_zm_rtai d=FotVAauqQqW3fUkkyYDYOQ.1615476612050.362901452caa1ad9f52890ee8cb673c6&_x_zm_rhtaid=41

Attachment: Slide deck presented 2.4.21 by SMMA, pdf format Design Subcommittee (DSC) Concord Middle School (CMS) Building Committee (SBC) Meeting Minutes - February 18, 2021 Approved: February 25, 2021 Virtual Meeting conducted via Zoom

PRESENT: Court Booth, Russ Hughes, Laurie Hunter, Charlie Parker, Chris Popov, Matthew Root. ABSENT: Dawn Guarriello.

PRESENT FROM HILL INTERNATIONAL: Peter Martini, Ian Parks, Duclinh Hoang PRESENT FROM SMMA: Kristen Olsen, Michael Dowhan, Phil Poinelli

Court Booth called the online meeting to order at 7:30 AM. He noted that the meeting was recorded.

Attendance by roll call.

The minutes of the February 4, 2021 meeting are not completed yet for DSC review or approval.

Selected slides from SMMA and February 4 DSC (Summary of Spaces, and Alternative Scenarios) and February 11 SBC (#30) meetings were reviewed.

Mr. Parker noted that the reduction in classroom size from MSBA guidelines reflects both Concord’s average class size of 19.5 vs. MSBA at 24 and that it scales or tracks to MSBA on a student/ Sq Ft basis. He also commented that we should not think of the addition of 9 team commons ‘as coming from the classrooms’. In fact, on a sq. ft. per student basis, the team classrooms are larger than the MSBA classrooms. Dr. Hunter noted that the per-student space over MSBA guidelines will enable additional inclusion efforts in the future.

Discussion was centered on the Education Plan, benchmarks, utilization, classroom size and scheduling, budget and alternative program scenarios.

Mr. Parker noted that the current program scenario shows a 4.5% reduction exclusive of the new auditorium and a 1% reduction in overall GSF, including the auditorium. He commended the design team for its work in recommending these changes. Mr. Popov noted that the current variance over an MSBA guideline (14%) provides for flexibility that may prove necessary. Mr. Parker stated that the variance results from three factors – Concord’s average class size, the room scheduling and utilization, and the team commons. Ms. Olsen noted that CMS students may have more classes than that of the benchmark schools, and Dr. Hunter stated that CMS is unique for its aversion to student time in study halls. Mr. Popov stated that we should learn how CMS might have more teaching time than other schools in the region. Perhaps we can further quantify the nuances that make one school’s space requirements different than another. Overall scheduling, of scheduled spaces, is about 72%, when teacher planning is not scheduled in specific classrooms. The project does not have a utilization goal.

The subcommittee reviewed a spreadsheet updated by Hill, that outlines space allocations, classroom availability and classroom scheduling. Additional work, for class schedules for FACS for example, will be necessary. It was noted that a one-page overview such as this will be very helpful for the SBC. It was noted that the section, “Other Learning Areas,” may require attention if overall sizing changes are necessary, if the scheduled classrooms and commons (about 53% of the total GSF) are to remain at current dimensions.

Mr. Root noted that the current budget estimate is now at the top of the range, $80m-$100m. He believes that the sustainability objectives can be met for about one percent of the budget total, or $1m, with more work such as life cycle cost analysis to be completed. Mr. Popov noted that DSC will benefit from other schools and cost comparisons, relative to sustainability investments. Ms. Olsen noted that the $555 GSF cost estimate assumes “net zero ready” and the 25 EUI target. Mr. Root noted that sustainability investment is more than a cost, per se, as sustainability itself has important educational and student health potential that must be realized.

Mr. Parker noted that the auditorium was recently added to the design at the urging of the DSC, because it was needed; that the DSC’s recommendations must center on building what is needed and not building what is not needed, interpreting the Education Plan for the community.

Mr. Booth asked for informal and non-binding opinions on the space summary and alternatives, to inform and prepare for formal recommendations to come forth at the next meeting.

The DSC considered the question, should the design team produce alternatives that bring the project under $100m? The majority favored a design that would provide for flexibility in the form of a reduction to $98M-$95m.

5 World Language classrooms majority opinion do not change

Alternative PE room divided opinion (no change or remove); review further

Auditorium majority opinion do not remove; do not increase size

Gym majority to not reduce size; majority opinion no increase; (some undecided, and private funding has recently communicated interest)

Team Commons majority opinion do not change

Teacher Planning room majority opinion do not change

Media Center divided between a) defer to Superintendent b) review further

Maker Space room divided between a) defer to Superintendent b) review further

Public comments: Karlen Reed, 80 Whits End Rd, urged the committee to use care in its cost-related deliberations.

Adjournment 9:32 AM, motion by Popov, second by Root, by roll call.

The next meeting is on February 25 at 7:30 AM.

Meeting video available at: https://concordps.zoom.us/rec/play/XShiy1x_uJ3GYoWq7O_SijfrM9lnl2THTJDeKnBH- 5TFWfMiGjT0M460Wmyommw7blMwereMO1kbKU0.R8QEQD4SVqatASXA?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=3GUfaf1hS- uBEerMG0vYMg.1613762621768.0b19a42a31c486a7f8eb66af356683b3&_x_zm_rhtaid=935 Design Subcommittee (DSC) Concord Middle School (CMS) Building Committee (SBC) Meeting Minutes - February 25, 2021 Approved: Virtual Meeting conducted via Zoom

PRESENT: Court Booth, Dawn Guarriello, Russ Hughes, Laurie Hunter, Charlie Parker, Chris Popov, Matthew Root. PRESENT FROM HILL INTERNATIONAL: Peter Martini, Ian Parks, Duclinh Hoang PRESENT FROM SMMA: Kristen Olsen, Michael Dowhan, Phil Poinelli Court Booth called the online meeting to order at 7:30 AM. He noted that the meeting was recorded. Attendance by roll call. The minutes of the February 18, 2021 meeting were amended and approved. Attached. The general history of the space proposals from the outset of the work on the new building to the present was reviewed. The Town Meeting article calling for a $80-$100m budget was noted; some DSC members consider it relevant to space and sizing considerations, while others consider it relevant later and at the SBC level. Mr. Parks recommended attention to the Education Plan and space first, with budget considerations to follow. The comparisons with MSBA and other schools that are considered benchmarks, for size and projected cost per square foot, were briefly reviewed, noting CMS variances. Utilization (class scheduling) for classrooms and the gym and auditorium was discussed; Dr. Hunter noted that the DSC has examined different sets of data that have been developed for this purpose. Mr. Popov recommended that sizing for the gym include further consideration of alternatives that have been developed. Ms. Olsen stated that the 7,000 nsf dimension, and the “Alt PE” room , would be sufficient for school needs. Interviews with various stakeholders regarding the gym were conducted. Mr. Parker noted that different gym sizing could involve the Recreation Department with an approach similar to that of the Beede Center. Dr. Hunter stated that the independent funding for fields at the high school and separating it from that building project was a reason for success. She remined the DSC that larger gym sizing would require changes in other aspects of the design, as the current design is at the 15% limit for impermeable surface; a variance is not automatic. Mr. Booth recommended that the “treetop” design that was recommended by DSC in the winter of 2020 be reconsidered if necessary for space and cost. He also asked Ms. Olsen and Dr. Hunter if any alternatives were prepared for consideration today, noting the request made at the February 18 meeting. The DSC voted on items identified in the space summary as Alternative Scenarios.  The DSC voted unanimously to recommend the gym sizing of 7,000 nsf, noting that alternatives may remain. (Motion by Mr. Parker, second by Mr. Root.)

 The DSC voted unanimously to recommend the one-grade (270 seat) auditorium in the current space summary. (Motion by Mr. Parker, second by Mr. Hughes.)

 The DSC voted unanimously to recommend the 1600 nsf “Alt PE” room, noting that alternatives may remain. (Motion by Mr. Root, second by Mr. Parker.)

 The DSC voted, six in favor, one opposed, to recommend the 3400 nsf Media Center. (Motion by Ms. Guarriello, second by Mr. Root.)

 The DSC voted unanimously to recommend 1000 nsf Maker Space room, noting that alternatives may remain. (Motion by Ms. Guarriello, second by Mr. Hughes.)

 The DSC voted unanimously to recommend that the remainder of the space summary recommendations in the February 11, 2020 SMMA presentation be moved forward to the SBC for consideration. (Motion by Ms. Guarriello, second by Mr. Root.)

Karlen Reed, 83 Whits End, recognized the clean, open and deliberative process of the DSC. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 AM by roll call vote. (Motion by Ms. Guarriello, second by Mr. Popov.) Video link: https://concordps.zoom.us/rec/share/t29xky4Xl8jQ6k8kNSINv8QEVTEO8oZu0WTQmxfBbnFzhIGdjWdENNR hLdhfelmC.T06OfcGP_Ppfpy_G?startTime=1614256371000

Concord Middle School Building Committee Meeting Minutes February 21, 2021

PRESENT: Laurie Hunter, Dawn Guarriello, Court Booth, Pat Nelson, Matt Root, Matt Johnson, Charles Parker, Stephen Crane, Frank Cannon, Jared Stanton, Chris Popov, John Harris, Kate Hanley, Russ Hughes, Heather Bout, Justin Cameron

PRESENT FROM HILL INTERNATIONAL: Peter Martini, Ian Parks, Duclinh Hoang

PRESENT FROM SMMA/EWING COLE: Kristen Olsen, Philip Poinelli, Bill Smarzewski, Martine Dion

MEETING ORGANIZER: Dawn Guarriello

Call to Order Dawn Guarriello called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. via Zoom Virtual Conference call. A recording of the meeting will be made available at the Concord Public School’s project page and Town of Concord’s website.

Approval of Minutes Heather Bout made a motion to approve the minutes of the Building Committee Meeting Minutes from May 14, 2020, December 10, 2020 and January 7, 2021. Seconded by Stephen Crane. Motion carried unanimously with Matt Johnson abstaining on the May 14, 2020 meeting vote and Justin Cameron abstaining on the January 7, 2021 meeting vote.

Subcommittee and Project Team Business Dawn Guarriello asked for any volunteers or nominations for the role of vice chair and asked Pat Nelson provided an update on the role of the vice chair. The vice chair is someone who is willing to step in if one of the chairs had to step down or if there is no chair available to chair a meeting and someone who would be willing to keep up with emails and correspondences. No nominations for role of vice chair. Topic was tabled.

Heather Bout provided an update on the Communications Subcommittee (CSC) and is no longer recommendation a change in structure but a change in membership since Pat Nelson became co-chair of the School Building Committee. Heather Bout gave an update on communications on what the subcommittee has been doing and what they will be going to do moving forward. The subcommittee is looking to expand community outreach in terms of outgoing communications and collecting input. Listening sessions with various groups in town has been on-going throughout the month and into next. Recently the group has met with League of Women Voters and an upcoming meeting with the Commission on Disability and Rotary. There is an update to the distribution list, one list is for end users who receives an announcement of what’s happening and a separate list for Point of Contact List. The Point of Contact list includes all of the town committee chairs and heads of organizations. Community forums will be on Town Calendar moving forward.

Stephen Crane made a motion to add Kate Hanley to the Communications Subcommittee. Motion was seconded by Court Booth. Motion carried unanimously.

Dawn Guarriello provided an update on the Finance Subcommittee and noted the only members are currently John Harris and Jared Stanton.

Heather Bout made a motion to add Stephen Crane to the Finance Subcommittee. Motion was seconded by Matt Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.

Court Booth provided an update on the Design Subcommittee and motioned to add Russ Hughes to the subcommittee. Seconded by Matt Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.

Educational Plan Update Kristen Olsen of SMMA provided an update on the educational plan noting there was a number of revisions and was approved by the School Committee on January 26, 2021. Dr. Laurie Hunter noted the Educational Plan can be found on the webpage and is available to everyone.

Construction Delivery Method Peter Martini of Hill International discussed the Construction Delivery Method describing Massachusetts General Law Chapter 149 (design-bid-build) and Chapter 149A (Construction Manager at-risk). Chapter 149 is a traditional system is where the lowest price on bid day gets the job. The drawings are complete and there is no input from the General Contractor (GC). The General Contractor’s contract is a lump sum. Chapter 149A allows you to engage and interview the Construction Managers (CM) as early as Design Development. The CM is brought on in a competitive basis based upon their qualifications, percentage fee and general conditions. The CM would provide input during bidding and is part of their pre-construction proposal. The CM’s contract is open book with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) meaning if the final costs are below the GMP then the money goes back to the Town. Some disadvantages to 149 Design-Bid Build is the hard price is unknown until all bids are received, there is no GC input in design or planning and is prone to changes and claims which may increase final project cost. Disadvantages to 149A CM at-risk is potential for higher upfront cost for CM assistance, potential for higher cost due to more management personnel and potential for change orders when design intent is challenged.

Next, Ian Parks of Hill International presented known factors and influence of the two delivery methods to the committee. Ian Parks noted there is sufficient time available for the design and bid process. Sustainability features can be designed without CM input without having them engaged early. The project is not an addition/renovation project which would not impact the current school program or activities. A risk factor to be aware of is the market costs in 2023 can be projected through escalation but remain a risk.

Schedule Discussion To be discussed at next school building committee.

Cash Flow Update To be discussed at next school building committee.

Concord Middle School Designer Update Kristen Olsen of SMMA provided some key points during the design subcommittee meeting by doing a refresher on what is applicable on the general site information and constraints, zoning and permits and existing Sanborn School is to remain in operation until the new school opens. For site zoning, Preliminary feedback from Town Staff noted the impervious lot coverage does need to remain under 15% because there is not an existing non-conformance at this site.

It was noted during the design subcommittee meetings, SMMA has been using the approved Educational Plan as a cornerstone to developing the space recommendations. The enrollment is confirmed at 700 students for Grades 6-8 with class sizes of 19-20 students per class. SMMA had started with the review of the master schedule and factored in any anticipated future activities. The new school schedule would assume 3 lunches, one per grade. The design team recommended space summary of 95,330 nsf and 142,995 gsf (1.5 multiplier). Since 2020, there was an overall reduction of 1,000 gsf. The space plan was able to increase efficiencies by increasing the gymnasium by 1,000 nsf from 6,000 to 7,000 to improve perimeter run-off zone. Music and Performance now accommodate 1-grade level auditorium. World Languages program classrooms were maintained in dedicated classrooms but one fewer. Team teaming approach has been maintained with 4 on-team subjects.

SMMA provided a preliminary cost analysis noting they were building it from the ground up carrying over the demolition and abatement cost from the March 2020 estimate, updating escalation based on project references to 8% and reducing site cost from prior estimate. The project will no longer include work on the lower fields so the new site target cost would be $7.5M or lower. The updated construction cost is around $555/sf which would bring the total construction cost to around $80M.

Correspondence Heather Bout noted since the last meeting, the committee has received 4 emails to the whole committee regarding technology use in the Ed Plan and curriculum, suggestion for a TV studio in the new building, MEF and wiring, and use of geothermal. The correspondences get responded to by the chairs of the subcommittees and is being tracked.

Public Comment Linda Nieman, 59 Mallard, asked about the net zero ready infrastructure if during the design process the project had been in contact with CMLP and if the structures will be root tops or is it going to be over the parking structure.

Kristen Olsen of SMMA noted the $555/sf does assume a baseline of net zero ready and is moving forward with the target EUI of 25 or better. SMMA does perform a life cycle cost analysis of various mechanical systems during the schematic design phase. It was noted the cost of the solar panels themselves is currently not part of the project cost. CMLP will procure the panels and the scope of work for solar.

Upcoming Meetings The next School Building Committee is March 04, 2021 at 7:30 am. Subcommittee meetings have yet to be established. Dates will be posted once available.

Adjournment Dawn Guarriello requested the meeting to be adjourned at 9:34 AM. Frank Cannon made the motion to adjourn, Chris Popov seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Details of this meeting can be found on the YouTube link below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyizbTP7qBY

Minutes for CMSBC Sustainability Subcommittee - Jan 13, prepared by Charlie Parker

Attendees: Charlie Parker, Frank Cannon, Kate Hanley, Laurie Hunter, Matt Root, Russell Hughes, Kristen Olsen, Martine Dion, Lois Arena, Duclinh Hoang, Ian Parks, Peter Martini

Meeting was convened by Matt Root, Chair, on Jan 13 at 2:32PM

Climate Bill Update:

Kate Hanley presented a brief update on the status of the MA Climate Bill. It has been signed by the Legislature and is awaiting the Governor's signature. Bill includes a local option for a Net Zero Stretch Code that municipalities can adopt, starting in 2022.

SMMA Presentation: 'Sustainability Subcommittee' Jan 13th, 2021

 Presentation was delivered by SMMA staff and covered Energy Performance/Net Zero Ready, HVAC, Lighting, and Plumbing, as well as goals and project phases.

Comments during presentation included:

 Matt Root asked Russ Hughes to comment on Controls. Our schools use Johnson Controls and SMMA made the point that we have two options for our bid for control systems: proprietary or competitive with the latter being less expensive.  Matt Root asked for thoughts from the SMMA HVAC presenter on how ventilation system designs were changing in response to COVID. Presenter indicated that one impact is on MERV filtration. The ASHRAE range is 13-16 and some schools pursue the better (higher) filter standard.  Charlie Parker asked about energy recovery and HVAC presenter indicated that energy recovery is a basic component of DOAS systems.  Kate Hanley commented on the possible impacts of rooftop units on availability of the rooftop for solar. Martine indicated that the impact will not be significant in terms of meeting standards and that canopies can be built on top of the systems to broaden available area if necessary.  Matt Root asked about the need for freeze protection on stand-by generator sizing. Presenter indicated that it is a major consideration in standby generator size and cost. Russ Hughes indicated that our back-up generators at our schools do not address freeze protection and average 150KW in size vs 500KW as listed in the SMMA schedule for our CMS building. There are savings opportunities here.

Summary of Sustainability Elements and Costs detailed by SMMA from last year

 Schedule and costs were detailed by Matt and flagged as a response to the initial cost estimate. Detail is available on the Building Project website under Sustainability Subcommittee Recommendations. Matt recommended that this schedule should be reflected in our materials and deliberations as we proceed, as this schedule has already been recommended to the CMSBC by the Sustainability Subcommittee and served the specific purpose of providing guidance based on the initial cost estimate.  Charlie Parker raised the issue of automated internal shading (this had been included in the original SMMA materials on sustainability and pricing for the various options). SMMA committed to address both internal and external systems and architectural detailing for glare and shading control.

Kristen requested written feedback on the SMMA presentation by Monday (input and/or questions). Matt would like to receive these comments by Sunday, Jan 17.

Matt displayed a draft matrix of the current sustainability metrics under consideration. Further discussion of these metrics will occur in the next two meetings, where upon a final list will be voted on to move to the full Committee.

Motion to adjourn by Kate Hanley at 3:53, seconded by Frank Cannon.

Minutes for CMSBC Sustainability Subcommittee– January 28, 2021, prepared by Charlie Parker

Attendees: Charlie Parker, Frank Cannon, Kate Hanley, Laurie Hunter, Matt Root, Russell Hughes, Kristen Olsen, Martine Dion, Duclinh Hoang, Ian Parks, Peter Martini

Meeting was convened by Matt Root, Subcommittee Chair, on Jan 13 at 8:02PM

Approval for the minutes for the previous meeting (1/13/2021) was moved forward by Kate Hanley and seconded by Russell Hughes - unanimously approved.

Kristen proceeded with a presentation of Sustainability slides 1/28/2021, starting with questions that had been submitted by the subcommittee based on the previous meeting.

Water usage: 30% water usage reduction goal vs code requirements, no irrigation planned

Storm Water reuse: No current plans for interior use. UV lights could be used for toilet water, but it becomes a maintenance issue.

MERV impacts: Andy O. mentioned that Merv 13 is the standard they follow, but COVID may push the requirement to higher level (i.e. Merv 16 may mitigate virus risks). Fan horse power increases as MERV increases and this will impact the EUI in increases power requirements. Different options could be modelled.

GSHP: Question is first cost. But SMMA is prepared to evaluate it if we are interested. Long payback period. Decision point is whether to pursue a test bore hole which is additional cost if the bore hole is not used. Schematic design is the time to start to focus on GSHP merits/costs.

Displacement ventilation: This is an excellent system with value add to air quality and comfort. Trade- off is the necessity to provide heat through a separate system and that will be extra cost. Displacement ventilation systems must be separated from the heating systems.

Electric kitchen: No issues. However, the basic challenge is how much ventilation is required and how to manage it. Demand control ventilation system is recommended. No oil-based fryers, but there are air friers. Possibility to eliminate fried foods. And, no cooking days are possibility as well to reduce energy demand.

Gas burners in science labs: There are viable electric alternatives.

Matt recommended that we get a better focus on what metrics and capabilities we prefer – example is MERV 16 as a choice. Recommendation is to start narrowing our preferences. Kristen said this narrowing process will happen in the Schematic Design Phase.

Daylighting: Need a conversation during schematic design on the results of daylight modeling and the different design options associated with daylighting. 25% window to wall ratio. Quality of the daylight should be the key goal.

EUI: ASHRAE EUI of 19 is possible but nor realistic. Level of the ASHRAE modelling is not at the level necessary to provide a realistic number. Operational behavior to get to EUI 25 will be critical – plug loads, screen savers, set points for HVAC. Charlie asked for a more aggressive approach to the EUI to ensure that we achieve 25 and not stray upwards toward the 30’s. Window to Wall ratio for Net Zero is ~25 but daylighting requirements will be reviewed in each instance. General range is 25-30. And, it’s about a strategic approach to window placement.

Waste Reduction: MA law mandates construction recycling. Monthly reports will be required on waste- reduction related to construction.

Healthy materials: Following LEED guidelines. Will pursue Environmental Product Declaration and Health Product Declaration credits. Minimum 50% FSC wood with a goal of 90%. Low emitting materials will also be included.

Building Envelope Details: In Feasibility currently; building has not been detailed which will start in Design. Air infiltration will be addressed during commissioning. A spec for testing will be developed during schematic design. 0.08 is an acceptable target but SMMA would recommend 0.10 to 0.15.

Discussion of Metrics:

Kristen asked for the Committee’s high-level goals and asked to Zoom out. Kate asked why we need to continue focusing on the same high-level material and that this is confusing in terms of what we are trying to do. Kate indicated that the matrix takes us to the next level and that we’ve already proposed these same goals. The question is whether we are making progress in getting a better definition or are we retracing old ground. Kristen recommended that we hold-off on getting more specific until we get to the Schematic Design Phase. Matt responded with comments that we need to get more specific now to ensure that we hit the targets that are important. Matt also recommended that we review the EZ Stretch Code as a vehicle to get to where the Committee would like to be.

Next Steps:

Need to organize our recommendation by starting with a prioritization of our goals through metrics.

Citizen Comments:

Brian Foulds commented that he feels the process seems to be getting in the way of moving ahead substantively on areas like metrics, which are important.

Jerry Frenkil suggested a model for evaluating the contribution of each design choice in terms of impact on the EUI. This would require a cost/benefit analysis of each choice to determine ways to optimize the overall design to get to our 25 goal.

Michael McAteer appreciates discussion on metrics. Requests focus on daylighting and using the school as an instrument for education, including using solar. NBI has gathered information on EUI for schools.

Kate Hanley made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Russ, and agreed by the full committee at 9:29 am.