Um, starting with as per usual with Mike Bardi, >> Stacy Rizzo, >> yes. >> Susan Graalisi >> here. >> Dr. Kelly, not here yet. Carl Spenson
>> here. >> Christopher Bowen >> here. Rich Visque >> here. >> Don Ceremela >> not here. Nick Rystrom
>> here. >> Mayor Keith >> here. >> Tom Skarowski >> here. >> John Stmatopoulos >> present. >> Anthony Kagglandro
>> here. Don Martelli >> here >> and uh Josh Miranda absent and Chris Saramela absent. Thank
you. We have a quorum. >> I am going to share the screen. Linda uh Linda will handle the roll calls a little easier for me to run the screen. The agenda is on the screen. Agenda item two, approval of meeting minutes from
October 22nd. Um, I'm just trying to also keep my eye on if Dr. Kelly shows up. So, any comments on the distributed uh meeting minutes from October 22nd? If not, we would entertain a motion to
approve the minutes from October 22nd, 2025. A motion to approve. >> Second. Second. >> All right. Motion made, seconded. Um, roll call starting with Mike Bardi. >> I'm going to abstain, Linda, because I
wasn't at the last meeting. >> Okay. >> I do work in auction, but it does happen. >> Stacy Rissa. Yes. >> Thank you, Susan Graalisi. >> Yes, >> Carl Spenson.
>> Yes. >> Christopher Bowen. >> Yes. >> Rich Visque. >> Yes. >> Nick Rystrom. >> Yes. >> Mayor Keith. >> Yes. >> Tom Sarowski.
>> Yes. >> John Stoopoulos. Yes, >> Anthony Kagglandro. >> Yes, >> Don Martelli. >> I will abstain. I was not present at last meeting. >> Thank you very much,
>> Brian. Back to you. >> Excellent. Uh, agenda item three. So, we have um a budget revision request um to share that is an accounting reconciliation. So, um I'm going to jump into this. The BRR form is on the
screen. This is a a typical MSBA form. Uh, one key point with this BRR, these are the sections that are on the screen now that we are to use if there's a contingency draw down. There is no contingency expenditure for this BRR.
Uh, this BRR is to realign two of the approve the existing allowance values in the left field contract. Um basically we awarded a number of allowance categories um when we went from feasibility study
into the main project. Um there have been a few recent last month um items where we funded additional services related to soil explorations that required amendments. What I didn't do when we approved those was clean up um
one of the pre- amendment items. um we more or less had money in two categories that was going to be intended to fund the original Sandborn Head uh proposal. So what we didn't do is just move the remainder of one of those
categories to another category. So this is not expending contingency. This is just taking a line uh I'll show you the lines in the budget. um taking an existing value from uh a
cost estimating subline and putting it into a reimburseable and other services line. Anytime money jumps between some of these categories, we have to do a BRR both to keep the MSBA up to date and to work with uh Rich Fiske and his staff to
make sure the MUNS budget is up to date. So uh high level we need to move 40,000 um from the estimates category into other reimburseable services to fund uh the first soil precaracterization
proposal. So again, no additive value to the owner, no contingency draw. This money's already in the left field contract. We just want it on one line instead of two. Uh, and Rich, this is one of the items I'll follow up with you on just to make sure as these moves get made, we know you and Asuna are up to
date. >> Much appreciated, Brian. And um, I'll make a motion to approve that if no one has any question. >> I just confirm one thing, Stacy. I'm seeing you twice on this call. I just wanted to make sure that it
wasn't >> Yes. I I'm switching over to another >> Perfect. Thank you. I I figured it was correct because I had your picture on both of them, but just making sure. >> Oh, what a lovely picture.
>> Especially after that last time when we got bombed. >> That's why I'm >> Yeah, we're still sensitive about this. Yeah, >> I I think paranoid might be a better >> Yeah, >> better description, but okay. Um,
we will do the roll call for this motion to approve the BRR starting with Mike Bardi. >> Yes. >> Stacy Rizzo. >> Yes. >> Susan Graalisi. >> Yes.
>> And I don't see Dr. Kelly yet. Uh, Carl Spenson, >> yes. >> Christopher Bowen, >> yes. >> Rich Visque, >> yes. >> Nick Rystrom, >> yes. >> Mayor Keith, >> yes.
>> Tom Skarowski, >> yes. >> John Stematopoulos, did we lose John? >> Yes. Yes. >> There we are. Thank you, Anthony Conglandra. Yes, >> Don Martelli.
>> Yes. >> Excellent. Thank you, >> Brian. Back to you again. >> We will move on to agenda item four, uh, October invoices. I wanted to I'm going to start doing something a little different that I think will help.
>> I know the committee's interested um in keeping track of how complete our various things uh making sure that the invoicing doesn't get ahead of the work. So, um, what I'm going to start doing is including and I would we can, uh, email this around to folks, but I'm including
a percentage complete for each task on these invoices. We can look at it in the budget as well. It's just I find that looking at this spreadsheet on these meetings is a little bit tricky. So, what we've done is uh, review each invoice, individual invoice as they came
in, compare them back to their tasks. I'll start at the top with the left field invoice. Um we are billing to 80% completion of construction documents. Uh we'll be done with the construction documents phase in December. So we're getting close to that. Uh construction
administration in terms of um being out on site and uh monitoring what's going on out there. We are 3% completion of that which makes sense in the grand p um scheme of the project and that we had the site prep phase. Then with subconsultant work down here, we are um
billing 15% completion of code red's NFPA for review um which that one not only is upfront review of documents on behalf of the city and the fire department, they're also going to be monitoring and verifying things during
construction. So that's a low number, 15% complete because that's something that's going to carry forward the next few years. Uh the first sandborn head proposal here is billing at 100% completion. That initial proposal of soil precarization is complete. We're on
to the second and third uh rounds of that which will be invoicing in the coming month. Code Red's review of building and life safety is at 70% completion. Uh that it does make sense. That's a lot further along than the NFPA review because this is a document-based review. They review
the documents, they issue comments, we in the design team incorporate those comments going forward. So as we get to the close of the final construction document phase, this will uh get to 100% complete in the coming months. And finally, uh one of the other left field
subconsultants, SGH Flood Mitigation Consulting, that's also a proposal that will survive the life of the project. the last deliverable um will come at the end of the project when that will they will turn over a document uh about that
brings together the impact of major flooding events and what might need to happen in the building what might need to happen to clean it up etc. So um they're in their phase right now of document review and setting some of those items up their services will last
for the duration of the project. Um, so those are all the invoices included in left field invoice 56. The invoice total is $555,570. Uh, any questions on the left field invoice? If not, we'd seek a motion to approve.
>> So moved. >> Second. Thank you, ladies. Uh, roll call. Mike Bikardi, >> yes. >> Stacy Rizzo, >> yes. >> Susan Graalisi, >> yes.
>> Carl Spenson, >> yes. >> Christopher Bowen, >> yes. >> Rich Visque, >> yes. >> Nick Rystrom, >> yes. >> Mayor Keith, >> yes. Tom Sarowski, >> yes.
>> John Stematopoulos, >> yes. >> Anthonyro, >> yes. >> John Martelli, >> yes. >> Thank you. Uh next invoice Perkins Eastman uh
invoice for October billing to 86% completion of construction documents and uh their subconsultant work this month is billing to 46% complete of BHP who's the profit the projects uh traffic consultant um both of these are in
alignment with where we feel they should be invoice total for Perkins Eastman $1,112,25421 1 cents. >> If no questions on that, we'd seek a motion to approve the Perkins Eastman invoice for October. >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> And Dr. Kelly just joined, Linda, in case you didn't see. >> 544 for the record. Linda, >> thank you. 544. Thank you. Okay. And we will do the roll call for Perkins Eastman's invoice. Mike
Picardi. >> Yes. >> Stacy Rizzo. >> Yes. >> Susan Graalisi. >> Yes. Did you get that? >> No, I didn't. >> Sorry. >> No worries. Thank you, Susan. Um, Dr.
Kelly, are you are you ready? >> Yes. Thank you. Carl Spenson, >> yes. >> Christopher Bowen, >> yes. >> Rich Visque. >> Yes. >> Nick Rystrom. >> Yes.
>> Mayor Keith. >> Yes. >> Tom Skowski. >> Yes. >> John Stematopoulos. >> Yes. >> Anthony Kagglandro. >> Yes. >> Don Martelli. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Uh next is a uh standalone invoice from National Grid. This is an individual budget line uh not associated with left field conciglia Perkins Eastman contract for utility company fees. Uh we've
originally budgeted $300,000. We had a previous expenditure um for their initial engineering uh study to basically make sure they have capacity within the system. this second invoice which will bill uh against this $300,000
budget. There is uh 105 or so remaining in that category that we might or might not need to expend. Um $140,000 is the um invoice from National Grid to provide the final design for permanent
electrical service to the site. There are no questions on the National Grid um back charge 140,000. We seek a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh for the roll call. Mike
Mccardi. >> Yes. >> Stacy Rizzo. >> Yes. >> Susan Graalisi. >> Yes. >> Dr. Kelly. >> Yes. >> Carl Spenson. >> Yes. >> Christopher Bowen. >> Yes.
>> Rich Visc. >> Yes. Nick Rystrom, >> yes. >> Mayor Keith, >> yes. >> Tom Skarowski, >> yes.
>> John Stematopoulos, >> yes. >> Anthony Kagglandro, >> yes. >> And John Martelli, >> yes. Sorry, I was muted. >> No worries. Thank you. >> Sounds good. Last invoice. Consigly uh
first off for pre-construction services billing to 94 uh% completion. I think we have another month in there of pre-construction services. Um and down here on the construction requisition, this is requisition 5A for the month of
October. Uh a lot of these top lines, CME, bond, insurance, um etc. all bill as a percentage of the work done. So typically what I'll do on these is um is note the percentage complete. This is about 4.8% of awarded work. Um we've
awarded about a third of the job. So overall um um percentage complete is much smaller, oneish percent, but uh for right now we're billing to 4.8% of awarded work on the direct lines. If you hear me say direct lines, that's um a
subcontractor who has a an established contract value. The only one on this is temp fencing, which is billing to 86% completion. Ultimately, as we have dozens of trades here, you'll see different percentages for well, this is how much concrete's done. This is how much steel's done. This is how much the
windows are done. But for now, the only direct billing in here is the 86% completion of temp fencing. Everything else is a percentage of that. And uh general conditions, general requirements are not really percentage-based items. Those are items to uh establish the job,
get the job site trailers done, etc. So, we'll um as we get closer to GMP, we'll do a more detailed breakdown of general conditions and requirements. But um like the entire Conigly invoice, this is something the architect reviews and certifies is accurate, left field
reviews and certified is accurate. And the total value for Conigi invoices for the month is $166,22687. There's no questions there. We'd seek a motion to approve the Consigi invoice. >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> Starting the roll call with Mike Picardi. Yes, >> Stacy Rizzo. >> Yes, >> Susan Graalisi. >> Yes, >> Dr. Kelly. >> Yes, >> Carl Senson.
>> Christopher Bowen. >> Yes. >> Rich Visque. >> Yes. >> Nick Rystrom. >> Yes. >> Mayor Keith. >> Yes. >> Tom Skarowski. >> Yes. >> John Stematopoulos.
Say yes. Did you hear me? >> Second time. Got it. Thank you. Anthony Cavandro. >> Yes. >> Don Martelli. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. Brian. >> Okay. We have um we're going to proceed
to agenda item five which is a consigly contract um amendment related to the followup of all the discussions we've had about soil pre-caracterization and the expanded soil precarization
uh experience we've had over the last number of months. So um this committee has processed two amendments to Sanborn head scope as a subconultant to left field. What we are proposing via Conigley amendment 7 is to award an
owner's allowance in the value of $1 million to the site work um line in the budget um so that we can fund any future expansion of the ground improvements program that Sanborn Head is heading up.
Um there's two benefits to this. One is that we can react a bit quicker. a lot of this soil related work. Um, we get a proposal, we go out and do what we think is right. Some of those tests come back that require follow-up. There could be a reportable event. Sanborn Head would
then give us a proposal to do that work. We'd have to come back to the committee, get it authorized as a contract amendment. So, there's an efficiency factor in awarding this to the sitework line as an allowance. Um, additionally, it just it allows us to get through that
program a lot quicker. The costs in the proposals will still be tracked. They'll still come to you on the in on the Consigi invoices. They'll be reviewed. And since this is an owner allowance, any unused money from that $1 million
allowance will come back to the city. Um, I think it'll come back around the time of GMP. By the nature of all this soil work, by the time we get to March or so when we're going to be talking about the final guaranteed maximum price contract, we'll be done with this work
and we can resolve how we did against the $1 million allowance. Uh lastly, this allowance is included in the 90% construction documents estimate. um that even though we're not going through that in detail tonight, that estimate
including the award of this allowance is still maintaining the $10 million target that we'll call it the $42 million target that represents the overall 10 million reduction to the $412 million construction budget. So, um, in the end,
this is a way for us to keep up with this due diligence faster, uh, to have less work that we have to bother you to have interim meetings, yet the cost will still be quantified, tracked, monitored,
and approved via the um, Consigi requisition. Um, so just two different quick ways to look at it. We have previously I'm going to put up the simple version of this chart. Consigly's original pre-construction contract. They've had six amendments and the total
value of $133 million. This amendment would simply add a million dollar owners allowance to the trade costs. Um, and we have sort of a bigger spreadsheet ultimately. That's this is the spreadsheet we would track with Rich Viske and his staff to track exactly
where in this expanding budget all these categories you see down the left whether they're finished categories, specialties, HVAC, plumbing. Um, this spreadsheet tracks where in the budget this allowance ends up it ends up on the division 31 site work line. I see Mike Picardi's hand up, so I'm going to I'm
going to stop talking and let you ask your question, Mike. >> Thanks, Bri. Um, first of all, I think this is a great idea because that's going to just prevent change order after change order after change order when they find more and more dirt that they have to that they didn't know about. Um, my first question is, is this going to
be towards straight towards Conigley's work or is this going to the site contractor French? >> So, the actual work is done by Sanborn Head, the licensed site professional. Um, and basically the Conigi requisition
when it comes in will have a Sandborn head invoice attached to it and billing with it. So the work isn't actually construction work. It's not work that can consider their subs would do. It's digging holes, testing holes, sending them to a lab, analyzing the results,
putting out reports, and if soil needs to be tracked off site, it's providing the forms that um show it's okay to send it to the landfill. It needs to go to the appropriate type of landfill. So, >> this is just testing, not like >> extra trucking, extra testing. Well,
testing, but not the trucking and removal of the material. >> Yep. the costs for the actual removal and moving around of material are captured in the site work award um that we've already approved that's part of this middle column the 133 million
that's been awarded. So lugging it around the site or getting rid of it to a landfill included in prior amendments. This is simply testing. >> So this is in addition to the prior two amendments with sandborn head.
>> Correct. This is those amendments are resulting in other little things coming along that we feel would be easier to just reconcile against an allowance. So we don't have left field amendment 8 910 for little incremental we've got to go
chase this piece of dirty dirt around and do this paperwork. >> Yeah. Okay. I got you. Thank you. >> I'm going to look around for other hands. Brian, would you uh would you say this was unanticipated?
>> Yes. This to me, >> I just I just want to be clear, you know, we're able to handle this because we're doing well on our budget and our control of the budget and our value engineering. But just so the committee, so this is added and not all added costs
go to contingency. This is one of those cases, but we we really didn't anticipate this million dollars. Not that we'll necessarily spend all of it. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh we can check for other questions and hands. Otherwise, we'd be looking for uh
a motion to approve Conigley contract amendment 7 in the value of $1 million to award an owner allowance to the sitework trade budget line. >> Motion to accept.
>> Second. And for the roll call for the amendment, Mike Picardi, >> yes. >> Stacy Rizzo, >> yes. >> Susan Graalisi, >> yes. >> Dr. Kelly, >> yes. >> Carl Spenson,
>> yes. >> Christopher Bowen, >> yes. >> Rich Visque, >> yes. >> Nick Rystrom, >> yes. >> Mayor Keith, >> yes. Tom Skarowski,
>> yes. >> John Stoopoulos, >> yes. >> Anthony Kaggleandra, >> yes. >> Don Martelli, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, agenda item seven, we are
going to defer to a pending meeting. Uh, we've got some a couple eyes uh left the dot and teased to cross on the 90% construction document uh update. We'd also like to just button up that entire submittal to one of these big thousandpage documents and get it to you
folks in advance of a meeting instead of having it uh show up at the last minute. So, we're going to defer this to a later meeting. We'll be in touch with folks from the city and Susan about when that meeting occurs. Uh we are going to defer it from tonight and move on to agenda
item eight. Public >> did you skip number six? >> Oh. Yeah, I did. Sorry, Conigley. Just a a site progress update. Um, we can go back to that right now. You guys um you
guys good for a quick update on on what's going on at the site? >> Brian, can I I just did a uh request to share screen. So, we want to pull up uh some of the drone photos. >> Yep. Linda, you're going to have to Okay, that it's not giving it to me. >> Got it.
>> Thank you, Diane. I knew somebody would shout. Um, but we shared these with part part of the team uh the other day and we thought it would be helpful uh to bring up on the screen. So to give everybody frame of reference uh in case you can't see it here, this
is from I'll say the the north part of the site looking south. So ocean is over to the left. You can see the the former dog track here. Uh, a few things we can point out just to kind of give an idea of how the progress is going out on the site. If you look across the center of
the former track here, this black line, that is the previous limit of work where we are working throughout the summer. So, previously there was a fence across that line and where the machine is now, we could not enter. Um, so that's worth
noting. You heard Brian say a few minutes ago that um part of our invoice was uh the the construction site fencing is now 80 plus% complete. So that's located back here along the train tracks. That's been relocated to the uh
we'll call it the ultimate construction site limits. Um but the work that's ongoing now is the removal of foundations in the area where we previously were unable to work. So that's what the machine is doing here. Uh pulling out foundations and quesons
from the previous uh track grandstands. Uh and over to the left you can see the pile of stuff that we are continuously taking out of the ground. Um drone footage probably doesn't do it justice how much material has been taken out
there. Uh but you can as you can see there's still some work to do as we're heading uh north on the site which is bottom of the page here. Uh we've got our water sediment handling treatment area over here to the lower right and we
will continue to progress uh while the design and uh ground improvement preparations are continuing. Uh Darren or John I miss anything? Any questions? No, that that pretty much sums it uh
with the one item I might add is that uh which is is being worked on with the design team, but the um the drainage on the on the site has been uh a challenge over the last month now that we've been
getting more rain and we've been chasing um trying to get the existing uh the existing uh storm sewer system unclogged after years of basically not really having um
overgrowth and such. So right now we we we spent a a fair amount of time over the last couple of weeks uh man trying to get on top of that issue so that we can allow this site to drain the way it
was uh intended. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Darren. Any any questions for Conigley? >> Just a quick question for Darren. Is is that something that you feel like we'll be able to rectify or something that we should be concerned about?
I think that uh it's already in progress of being addressed right now uh with uh nich uh the site civil contract uh site civil consultant um and we're looking at how the new uh
storm system is going to be integrated and connected so that uh we address the issue uh when we get the new uh uh the new materials Thank you. >> If there are no further questions, I
think now is the time for me to proceed to public comment. Uh name and address for the record if there is any public comment. Going once. Going twice. None. Um, any new business, other
business from committee members? >> Yes. Uh, Brian, I was just following up on the email I sent about modified cash flows, 90% drawings, etc. >> Yep. I need to update that cash flow per the 90% Conigi numbers. Uh, I'll spend
some time doing that tomorrow, Rich. judge couldn't get to it today. >> Okay. And that does that whole timeline have to be shifted now with the new information we have as well? >> Uh I I think I I'll have to take a look at that as well. Yes. So I think we're going to be talking values and some
different activities jumping into different months which is uh definitely it'll be a slightly different cash flow. Yes. >> Yeah. those numbers will be important to strategize on the borrowing year-over-year, you know, the temporary borrowings and uh
so yeah, the sooner the better, but yeah, I understand not not too pressing, but I want to make those calls uh with the financial advisers soon to strategize on what comes up. Like I said, we got money put aside for 2026 uh
construction, but now we got to start planning for 27 and beyond. >> Yep. And also Rich, I know there was some discussion between Conigley and KFDA about just answering some of those open questions on the builder's risk discussion. So myself and John Lamar
will follow up with that. Um I know John fed him a bunch of answers to some of the things they were looking for. So that's another item we're still uh on top of. Just hasn't been driven to conclusion yet. And I imagine some of that timeline's going to shift as well because the dates that are on that
original tech deck sheet are um are obviously not um need to be revised. >> Yep. Agreed. >> Thank you. >> There's no other new business from the committee. We would move to a motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. Yes. >> Thanks everybody. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Recording stopped.