to Stacy. So, well, we can get started with the roll call and then when jumps in. There he is. He made it. >> There is Nick. All right. Welcome everybody to the River High School Building Committee meeting number 87.
Today is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026. The time is 5:34 p.m. Linda, roll call, please. >> Thank you, Susan. I'm going to start with Mike Bikardi >> here.
>> Stacy Rizzo will note as absent for now in case she joins later. Susan Graalisi >> here. >> Dr. Kelly absent. Carl Spenson >> here. >> Christopher Bowen >> here.
>> Rich Visque absent. Don Miller absent. Nick Rystrom >> here. >> Mayor Keefe >> here. >> Thomas Skowski
>> here. John Stmatopoulos absent. Anthony Cogleandro >> here. >> Don Martelli absent. Joshua Miranda
>> here. >> Chris Sarla >> here. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. >> Ryan, >> ready to go. >> Over to you. >> Sounds good. First, I just wanted to thank you all for joining a little out of sequence meeting tonight. Um, I'd
also like to thank Laura Garvey from Sanborn Head um for being here in case we need to get into any more detail or ask questions. But we're really here tonight for two um time-sensitive financial approvals related to the topic
of soil management, soil handling. Um this is part of the culmination of the soil site related issues that have impacted the schedule and that are controlling uh our ability to hold the currently reported schedule. So
appreciate everyone being here. I am going to run through two slides quick and then we'll we'll stop for some questions. Again we have Laura here from Sanborn Head. Um I got to get my Zoom controls out of the way.
So, we're going to cover um left field contract amendment and budget revision request 14 first. Um this is a result of what we're going to see on the next page, which is why I would like to sort of just run through these quick and then we can step back and go through
questions. But um this is an amendment to fund um $135,960 for on-site dust monitoring uh devices, management of those devices, deployment of those devices. Um
and they are a result of the RAM plan, which is you know a technical document related to all the soil handling um measures that we've been pulled into over the last number of months. So, uh, Conigley is and, um, is responsible for
dust control on the site. This requirement came in, um, to basically have, I'll call them permanent devices, but obviously they're not going to be out there forever. They're going to be out there while we're doing site work. Um, which we believe is a 12-month
duration. We'll get there. Um and prior to this, prior to all of the soil things really get getting really deep, um the assumption was that the limited areas that needed soil remediation on the site could have been monitored with handheld monitors. Um because of the amount of
what we found and because of the type of what we found, again, Laura could explain that in more detail. Um we need to put in actual monitors. Um and if those monitors go off, if something some threshold is exceeded, Conigi would basically shut down the site. Um uh to
prevent potential impact mostly to workers. Um so this is based on putting monitor monitors out there for 12 months. As we go through site work over the next number of months, we will report back of whether that 12-month duration remains adequate. It's possible
if certain things happen with the schedule, particularly as we work our way from the critical area, which is around the future building up into the north part of the site, it's possible that we might need these out there a little bit longer, but for right now, 12 months is our best guess. That's what we're carrying in this proposal. Um, and
I wanted to note that we have instructed Sanborn Head to deploy these devices. They're already out there. Um, we did that to support the schedule so that we could be still pushing dirt around knowing that we have the requirement to put these out there. So, these are on
site. We instructed them to uh to get it in the ground. So, we didn't have to ask Consigi to stop. And it's also important to note that like the next slide, uh, none of these costs were budgeted in existing contracts or foreseen um, back
at the time that we created the project budget. Um we created the project budget about two years ago and at the time um based on the information we knew at the time we did not think this site was anywhere near as complex from a geotechnical or geo environmental point
of view as we learned in the last number of months. So this proposal again totals $135,960. It's to be funded by the owner soft contingency that triggers the need for a budget revision request number 14 to move the money from contingency into um
into basically left fields contract to manage Sanborn head on this and after this commitment there's still 605,000 and change uh remaining in the soft contingency. Um, we can totally stop there if we want questions, but I figured
rolling into this then pausing makes some sense. So, stop me if anyone does have a question, but >> the other Chris. >> Um, so I'm just trying to understand. So, this is the
monitors are a result of the first round of sampling. soil samples that were test the precaracterization work that was done by Samborn when >> I think that work started Laura correct
me if I'm wrong in October >> that's correct so we done some preliminary work in July uh it was a limited number of test pits within the building footprint itself we really kicked off in earnest doing the sole precarization sampling in October
um midocctober I believe and those results started to come in early November as we're going through the data we're processing the data we're reviewing it against uh regulatory criteria and we discovered we had a new reporting condition
that was reported to mass DP on December 4th >> and that was in under the that was everything that was found under the initial contract with Samborn correct >> we report everything that we had found through
end of November in on December 4th. >> Yeah. And that and I think Laura to I think that was one of the propos one of the earlier proposals through left field to start that before we move the proposals that are the next slide into
construction costs with Conigley. So I think yes >> I think the short the short answer Chris is yes. It's a result from the initial wave of uh late summer, early fall investigations. >> So, this isn't something that came up
with the subsequent testing beyond that. Is it just taking Mass DP to approve the RAM that long or? >> No. Um it's something that you know we prepared the RAM plan and as part of the release ofment measure plan or or RAM
plan you have to go through um several steps and one of those is a focus risk assessment and as part of that we look at current exposure pathways and current um receptors on site like construction
workers and dust and there are elevated concentrations of lead arsenic and benzoate pyrene in the soil here that are driving the risk and those contamination concentrations were found in October and November reported in
December and we started dust monitoring I want to say mid January >> all right we can we can keep thinking keep the questions coming I'm going to just roll into this slide because again it's all related. So this is the bigger picture, the culmination of um the
entire pre-caracterization program. Back in November, the SBC via Conigley amendment number seven uh awarded a $1 million allowance, which at the time was our best guess of what this was all going to um all going to come culminate
into. Obviously that guess was not good enough, wasn't adequate. And uh upon going through all that initial testing and following up on items that came up through that testing, this sort of menu of services is what we need to get
through it. And Laura, just so you know, these are totals from the three separate proposals um that are going through Conigley. I all the task summaries. So um we more or less are at the point where 1.668
million is the amount we need to complete the testing to support the critical path of the schedule moving forward. So the purpose of Conigley amendment 8 is to increase the already awarded $1 million allowance to by
668,800 which at a minimum will get us through the GMP that it is still possible that in the next few months particularly as we work away from the building footprint up into the north of the site where a lot of the stock piles currently are
there could be new items that spring out of that. If that's the case, we will propose adjusting this allowance again at GMP, which is consider that plus or minus April. But this is everything we know of now um that can get us through
that point. And um all of this work is underway. This is all critical path work. Um the biggest bite of it is the actual testing uh soil pre-caracterization and testing, which is about a $1.1 million cost. And a lot
of these subsequent items really help us keep to the regulations, properly handle soil, properly line up the landfills. It's going to making sure all the right forms and uh and items down to the truck leaving the site are correct. And
hopefully it will allow us to do this smoothly without any further slippage of the schedule. Similar to what I said before, all of these costs were not captured in the prior budget as a line item or in the 90% CD estimate. So,
these are funds that make it a little bit harder for the project to hit the reduced budget goal, but we have bids coming in over the next number of weeks that will allow us to resolve this all against that goal. And if we're meeting
it, great. if we're not meeting it, we have strategies to then meet the goal. So, I did just want to note these were um anything related to all the soil handling that blew up on us late summer and into the fall was previously unbudgeted when we when we passed this
project. So we're relying on the contingencies um that we created then and we're relying on the estimates being between depending on the estimator 10 12 million under budget to fund all this while still meeting the budget goal. So Brian,
if I can just add on to that. Um so the um the budget goal, the reduced budget goal, the $10 million reduction is what we're talking about, the 483, not 493, uh just in the the whole um and that is still the marching orders. So um
>> this is going to, you know, this is going to have to make uh make other decisions um where we'll have to be more nimble and and um precise when it comes to everything that happens. And of course, we have contingencies built in. I mean, we probably have, I think, $30 million in contingencies, but um
if we lose it somewhere, we have to find it somewhere else. And that's just that's the orders that we've given and and we're all agreeing to. And I think that everyone agrees. Um I do want to point out because I know this is a viewing public and uh to make sure everyone understands um there's no risk
to there's no risk to people that are walking by the site. This is very standard on a construction site of this size, especially we all know and I'm just going to say this all over the entire state of Massachusetts in most in most areas that have had any sort of industry um soil is is you know
typically has some contaminants in it. Some have more, some have less. Um we knew we always knew going into the ground that there was going to be, you know, the second you start cracking into it, there were going to be some some issues just like at a lot of our uh sites across the city and across the state. Um, so obviously finding some of
those contaminants. We're removing the contaminants because we're building a school there and we want kids to be safe and we want our public to be safe. So we're bettering the land. Uh, and these monitoring devices are like you said to make sure that if there's heavy construction and there's dust moving around that the particles are not
reaching um or u reaching humans and people and they're they're being mitigated. Uh, and if there are, it's just like a smoke detector. the detectors go off and everyone knows stop what you're doing. Let the uh you know have your mitigation methods what matters whether it's watering the site
and and so forth to make sure that everyone's safe, putting on the proper equipment and then going back to work. Um I just don't want anyone to like see this and go, "Oh geez, they have to monitor it because it's going to leech into the air and people on the beach are going to be exposed." They're no more exposed today than they were probably
working at the track, you know, 20 years ago. um certainly probably more exposed there, but that's a whole another story. Uh we're bettering their environment at a cost. Yes. Uh not not a happy cost, but it is uh so I just wanted to also ask uh on the soil precaracterization
testing where I would just say, you know, same board heads on here, you know, at that price, you know, to say that there's more testing. It's can you give us an itemized bill on that? Um, and I know that we are we're probably going to approve it because we want the work to move forward, but it'd be nice to see some itemizations on that 1.157
um to, you know, give us give us a good understanding of how much that scope uh hit. Okay. >> Do that. >> And the field observations we I think we talked about at the last call. This was for the staff to be on site for a certain amount of hours per the project.
Correct. >> Yes. for the duration of I think it's probably the easiest way to say it is for the duration of export of soil Lara >> right >> that's correct >> and does that also include the monitor or is that or is that separate >> uh the monitors are separate
>> okay so you know I think that we had sort of questioned that in the last meeting um and I'm not trying but if we could just get a little more details on on what what this is going into you know if you have a field observation $287,000 field observation are we paying for a
staff member we paying for two staff members and we pay with five staff members and it's good to know I mean that's something that maybe we can hire um separately and we hire just an independent person for ourselves. >> So that is um 1600 hours of a technician
being on site. It is some tracking >> and we are tracking those hours and um >> yeah we think that's going to bring us through. >> So 1600 hours is about a year's worth of
work. Little less >> right. Right. So I mean that's that technicians do pretty >> about eight months. Yes. Don't you think? >> I I think where we track that, Mayor Keefe, is if we can get through the soil
handling as efficiently as possible, there theoretically could be savings there. If something else trips us up, it it's an allowance for that reason. We are going to try to minimize it. The quicker we can get through handling the soil and get out of the exporting business, the sooner we don't need field
observation anymore. >> That's right. If I can just say that at at 30 hours a week for 52 weeks, $287,000 is a pretty is a pretty good employee. >> It's actually a rate of I can tell you it's 50 hours a week or more
>> at 52 atif 1 160 hours you said or 1600 hours. >> It's 1600 hours. So 50 hours a week >> 1600 hours divided by 52 is 30 hours a week. I said for a year, but yes. Okay.
>> Yeah, it covers about eight months. >> Okay. Yeah. So, again, you're making my point. >> An eight-month employee, that's pretty good. >> Yes. Well, it's also covers our time in the office to support that person, review submitts, answer questions.
>> You mean it's more than just the field time. >> It's also certain percentage time. >> Submitts is $73,000 in addition. So, if I can get an itemized on these, it'd be great. >> Yeah, we can do that >> because the the submit will say $73,000
here. So, maybe Sam had needs to understand the budget and this the constraints and not think this is a blank check. >> Sure. And we we can break that down for you and we will track it all and try to minimize anything that is minimizable is how I'd put it.
>> Is this tracked by Ziggley or left field? >> Um, technically both, but left field. you can put left field's name on it. It's it's more I say that simply because it's Conigley's running the schedule and what's happening on a day-to-day basis.
Um so that's sort of their part. When do we need these folks there? When are we trucking left field between myself, Brian Johnson, who's on site uh more often than I am will be tracking all that as well. So when Laura's invoices come in that we can uh by the time they get to you, we will have ensured that
what they're billing is accurate and um based on the effort boots on the ground. Excuse me. Uh are there any of these question? No. Okay, those aren't questions.
Any other questions, comments on either So, we have I put these on their own sheet. Just um >> actually one more question. I apologize. >> Yeah, go ahead, Chris. No, no apology. Need >> So, Sam Bourhead is going to be installing these permanent air monitors.
Does that mean um can Sigley is no longer needs to be the testing the the portable hand um air quality monitors? Does that line item drop out? Uh, I I think it would have I I don't
know the answer to that. Laura, could you help me out? Is the if the idea before when we were just dealing with the two um D release items was handheld. >> Yes, those are drop off now that we're
doing the perimeter ones. >> Okay. >> In the larger area. That's correct. Let me just see if there's any hands. I think we need to do these separate. If there are no other questions or comments, um we would entertain a motion first on
left field contract amendment number nine and the associated BRR 14 to fund sandborn head dust monitoring per D RAM plan requirements in a total amount of $135,960. If I can just ask another uh qualifying question. Can we get details on all of
these um expenses to you know the 135? Is it for the equipment? Is it for the equipment plus the personnel? Is the personnel separate from the personnel that's going to be on the site? Um >> yeah, I can get you all that. It's all in the back here what our assumptions
were and um but if you need more detail I'm happy to provide that. >> Yep. We can break this down um for all of you again. >> Yeah. So, do we have anyone to uh any motion or second here?
>> A motion to approve number nine. >> Are we doing both? I'm sorry. >> We should do them in separate. >> Okay. A motion to approve um number nine for 135,960. >> Second.
Thank you. I will do the roll call. Mike Bardi, >> yes. >> Stacy Rizzo, >> yes. >> Susan Graalisi, >> yes. >> Carl Senson, >> yes. >> Christopher Bowen,
>> yes. >> Nick Rystrom, >> yes. Mayor Keefe, >> no. >> Tom Skarowski, >> yes. >> Anthony Kagglandro,
>> yes. >> Joshua Miranda, >> yes. >> And Chris Camela. >> Yes. >> Okay. Linda, >> that carried right. Nine.
Yep. We have 10 yeses, one no. Motion carries. >> Second proposed motion to approve consigly contract amendment 8 and increase the existing $1 million owner soil allowance by $668,800. >> Motion to approve number eight for
Conigia for $668,800. So moved. >> Second. Thank you. And the roll call. Mike Bardi, >> yes. >> Stacy Rizzo, >> yes.
>> Susan Graalisi, >> yes. >> Carl Spenson, >> Christopher Bowen, >> yes. >> Nick Rystrom, >> yes. >> Mayor Keith, >> yes.
Tom Skarowski, >> yes. >> Anthony Kaggleandro, >> yes. >> Joshua Miranda, >> yes. >> For Sarla, >> no. >> Okay.
Motion still carries. 10 yeses, one no. >> Sounds good. That's all we have for tonight. Uh, I'll note we're going to do the regular meeting with more updates February 18th. You should have a Zoom.
The week before we'll get you an agenda and handout packet. Uh, is there any other business or new business from the committee? Seeing none, is there any public comment? Name and address for the record if so.
Seeing none, we would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move >> second. >> Thank you everybody. Thanks again for the out of sequence meeting. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Recording stopped.