O present. Susan Graalisi here. Dr. Kelly not yet. Uh Carl Senson here can hear me. Yes, we can hear you,
Carl. Yes, ma'am. Bowen. Oh, there you are. Thank you. Uh, Rich Visque here. You John [Music] Surmela. Nick Rystrom
here. There you are. Thank you, Nick. Uh, Mayor Keith here. You Tom Squareski. Tom is celebrating his daughter's third birthday, so he will not be on tonight. Excellent excuse.
Great. John Stemattopolis. John is here. I'm moving my daughter out of college, but I still made it. Bring back some of that Kentucky finest. Okay, you got it, bud. Thank you. Congratulations, John.
[Music] Um, Anthony Kagglandro here. All right. Don Martelli here. Joshua Miranda here. And Chris Saramela here.
Thank you very much. Um Brian, do you want to go through the agenda or do we want to just uh uh note for housekeeping items? I know we don't have the minutes. Yeah, we're gonna skip
agenda item two. We just um didn't have the minutes drafted up in time. So, we'll defer that to next month. But um uh yeah, let's do the invoices and then we'll jump right into the trade qual qualification um overview and a couple new items. Okay, great. So, I am going
to attempt to share my screen here and we're going to jump to invoices. Um we have so we have the traditional three different invoices uh left fields invoices Perkins Eastman and Conigley
and these are invoices for April services. This is uh package number 28. Um Brian, do we want to flash the budget first before we go through the invoices? Uh yeah, we could do that.
Um, you want me to put it on the screen or you have it? Okay. Um, I have it. I think you can see it now, right? Yep. You've got it. So, we're still um we're still on budget. We're on pace. Um, we're billing the typical three invoices this month. We're in the
construction document phase. Um you can see that we're left field is bid um at about 20% completion for the construction document phase and um we're starting to bill into the bidding phase as we get uh our first number of bid packages out. Um similarly down in
architecture you can see 15% completion from the construction document phase for Perkins Eastman. And the only other line we're billing against is the pre-construction line about halfway down the page uh for Conigley. um that pre-construction's at about 63% and then
coming months we will be transitioning into real construction. So, not not a lot of moving around in the budget. Um if there's any specific budget questions, we can ultimately get to them. Um otherwise, we might cover some budget items and new business.
Okay, Linda, note that um Tom Skarowski has joined the meeting. Thank you. noted. Thank you, Susan. Um, okay. So, we will uh start I know we do these
separate uh so starting with left fields invoice which is invoice number 50 um in the amount of $456,699. uh this is for both construction documents and also uh starting the
bidding process. So it's two pieces to this invoice. Motion to accept. Second by Susan. Thank you. And I will do the roll call for approval starting with Mike Mccardi. Yes.
Stacy Rizzo. Yes. Susan Graalisi. Yes. Carl Swenson. I don't know if I could hear that. Carl wasetti. Yes. Yes. Ah, thank you. Uh, Christopher
Bowen. Yes. Rich Visque. Yes. Nick Rystrom. Yes, Mayor Keith. Yes, Tom Skarowski. Yes, John Stematopoulos.
Yes. Anthony Kaggleandro. Yes. John Martelli. Yes. Joshua Miranda. Yes. Chris Smela. Yes.
Great. Thank you. Moving on to the next one which is Perkins Eastman's invoice uh number 10 for the uh construction document phase. Uh and their total invoice is for both design development
some construction document traffic studies and geotech uh fees. So it is a total of 1,333,31752. Motion to approve perman's total invoices.
Second. Thank you. And for the roll call. Mike Bardi. Yes. Stacy Rizzo. Yes. Susan Graalisi. Yes.
Carl Senson, yes. Christopher Bowen, yes. Rich Visque, yes. Nick Rystrom, yes. Mayor Keith, yes. Tom Skarowski,
yes. John Stematopoulos, yes. Anthony Kaggleandro, yes. Don Martelli, yes. Joshua Miranda, yes. Chris Camela, yes.
You uh last but not least, we have Conigley's invoice for uh invoice number 28 in the amount of 27,000 uh which is their monthly fee for preconstruction services. Um so their total invoice is
27,000. Motion to approve invoice for conclia. Second. Thank you. And for the roll call. Mike Picardi. Yes. Stacy Rizzo.
Yes. Susan Graalisi. Yes. Arl Spencson. Yes. Christopher Bowen. Yes. Rich Visque. Yes. Nick Rystrom. Yes. Mayor Keith. Yes.
Tom Skarowski, yes. John Stematopoulos, yes. Anthony Kagglandra, John Martelli, yes. Joshua Miranda, yes. Chris Saramela, yes. Excellent. Thank you very much,
everyone. Brian, back to you. Sounds good. Uh we got a couple quick items to go through. We're going to um defer item four as well. That's just an item that uh we need to work on a little more before uh it's ready for the committee. That was
just some accounting alignment business. No. Uh nothing big there. We're going to jump to number five and six and then uh try to get to new business just for a couple other items. Uh Linda, could you let me share the screen, please?
Yeah, you should be able to, right? Okay. Um, so for starters, before I jump into this, a couple of the topics we're going to cover really, um, we're getting awfully close to bidding, construction, trade, pre-qualification, and before I jump into this in detail, I did want to
quickly introduce to the school building committee um, Leftfield's on-site representative. Um, he's here tonight. His name is Brian Johnson. Uh Brian and I have done a number of schools uh in a row. Uh he's one of our best on-site reps and uh Brian's going to start being
at a number of these meetings and other meetings to support the project. Um nobody's going away. Linda, myself, Lynn Stapleton, Jim Rogers, but um Brian is going to be our constant on-site presence working with Linda and I in Conigley. Um, and ultimately as we have
a building and we have a site to go look at, I think all of you will get to know Brian. You'll be able to you can contact me anytime, contact him any him anytime. And um, I just wanted to give him a chance to say a quick hi and have you guys all meet him. Not putting you on the spot, Brian. Uh, just not, but you
are. I I guess I am. Yeah. Now, nice to meet all of you. I look forward to working with you all. So, um, trade pre-qualification is one of the the bigger tasks that's on us right now. And I just wanted to give just a quick high level.
Um, you see these number of trades on the screen down here. Um, there are public bidding laws in Massachusetts that govern how these specific categories of work get bid. Uh, there's 18 of them. We refer to them as trade
contractors or filed sub biders. So if you hear us say trade contractor or filed sub biders, these are the another term we often use is public biders. Uh because this is a publicly advertised qualifications based process. Um if you hear us use the word subcontractor or
private bidder, it's biders that are pretty much any trade other than what's listed uh down here. So, really quickly, the next page that was in your handout is a list um of the initial bidding that we're going to do off the 60% CD set,
concrete, structural steel, site work, um some ground improvements, uh piles, uh etc. This is the list of non-public biders that um Conigi is going to use to solicit bids for these trades uh directly. Per the CMR process, this is
how it works. Um, I encourage any of you with experience in the field to um to give this list a look. Uh, give me a call. We can get in touch with Conigi if there's anything to discuss. But I wanted to sort of put that in context of subcontractors or private biders. We bid
directly through Conigi. Trade contractors for the scope listed at the bottom of the screen. There's a public process for um and the two that we're doing uh up front are waterproofing, damproofing, and cocking. at least the underground portion of waterproofing and
elevators. Uh we have launched advertisements for those two trades. Um the rest we're going to be doing in uh the coming months so we have bidders on board uh for when the final documents
come out. The side note on why we're doing waterproofing early is that we do need uh waterproofing on small pieces of the foundation around the elevator pits and elevators in our industry is sort of a chronic trade where there's only a few
places that do it. Sometimes nobody bids, sometimes one place bids. There's a process associated with if we only get no bids or zero bids. So we want to get on the elevators quick. They do have a long lead time, but um we're just anticipating the typical scenario where we don't have many elevator biders and
we have to do something about it. So, there's a lot of words on the screen, but I'm going to relatively quickly jump to the next uh screen. This pro this is a description of the trade pre-qualification process, but really um the first step is to establish a trade pre-qualification committee. We'll talk
about that in a minute. That's what we want to do tonight. Um we develop requests for qualifications packages. We advertise them publicly. Interested contractors uh then submit statement of qualifications to the city via the
subcommittee uh who's going to look at these. Uh we and the subcommittee evaluate those statement of qualifications. We score them. Scores above a 70 pass and are allowed to bid on the project. Scores under 70 um do not pass and are not allowed to bid.
Typically, the thing that would get someone to fail is perhaps this is a way too big a job for them. Perhaps they don't have the experience. They don't have the people. Um, but this is sort of a process we do on every job we know. We're going to there won't be any surprises. We'll we'll know who all
these folks are. We've pre-qualified or rejected them a number of times over the years, and we'll go into that in detail with the subcommittee. Uh, ultimately, we then tell everyone whether they passed or failed. Uh once that's the case, only the passing uh contractors
are allowed to bid. Uh so that's that's the difference here. Um with the filed sub bidders, we narrow down the pool based on qualifications, then they're the only folks who can bid. There's then some uh rules about what happens. Like I mentioned, if we get less than three
bids, that's something a bridge will cross um if we have to when we get there. And ultimately, they do have to provide performance and payments bonds. So, a little bit of a graphic version of this. We we issue a statement of qualifications. A number of contractors come back and say, "Hey, I want to work
on the job." Subcommittee reviews their qualifications. We score them. Perhaps we say a couple of them, one of them aren't qualified. Only the qualified biders get the bid documents. Perhaps all of them bid. Maybe not all of them bid. ultimately we take the low and
responsible number of um of the qualified biders here for trade pre-quall. So last and then I'll sort of pause for questions. The um this is all run by a fourperson subcommittee. Um our
reading of Mass General Law is that this is a four-person committee, not a four plus. Um one representative must be from the designer. That's going to be Dan Collie who you all know. one representative if it's a a chapter 149A project, which this is, is construction
manager, that'll be Jason Flood from Conigley. Uh, and then the two members um that the the school building committee can assign. Um, one of them we recommend would be myself. Um, so we'll be involved either way, but um, again,
we we do this a few times a year. We're familiar with it. I recommend that the city make uh myself one of the two people and then assign one of you to be on this committee. Um what I will say is it it doesn't mean that's the only
person involved. Um I I'll leave it up to you guys. I don't want to put people on the spot, but I was sort of thinking either Mike Picardi or Carl um Nick, Chris, Dawn, any of them um would really be good to have on this committee, but we can keep them all posted, get all of
their input. We just need tonight someone to be um officially on the fourperson committee to rank, excuse me, and qualify these trade pre-contra contractors. So again, we're only nominate Kyle Spenson. I'll second that. And I'll also nominate
Brian Den if he needs to be nominated to be on the committee. Yeah. Yeah. Both would be good. Second. Second. Um and like I said, Carl, if you're okay with that, I think we're still um the folks that are a little closer to construction um and procurement, I think
we'll keep Mike Picardi, um Nick, and Chris involved in this. Um but we will keep you posted on the couple days that we have to do a meeting to score people and um do some formalities, but left field will do the
the um most of the heavy lifting. Any questions on trade pre-quall or the motion on the floor to um assign myself and Carl Spenson to the trade pre-qualification subcommittee? I just have one question, Brian. Um, I
noticed that there were a lot of union and non-union um contractors on the list. Um, generally does this usually just fall into a non-union company? Uh, it it honestly both apply. Both are able
to chase each trade of the job and I can assure you that we will have a mix of union and non-union shops. That's probably the simplest answer. Um, I don't know Christie if if there's any more you want to put on that, but every project we run is a mixed job that we
have open shops and union shops. It really does come down to who's qualified and who's got the more aggressive bid number. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. The only thing I would add to that, Brian, if I may, is that consigly is signatory to the carpenters and the laborers. So any trade like concrete for example that
falls under the carpentry trade you'll see all of those subcontractors are union good I'm very would be a very pro union that's why and and one thing that's good having consigly on board um granted you know left field we know a lot of these folks
but knows everybody so uh we've all been out sort of u making sure people are aware of this and knowing it's coming along so we think the usual suspects will apply it'll be a strong pool of um of contractors and we really uh cross our fingers and hope for um aggressive
bid results. Thank you. [Music] If there are no other questions, I think we could go to a roll call. All right, I will start the roll call. Uh Mike Bardi.
Um what are we voting on? Voting to assign Carl and myself as the two designated members of the trade pre-qualification subcommittee. And also Carl, I think you're not on mute if you can mute. Unless Michael
you. Um I'd like to nominate myself to be honest. Um Yep. I've been part of a lot of a lot of these pre-qualifications. Um, and I kind of know what all the paperwork is and the companies that um, do this work and bid on these items. So,
no offense to Kyle at all. I'd be happy to uh, relinquish that to you, Michael. As long as you know it's not a dig to you, by not at all. That sounds like a peaceful resolution. Yes, absolutely. And the motion was second. You can take
my place if you want, Mike. I don't think I can do that, Dan. So, yeah. Do we we had a second? Do we have to revise the motion just technically, Susan? I think um yeah, we can revise it. Um motion to assign Brian
Dacon and Michael Picardi to the trade pre-qualification subcommittee. Does anybody else want to throw their hat in? Like I sec we second that. Okay, that was second. Roll call, please.
All right, I'm going to do the roll call before we need to do it again. All right. Um, Brian Dacon and Mike Bardi. Starting with Mike McCarti. Yes. Stacy Rizzo.
Absolutely. Susan Graalisi. Yes. I noticed that Dr. Kelly had arrived. Are you able to uh put in a vote? Thank you. The affirmative.
Thank you, Carl Swenson. No, I'm just kidding. Yes. Somebody's stopping by the procurement office tomorrow. Yes. Thank you, Rich Visque. Yes.
Nick Rystrom. Yes. building member anymore. Mayor Keefe, may I? Yes. Tom Sarowski. I'd actually like to nominate myself. Um, just kidding. I keeping me on my toes today. John
Stematopoulos. Yes. Anthony Conglando. Yes. Don Martelli. Absolutely. Joshua Miranda. Yes. and Chris Camela. Yes.
All right. Motion passes. Thank you everyone. Excellent. So, just a couple other random items. We'll get to what's on the screen in one second. Uh but I wanted to give you a quick update. Um we will have the 60% estimating the review and estimating set published on June 6th. Um
that means the estimated the dual estimating teams and all the review teams some of which we'll talk about on the screen uh will be spending June going through the drawings uh updating estimates. We look to reconcile those estimates by June 30th and um ultimately
we're going to um look for a July 16th presentation uh update for 60% to the committee. After we get that uh all passed and moved along, we can submit it to MSBA uh quickly for permitting. Um we have received an
approved draft environmental impact report from MEPA. Uh per usual that comes with all sorts of review uh comments and questions from various regulatory agencies. Uh the team is in the process of going through all of those comments, meeting individually
with those agencies, moving the ball down the field to a July 15th submission of the final environmental impact report. Um so overall, we remain on schedule for permitting. There's just a lot going on. Um, and as we transition
to construction, I wanted to just highlight the various entities that we're going to have on board to review the design as we really get into technical 60 90% construction documents and then building. Um, the first on the top of the screen here is uh something
you probably are familiar with from other projects if you've done them, but we have a commissioning agent for the mechanical systems and the building envelope. It is BR plus A. The commissioning agent is hired by, assigned by, and paid by the MSBA. So,
we don't really get to pick them, but we know them all. We've certainly worked with BR plusa. Um, and that comes along uh quote unquote for free through the MSBA process. It's not paid by our budget. It's paid by the MSBA. Uh, they will be reviewing the 60 90%. They
already reviewed the design development set that came out a few months ago. They'll be reviewing all the shop drawings, RFIs. As we go into construction, they will be on site uh issuing field reports and then they will perform final mechanical commissioning. Um left field also has a fellow named
Jay Faxton that you guys um probably will meet, but if you're down at the site as we start building, you'll definitely meet him. Jay is our u mechanical system specialist who'll be uh tagging along with the uh Conigley with the subcontractors building this
with the um commissioning agent with all these review agents. So, we have our own uh expertise and eye into it. Uh, next is um we're going to have this is uh something we've talked about for a while with um Deputy Chief Chver at the fire department um and the building inspector
and police department. We're going to be having a life safety and fire protection peer review uh of this building done by code red. They will be a subconsultant to left field. We have an allowance that they're going to work against. Um, and their expertise really is deep dive on
the fire code, uh, atrium smoke exhaust, NFPA, uh, all sorts of really deep, um, fire related code items. This is very much an item that, uh, I know Deputy Chief Chver is, uh, happy to have Code Red on board. He's worked with them
before and they'll do similar uh work to what I described in the commissioning agent, but really honing in on life safety systems, fire alarm systems, fire protection systems. Uh the two, last but not least, we also are required by um Mass Law to
do a structural peer review. We have uh left field has reached out uh for proposals for those items. Those proposals are due June 6th. And uh we will then have them base the structural peer review off of the um ultimately the
s the final 60% uh document set. And lastly um we will be launching a chapter 30B procurement for a construction materials testing agent. Um again we have a budget line for this. We expect it to um to be funded through that
budget line. We do this is a public procurement uh due to the value. We anticipate spending a few hundred,000 on this over the next number of years, but this is an independent agency that um performs soil tests, concrete tests, steel tests, weld tests, all sorts of
outside verification that um that a lot of the details in this building will will be um executed properly. So, I just wanted to give a little overview of all these these third-party companies that are going to be doing reviews on the
final documents and uh a few the top two and the bottom one staying with us through construction. So, I don't know if there's any general questions uh leading into activities for the next month or two, but high level, we're still looking to start site demolition
the first week of June. And pending uh successful completion of MEPA, we'll be transitioning to full building construction late August into September. I'm going to pause and see if anyone has any general questions. I don't I have a question. Sure, Mike.
Yep. Um, with the commissioning agent, um, is that something new that the MSBA designates one? Because I feel like before we used to get quotes for that, a probably some some of the, um, I say older, but they're still all pretty new.
Some of the elementaryaries were probably from the era that the municipality hired them. Um I I would say the MSBA has been assigning them and paying for it probably for about six, seven years now. So it is something that
evolved but um we have we ultimately we have no say in that which I generally don't like but they always assign places that are qualified and BR plus A is a um a very capable engineering firm. We've done some schools with it with a designer. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.
And Michael, that's true of the core projects. The repair projects could be a little different. Um, uh, the the core school projects, I know they assign them now. Oh, like the accelerated repair project. ARPs maybe has a little bit of a different process. I can actually look in that just I'll check that just so we
both know. Okay. And our accelerated repairs have been uh they've been assigned to us. Okay. on on our window and boiler drops through the uh MSBA. Yep. They might. That's interesting. They probably do just do it across the board
now. Okay. If there are um any other general questions or high level questions before I think we're going to try to jump into uh some new business. uh they're being none. Actually, I think technically we have public comment uh
before new business. So, if that's all I just lost my Zoom controls, we'll do a quick public comment first. Uh if you have a comment, we'll need name and address for the meeting
minutes. Any public comment? Looking around for hands. Last call for public comment. Okay, there being none, um, new business items. I know, um, I had talked with, um, the mayor earlier. I think the mayor had, um, a little piece he wanted
to share, um, that we can we can discuss for a bit and continue discussing next month. Sure. Uh, Brian, thank you very much. I just wanted to address a few uh, items uh, regarding the budget. So, we've had a lot of conversations and I
know uh that the uh recently the city council had requested that we review the budget and make uh and and see if we can have some recommendations to uh reduce it. Um obviously we we all have been working um to to work on value
engineering and and and make sure that we're working within the means that we have as a community to build the school that will be uh best for serve serving the community for the you know the next 50 years. uh we think that we'll be able to do that certainly within the budget we have. But I think giving that respect
uh we did want to I did want to make some recommendations and I think that we can do this uh uh this this is possible to uh recommend a a slightly reduced budget for construction. Uh I do want to state the point that just so everyone is aware and this is no disrespect to the
city council. I have a very good relationship with all of them and we have former council president and councelor on the building committee. The building committee sets the budget uh and they vote on whether or not the the budget would be reduced. So that is our responsibility. It's state law. It's it has to do with uh this is why we we
created this committee or this is why we're required to have a building committee. So we are in in for all intents and purposes responsible for the budget and the decisions that come along with that. Uh and I don't think anyone here takes that lightly. So, I don't want to take um that out of our purview
and also don't want to disrespect the body. Uh but I think just being respectful to the the the city council who obviously is mindful of the economic times that we're we're seeing and I think it would be behoove us to look at the construction budget and we have and
uh the recommendation I would have and I know our CFO is here is to reduce the construction uh budget by $10 million total approximately $5 million to the city and $5 million from the total project. So $5 million reimburseable but uh we we wanted to make a
recommendation. I wanted to make a recommendation to reduce the total construction budget by $10 million. Uh, another subsequent motion that we we wanted to recommend, this was actually um via the CFO, is to uh recommend a
motion to uh allocate all energy credits, all energy rebates uh directly into the uh school uh the school stabilization account, the the high school stabilization account. So if we receive uh energy energy reductions and credits that that those funds would be
uh put right uh right to the bottom line of our stabilization account so that we can use those for down the road payments when it comes to debt service for the high school. But those would be two separate motions. It's certainly up for discussion but uh something to to talk about.
I get that Rich. Got it. And I'll just jump in quick and say we have all the team has always established a ve list. We carried one through DD. We would be um if this is the will of the committee, we will put
this on the agenda for next month and uh circulate a value engineering list of items of various ways to get there to get to 10 million and how we would recommend getting there. We'll circulate that before next month's meeting and we'll make it a topic at next month's
meeting to discuss. So, um I don't think the intent for tonight is to go into exactly how we do it, but I can assure you we don't think um we don't think it's it's going to result in the building that um is much of a change to
anyone here. Um we think it's an achievable goal. So, I just wanted to put that in. I know Rich wants to speak and I I just want to say again, I'm confident uh in looking at some of the the materials that we can work with to be able to still build a state-of-the-art high school that serves the needs of our
population for years to come that we'll be very very proud of. Uh but I also did want to state um that I know that this may may need to get to further discussion. Uh and the good news is we are as mentioned in in the fitting environment, we're in an extremely hungry uh work environment. So that's
that's good for us. Uh the materials are what tend to scare us uh because there's so much uncertainty and the hopes is that that will continue to stay stable. But uh from a labor uh perspective, we're already seeing um every bid that we've put out as a city over the last 3
months has been very favorable. uh some some of them 40% re uh below estimates which is very nice for uh the hopes of what we're going to see in the the next three to six months with bidding for the school. But Rich,
so um Brian uh in anticipation of next month's meeting for the um for the list of the value engineering, I'd like to make a formal motion to reduce the construction budget for the high school in the amount to $10 million. I can second that.
Any questions on that motion? And Linda, you might have to be ready for another roll call in a sec. Sorry. I have a question. Oh, go ahead, Mr. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Your hand was up. You first. Go ahead. Go ahead.
I I understand what this is for. Um, but we're just getting this information now. I can we discuss it at our next meeting? I mean, I I' I'd prefer to discuss the options, but I don't want to believe I
don't want to belver the the cut itself because um I think it's a prudent step in bringing this project down and making it affordable and having some contingencies for other items that may come up in the future with regard to the land or whatnot. So, um I think the
discussion on the 10 million is uh prudent for the next meeting, but I'd like to carry this uh motion forward with a vote. I'm not quite sure how to raise Oh, sorry. I think Anthony was next, right? Go ahead, Dr. Kelly. That's fine. I can't figure out how to raise my hand on
this phone, but uh I would agree with Mrs. Rizzo that I think we should take a look at what exactly it is that we're talking about um before agreeing to um formally make the cuts. I think it it is prudent and
important to um you know think about what the total cost of the budget is and I recognize the importance on the city but I don't see why making that taking a vote right now today would be more impactful than taking a vote next month when we have information in front of us
and can talk about uh exactly or understand exactly what it is that we're talking about. Again, on a macro level, I think we're talking about reducing the budget $10 million. And then how we get there, I think, is for the the further discussions.
Anthony, did you want to say something? Yes. Thank you, Susan. So, if we reduce it here, do we have to then make a modification to the bond that we voted on for the 500 million? Uh, do we have to reduce that to 490? And then what
happens if it ends up being the 500 million? Do we have to come back to the table, do another vote here, and then do another bond authorization through the council? Theization would stay with that. Once the project's completed, we would resend
any bond um approvals that we didn't need. So, we don't have to mess with bond approvals. This is just strictly setting um the the budget at $10 million less for construction. and then over the next several meetings we can discuss how
we get there. But I think the the point is that we're looking for $10 million. And I think that the debate should be now whether we we vote to cut or not. And uh again, we've had this discussion and I think we should get this uh on
record and start planning accordingly. I don't think we have to look at the list and then decide whether we're going to do it. I I believe it's prudent for us to reduce this budget 10 million and and and react accordingly. I'll just say, and I know Rich is the finance guy, so he he gets a little bit
more black and white. I I don't necessarily disagree. only because I'm confident that we'll still be able to do everything we want to do uh by working the the actual value engineering list that we've already looked at uh and and
put those in and lament those so that they're they're um there's a little bit less give but on top of it it's we also understand that and this is just for the edification of the entire committee I think I'm sure most of you understand this but when we pay for every service a lot of it is percentage based on the
total project So by reducing the total project, those percentage services also go down. Rather than paying percentage services on a $500 million using round numbers, you'd pay percentage services on a $10 million reduction. And so that thus furthering the savings and I just
think that again it is prudent, but I'm just being respectful to the environment, but also there is a there is a backdrop of contingency uh with what's going on in the environment. And you know, we have uh it it gives us a little bit more of a cushion when it comes to the expectations on what we
were looking for in in this project financing to make sure that we can uh go to the taxpayers in three years and make sure that we can do it within our means. And I think we will and I know we will, but it I think that uh it's it's a good environment to have. I said is in a bidding environment. We will keep our we
will keep our uh fingers crossed and make in hopes that there are no more uncertainties regarding materials with with tariffs and I think it gives us all a steady um a a a steady understanding and it and it quiets the storm with everyone's concern with the budget and
uh it it is prudent. We have a second I think it's already been second. So what do we stand now? We got to go to a vote. call. Didn't we still have some hands up? We have discussion. Okay. Correct. I had a question, but I'm I'm on my iPhone now. For some reason,
my computer just sessioned me out. So, I'll have my hand up after the others, please. We lost power. So, I just had a quick question. I apologize if I missed it, but what's the basis of the number the 10 million? I'm just curious as to is it
where that like why is it 10 versus anything else? If you're asking me personally, Nick, I would say it's because I believe that's a reasonable number to start with and trying to bring down the cost of this
project and and and the overall debt service that's going to be required once it's complete. So, I don't want to I don't want to ask for 50 million, but I don't want to ask for a 100,000 either. So, uh, we've had some preliminary discussions that we feel like 10 million is relatively, uh, easy to get to. Um,
not saying that it's it's it's taking it lightly, but we believe we can get that $10 million, uh, voted without affecting the overall educational part of the high school. So, that's that's my rationale. Okay. Thank you, Linda. Are you calling
on people with hands up or how's this working? Your turn. Okay. Yep. So, Rich, I was part of that conversation and my understanding was that we were uh zeroing in on a $10 million figure and that we would inform the school building
committee of that tonight so that we could discuss it in depth at our June meeting. And I I guess I'm trying to understand what the urgency is that we make that vote tonight and not not make it four weeks from now when people have time to process.
Well, again, I just think the budget cut itself is the cut and how we get there, I think requires the discussion you're speaking of. But I would just assume have that vote taken. And um I don't know if someone's going to feel differently about cutting the budget one way or another, but um that's my motion
and I just want to get that down and and set set the expectations of what what the mean's going to be next month, not contemplating what we're going to do, but you know, prioritizing and and getting there. So, I think it's very important for us to start to bring down the cost of this any way we could. So, I
think that um we should be prepared to to address it, but I don't think there's any reason why we have to delay the actual cut. Josh show Miranda's hand up, too. And then, um I'm sorry, I can't figure out my hand up on my iPhone, so if I could
be after Josh, I'd appreciate it. I I just want to also say I think it's it's hard to vote for $10 million when we have no idea what that could be. I think it very well could be, you know, very reasonable and makes sense, but I would want to see what specifically we're talking about before saying we're
going to cut the 10 million. Susan, you want to go? Yes. Am I next? Thank you. Um, I, you know, understand the motion. Um, I value that your opinion on this. Obviously, we did do a value management assessment a few rounds
ago when we were building the school and then it switched back to the high school and so on and so forth. And at that time, we did have the value management list and ideas. We knew exactly we as a committee um agreed on we're going to
cut X, Y, and Z to make this $10 million or whatever it the percentage was at that time. So, I would feel much more comfortable. I don't disagree with the $10 million um cut, but I feel more comfortable seeing the value management
list and agreeing as a committee that we're going to cut X, Y, and Z. And the committee voted on that jointly. That's just my two cents. Thank you. I ask one more question. I'm sorry if
there's no other hands up. I'll go after you again. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I'll get in line. Yeah. So, mine is more of a comment. I I guess it's an im the it's an immaterial amount, right? So, it's one to 2% reduction in the budget, which I I I
feel comfortable voting on that and then having the conversation of what exactly that 1% again, 1 to 2% reduction would consist of. Um, my fear is if we wait till June, June turns into August, September, October, and we just keep talking about stuff. So, I don't know. Well, I just didn't see I I I don't see
any reservation of um opposing a 1 to 2% reduction in a in a sizable budget that I know everybody is um kind of anxious about the number anyway. So, um you know, I'm I'm supportive of it have making at least a vote and then having the conversation of what exactly is
within that 1% reduction. Council Kleandro, you want to go? Yes, sir. Um, so if we take a vote tonight and it passes and then it comes back that the school build we actually needed that $10 million. Is it as simple as
putting it back on the table? So I'm just going to jump I'm going to try and answer there. So one thing and it goes back to your first question. Um, if we were to reduce the 400 412.5 million is the construction target right
now. If we were to endeavor to finish the 60% phase, 10 million less than that, technically that $10 million would move down into the project contingency and it would just live there and we'd
look to never touch it in some sort of future hypothetical terrible scenario. It could still be used. It doesn't doesn't as a contract or a bond authorization reduce the total project. It really means we're reducing
construction and then we're going to put a fence around that 10 million and never touch it again unless it's an absolute crazy scenario. So Brian, what is the contingency on the project? So right now
um we have there are contingencies the external contingencies. It's kind of a complex question but we have $18.5 million in change order contingency. So that's really intended for um unforeseen events
during construction. 18.5 million. We have 2.0 0 million as what we call a soft contingency, which is where we draw from to fund any um additional services um additional sub consultants and ultimately that $2 million whatever
survives till the end usually bails out furniture. So between those two um we have about 20.5 million in contingency and embedded in the construction number is a CM contingency that Conigi is
allowed uh by contract to carry. So I don't have that number off the top of my head but long story short between the CM contingency and the two owners contingencies were probably in the 25 to $30 million range. Right. So, in all reality is all we're doing is cutting
our contingency by taking $10 million off the project. No, no, no. We're adding 10 million adding to the contingency. Well, you take that contingency is already in the budget. No, correct. Yes. So, so how are you you're adding you're
adding to it, but realistically you're taking away the top number by lessening it by 10 million. So, I don't know how you're adding 10 million to the contingency. I would say you're taking 10 million away from the top number and we have 25 million which is kind of an
emergency fund in contingency. Some so what so if we lower it that's 10 million less not 10 million more 10 million less to the construction line and 10 million more to the contingency line. Yeah. And I'll I mean this might
be a little too much detail, but let me just quickly so you can see our construction category here. Um literally what we'd be doing ultimately just to show you the mechanics of this. It'd be a a minus 10
million to this construction line. You could see our target construction. And down here on your hard contingency, that 10 million would show up in this hard contingency. And then we would we would preview it as not being
spent. So you'd then see a $10 million credit here like um and I think uh so this is what it would look like if if we ended up 10 million under on our plan construction cost. the 10 million
would show up in this hard contingency line, but we would say we're not going to spend it. So, you'd see over here there's a variance. The project is reporting 10 million under budget. So, that I mean that's a little technical,
but I'm not sure if it helps somebody. I'm a visual person. So, So, are we cutting the $10 million or are we putting it somewhere else just in case? We're reserving it basically. reserving it and aiming never to spend it. But it's not our goal if we need it.
I'm sorry. Our goal our goal should be to have this project come under budget anyway. Correct. Correct. And this just this reinforces that goal and this sends a s signal to everyone involved to put it puts pressure on making sure that we reinforce that goal even stronger by
putting some really hard uh you know kind of boundaries on on the construction uh pricing. You know you got to remember all these meetings are public. If I'm a if I'm a bidder I'm watching every one of them and I'm looking at the budget intently and I'm looking exactly where I want to be
around that bullseye. So if we lower that if we lower that threshold, I think it gives everyone a sign that where they want to be around. That's one signal that we're going to send to contractors and large firms that are be going to be bidding these processes. It gives us a much safer uh buffer uh if we do run
into some of those uh you know escalating u tariff driven costs, but also it it pays respect to the the the economy that we're in right now. and in in case in three years and I don't expect that we're going to continue to
be in the economy we're in today. We all know that it's a weird environment. They don't usually last this long that long. But it gives respect to all what all the requests are. And I'm I am giving respect to the city council that did ask this. And I'm not saying that they are the authority when it comes to um this
this this body, but they did request they did make a request. And I'm I'm giving that respect and I'm asking the building committee to give that respect. We are the authority. the building committee is uh including including everyone on this call. So that's all I'm asking for it. I think it's I think it
puts pressure on all of us, but that's okay. We like I like pressure and I hope you all do, too, because this is going to be a three-year action-packed series of building a beautiful high school. And if we can't do it within $483 million, uh then we have bigger problems. And and just just one more thing to be clear on
this this sets the expectation now that we're designing the high school to be built within 43 million not 413 million. So if we already know that we got to do the 10 million then I think the conversations over the next several meetings will be just how do we get
there? But I think the intent is to make it clear that we're going to get there. I think Don Martell's had his hand up for like a little while. Yeah. I I had a birthday while I was waiting for it to be called. Um, so one, I would support the motion for a couple reasons. One, I
think the low percentage of the overall budget is smart. Uh, the ability to have this in contingency as a as an AMRA just in case. But I think that there's a enough of smart people around the room here to consider creative ways of of to Carl's point bring the project under budget. But ultimately for me, if it's
not in any way, shape, or form a detriment to the overall, you know, about the time travel product that we're going to design and build here, meaning we're not it's it's not going to impact safety. It's not going to impact um the size and the scope of the project. If it's the materials and the facade and
things of that nature, but it's still going to be top-notch. Maybe not like a the platinum version. If we can cut some costs, I know for a fact, I walk the dog and people talk to me all the time about the cost of the high school. on people's brains every single day. And why is that? Because it cascades down to us, the taxpayers. So, whatever we can save
in a very strategic way, I I trust those that, God bless them, look at Excel files all day long uh to make the right decision. And I would at least support at least I think the motion's on the floor to move the 10 million forward. But I do want to, you know, scrutinize how we get to that particular point.
Thanks for the opportunity. May I ask one more procedural question? Sure. If we vote this tonight and it comes out as a no vote, I know on the council there's some a time that we have to wait to bring something back up. So if we vote no tonight and it fails, can
we bring this back up in the future? And if so, when? No such regulations on reconsidering. And what I'll add is the design team and OPM and CM team is going to do the same thing over the next month and we're
going to establish the ve list. We're going to have more than significantly more than 10 million in options. So if we need to use it, we can pick and choose. So at least from us um on our side, consultant side, we're going to do the same thing regardless of how the vote pans out. And um there is no rule
that I'm aware of that um like with city council there's a reconsideration period. Thank you. I believe Dr. Kelly has her hand up. Thanks. Question directed toward any probably any one of the elected officials, but um it really is around
the open meeting law. Um, I don't believe this motion was on the agenda and um I I'm still can't comprehend the urgency. I think it sounds like most of us are on board with taking a look at how we can
cut this 10 million and in favor of supporting the cut of the 10 million. I I just I feel like especially under open meeting law that the actual vote should take place next month when it can be on an agenda and when the members of the committee can have a full
consideration of what's before them. I just want to I'm going to respond to that because you know I'm the one that recommended the motion. It was new business and it was a voice motion. There's no like I you know using using things like that are in just again
inappropriate and it tries to create deflection to the law. We're very law this is a very lawful body we published right here. It's a voice motion. There's nothing wrong with it which is why I address the question to all of the elected officials. But but you you you you reference something that you give
you people that may not know that would think that there's a possibility that there's a an open meeting law issue. There's not there is no such thing. All right. And and I take I take serious offense to that. I take offense to you mischaracterizing a question that I just
asked of all of the elected officials. It's okay. Well, I move move to the motion, please. Um, can I can I make a subsequent motion, please? No. Move to the motion, please. I mean, no. It's moved and seconded. You
make the roll call vote now. We can make a substitute motion. Substitute motion would subsequent not substitute subsequent. Can we vote on this one? Um the subsequent motion I believe under Robert's rules goes first and then you
vote on the first motion and then vote on the second. So I think at the encumbering um reducing the budget by 10 million aftering the budget by 10 million after we review the value management list and
make this vote next month and second there's a second second. So now the first motion is this voice motion approved by Dian Kelly? Excuse voice motion approved by the
body. Just want to make sure. Is what approved? It's a voice motion, right? Subsequent. Okay. Just making sure. Yep. Um well, it's not it's not approved yet. Stacy seconded it. So now we vote on the first motion and then we
vote on the second motion. Okay. So, doing a roll call for the first motion. I'm starting with Mike Picardi. Nate the motion. Linda, we're I can be first. This is on subsequent motion.
Stacy, am I correct that we vote? Which one do we vote first? The subsequent or the motion? The motion would go first. Right. That's what I thought. So, this is on the motion that I I believe and I could be wrong because but I
believe so there's a lot of um I don't know there's a lot of disrespect here so I'm not anymore. I we I believe we vote on the first motion under Robert's
rules. So, roll call, Linda. Okay, roll call. Um I'm I'm not being judgmental. I just have a word document with a list. Mike, so I'm going to start with Mike Bardi. Yes.
Stacy Rizzo. No. Okay. Susan Graalisi. No. Dr. Kelly, no. Carl Senson, yes.
Christopher Bowen, no. Rich Visque, this is on the original motion I made. Yes. Yes. Uh Nick Rystrom had to leave, so he is
off the list. Uh Mayor Keefe, yes. Tom Sarowski, did we lose Tom? I think we did. I don't see him. Uh, John Stomattopolis. Yes.
Anthony Cogleandro. Yes. Don Martelli. Yes. Joshua Miranda. No. And Chris Camela. Yes.
Yes. Okay. So, let me I got 85. Yes. Yes. So that would be the majority. Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight yeses and one, two, three, four, five nos on the So the
first motion will pass. Yes, there we go. So we don't there's no need to vote on the second motion because it'll be the same count. Okay, perfect. Got it. Okay, thank you. Glad to help. Can I bring up the second
motion that we had recommended regarding the energy credits going to the the high school stabilization account? A motion. Did anyone second it? Not yet. Second.
Now we can roll call. That isn't true. Sorry. Who was that? Who second the motion? My name is Rich Visque. Rich. That's why I couldn't see it because it was coming up under Mayor
Keefe. Okay. All right. So So Linda, could you repeat that motion? Yes, please. The motion is to carry any um energy
rebates or credits that come back to go into the high school stabilization fund to be used for future um expenditures and not go towards the construction or project total project budget that we have for the project. Uh
ju and just to be clear on the motion, it's the high school uh construction stabilization account which we'll be using to offset debt payments. So any credits that we receive for any um of the repairs of the building that would be uh energy credits or rebates, we will
put in that fund and use that to offset the cost of debt service. I just have a quick question, Rich. That's just associated with this building. just the yeah just the construction of the high school building because those I think those uh credits
are otherwise general fund revenue which would go to the bottom line of the city but uh we think it's prudent to put those credits whatever they may be and whatever we can realize into the account to strictly pay for the debt service of the high school.
Understood. Thank you. All right. Are we ready to do a roll call for this motion? Yes. All right. Mike Bardi. Yes. Stacy Rizzo. Yes. Susan Graalisi. Yes. Dr. Kelly.
Yes. Carl Spenson. Yes. Christopher Bowen. Yes. Rich Visque. Yes. Mayor Keefe. Yes.
Uh Tom Skarowski I don't think has rejoined so I'm gonna note him as absent. John Stamatopoulos. Yes ma'am. Anthony Kagglandro. Yes. Don Martelli.
Yes. Joshua Miranda. Yes. Chris Camela. Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Motion passes. Uh, any other new business? If not, I think we would be
seeking a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. All right. Thank you all. Have a good night. Thank you very much everyone. Good night.
[Music] Recording stopped.