Region 12 - Three Town Elementary Schools: July 2007

Meeting of Board of Education on the Burnham School Town Proposal

July 18, 2007

Questions and Answers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matt Franjola - Drainage: New roof flowing onto new structure. How will this flow from the gym roof be handled?

Answer- Peter described the flow from the top roof through the four current downspouts to the lower areas and ultimately to the ground drains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary Steinman - Concerns over additional storm water load on the existing drainage systems.

Answer – Bill Stuart stated that the two storm drains between the school and the Burnham library have been recently replaced with larger drains and larger pipes. If a larger pipe were needed to go under route 133, this would be state of CT responsibility. Bill said it has not been a problem in the last 23 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary Steinman – He was concerned that 1920s building where Art and special education does not have ground level egress to grade for kindergarten to 2nd graders. SLAM and Friar expressed this concern.

Answer – There seems to be a disagreement regarding understanding the egress building code. This “Life Safety Code” issue was fully explained by Peter that proper egress from the 1920’s building is within code. The floor above the basement of 1920’s building is considered the level of exit discharge, since it is not a two-story building. Ed Wainwright stated if necessary, changes could be made to the south end of the building. An exterior ramp could be built and there are only two steps inside the building between the floor level and the exterior door.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gary Steinman – Expressed concern over traffic flow (bus and car routes, parking and safety). He was concerned about the size of the curb cuts. He was concerned about parent traffic exiting through the entrance curb cut (entry for buses and parent autos).

Answer – Peter stated the southern single curb cut was wide enough because the buses stop and queue up in the loop. There is sufficient room for 3 large and two small buses in the loop.
(Additional information: The buses queue up to wait on the 8:45 unloading time. The buses exit via a separate northern curb cut. The vast majority of parent drop off occurs between 8:45 and 9 am after the buses have gone.)

There was consideration to having the parent drop off exit behind the old firehouse so that exit auto traffic would use the fire department parking area. However this idea has not been fully explored with the fire department. It would be discussed with the firemen during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Irene Allen – Student overflow is an issue. Does the plan provide for adding a 7th classroom if it is needed in the next 20 years?

Answer – In the event of a need for a 7th classroom, it is possible to use one of the proposed special education rooms in the 1920’s building. However Peter suggested it might be possible to add three classrooms in the front of the 1950’s depending on the set back requirements. If this is a requirement, it can be investigated during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Irene Allen: Wants to renovate 1920s building to new. It has been 20 years since the 100 year- old building has been renovated. The region should take this opportunity to renovate everything to new.

Answer – The Bridgewater building committee was sensitive to the need to get a referendum passed by the taxpayers where previous referendums failed due to high costs. The building committee preferred to spend the money on new classrooms and the media center where the children spend most of their time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Irene Allen - was adamant about making certain all education specs were met versus CT state specs (she emphasized there are differences).

Answer – There are many areas where the proposal exceeds the specification, such as classrooms, Art, Music and Special education. The gym is smaller than recommended but is appropriately sized for 120 to 140 students. The health area while smaller than recommended is expanded by 80% and provides room for two cots, examination/office space and a separate toilet. In general there is 6% more space than requested and much of this is due to the added space for storage in the basement and in the lobby area. The Ed Spec Square footage could be completely met, except the Gym, by placing functions in undesirable locations. This would be an Administrative decision during the detail design phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A/C question – Will the entire building old and new be air-conditioned? Will the current ductwork handle the air conditioning in the old buildings?

Answer – Jack McKenney who’s firm supports the current heating equipment in the region 12 elementary schools responded to this question. He said there are two types of A/C that could be used in this situation. There was plenty of room for ductwork in the 1920’s building to feed the classrooms (either in the attic or the basement). We many need additional ductwork for the 1950’s building. The cost estimate provides for A/C for both old and new buildings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Septic system – will the septic need to DEP approved?

Answer - DEP will not be involved since the flows are well below volumes required for DEP approval. The septic system will be moved to a building lot on Becket Lane. This lot is owned by the town and abuts the school property in the back. The septic tank will be in the current location and the fluid will pumped up to the new location for the septic fields. In the last 7 years the fire department installed a similar system on the same ridge close to the proposed lot. We have monitored the lot with 5-foot pipes to measure the ground water flow in late April and May this year. The location looks good for the pump up system that is proposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Valerie Andersen – Will the building be LEEDS certifiable?

Answer – The building is not presently designed for LEED certification, however new lighting and occupancy sensors will reduce the electricity consumption. There will be all new energy efficient windows and doors. The 1950’s building will be wrapped with new construction and the Gym will be surrounded with rooms that are energy efficient. The new insulation has just been installed in the new gym roof in the spring of 2007. New roofs are proposed for the areas that were not done at that time. The 1920’s building has good insulation in the attic. The building will be much more energy efficient after the renovation.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: LEED Certification can be achieved with a slight budget increase. A preliminary review of the LEED for Schools checklist shows that the project could exceed the 29-point required for certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Valerie Andersen - Wanted to know how much would be covered by the state reimbursement

Answer – Peter said some things would be covered by state aid. Examples of items eligible for aid are: new classroom space, renovating things to code, new roofs on the 1950’s and 1920’s buildings and some egress windows. However the state aid of 35% calculation would be reduced because Burnham will be much larger than the size that the state accepts. Peter’s estimate is that we might get 12-14% state aid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fred Stern – He is concerned that the gym unsafe because of it’s small size. This is specifically true for older children (5th grade). Also the town residents play basketball each week during the winter and find it is difficult to avoid bumping into the walls.

Answer – Jerry said that normal size of a Gym is 5,600 Sq Ft. An Elementary School Gym is acceptable at half-size which is 2,800 Sq Ft. Our plan calls for a new sports floor and padding on the walls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matt Franjola – suggested the repairs section is underestimated and could be increased.

Answer – Peter stated that some repair estimates may be too low and some may be too high. The reason for the 5% design contingency ($275,000) is to cover the estimates that might be too low. His record for overall proposal price vs. project cost is very good. He has NEVER had a project cost more than his proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave Baron – What kind of wall materials will be used of the new construction?

Answer – Peter said the external walls would be concrete block and brick. The internal walls will be concrete block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Is an A2 survey available for the BOE to review?

Answer: - Peter stated that no A2 survey was found when looking through all the drawings on file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary Steinman asked why $234 per square foot is an acceptable cost for new construction when $250 was suggested at the Consolidated School presentation.

Answer – Rory stated that it was the $185 per square foot cost for the consolidated school that was questioned. David Hawley recommended $225 to $250 per square foot for new construction on multiple occasions at the building committee meetings for the consolidated school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New construction for the OakPark plan calls for six new classrooms and a large Media Center. Renovation of the existing Administrative, Gym and Support services is more economical than building a new building for these functions. There has been completed in 2007 the replacement of the Gym roof and wall for a project savings of $174,000. The Turner plan called for new construction of areas for Administration, Health Services, Art, Gym, Kitchen and Special Education, and six new classrooms. This would cost $1,807,000 more than renovating and modifying these areas

The OakPark proposal for the 1920’s building adds a new electrical service, air conditioning, windows, sprinklers and re-furbishing, while Turner would only renovate to code the whole building. This would cost $139,000 less than the OakPark plan.

Site costs are lower for OakPark mainly because there is no demolition and carting away cost. The Turner excavation cost is significantly higher for the large addition that includes removal of the 1950’s building and construction of a large new building. The Turner plan put the playground equipment on the hill in the back of the school.

The Turner proposal provided no detail for soft costs, only that they were calculated at 27%. One item is described as an additional Project Contingency @ 7.5% or $623,000. Without this item the percent would have been 19.5%. OakPark soft costs are 17.7% of a lower construction cost.

The escalation amount for Turner is 9.8% over a two year period at the higher project cost while the OakPark escalation is 8% for one year at the lower project cost and the accelerated time line for completion of the project. Since the construction bids become fixed after the first year, the Turner escalation amount is overstated by $372,000 for the second year.

This comparison is to the Turner proposal presented one week before the final report. The new Addition was then reduced to 21,000 Sq ft by removing the Media Center and putting it in the 1920’s building. The Media Center would have been the combination of the 3 classrooms on the first floor. The renovating to new of the whole building for an increased cost of $900,000 became necessary. Support service space is gone and there is no school during re-construction.