A scant quorum of the 9-member Hildreth Elementary School Building Committee voted unanimously Tuesday, June 27, to approve a 204-page document, the Preferred Schematic Report, compiled by the architectural firm Arrowstreet, that will, if all goes well, move the school project from the feasibility phase to the schematic design phase. The approval was contingent on a few edits, the clarifying of a line item showing existing school debt, and an updated cost estimate from Arrowstreet. The report is due to the Massachusetts Schools Building Authority on June 29, and, at its Aug. 23 board meeting, the MSBA will vote on the report.
The vote to approve the PSR was to have taken place at the building committee’s June 22 meeting, but neither Emily Grandstaff-Rice of Arrowstreet nor project manager Tom Murphy of NV5 had final cost estimates ready. And although the committee had seen most of the documents that comprised the report, it had not seen the final version of the entire report, which includes narratives explaining the committee’s choices. For those reasons committee members declined to vote last week, asking Arrowstreet to get the report to them Monday, June 26, for a vote the next day at a continuance of the posted meeting.
Even at Tuesday’s meeting, Grandstaff-Rice did not have the final cost estimate, since what she had been given was based on inaccurate square footage. But she and Murphy, who had provided a backup estimate, agreed that the cost of the project could, at this point, be put at $51 million, of which about $15 million would be reimbursed by MSBA. Murphy said it is in mid-February, when the schematic design is accepted, that the cost estimate will be set in stone. The committee talked about asking the selectmen to hold the 2018 Annual Town Meeting in early May to allow as much time as possible to educate the public on the new school project.
Looking toward that next phase of schematic design, building committee members spent time last week talking about ways to work most efficiently as they move forward. Superintendent of Schools Linda Dwight suggested they form working groups that would meet off cycle and inform the larger committee at general meetings. The groups would be composed of committee members, architects, consultants, and interested community members and would focus on areas ranging from the exterior grounds to interior accommodations for the education plan. Committee members could participate in groups in which they are most interested; Dwight cautioned that they would have to ensure there was never a quorum of committee members at any group meeting.
Dwight said that between now and next January there will be both design and construction meetings at which public input will be sought. Publicity will be an important part of the process. Dwight commented that she has heard from a number of community members willing to help keep the public informed as the process moves ahead.
Committee member Ron Ostberg suggested that another helpful approach would be a timeline, marking deadlines, with a detailed agenda for each meeting that correlates tasks with the timeline. Murphy said he agreed with that idea and would start constructing such a schedule.
The committee set a tentative date of Aug. 1 for a “road trip” to visit innovative area schools and gather ideas to bring back for the design team to consider. Members agreed it is critical to have teachers on that trip who represent a range of grades. Related to that decision, Ostberg said that the education consultant on the project needs to spend more time with teachers, having them describe different groupings of students that occur during the course of a day’s instruction so that information can be considered in creating the physical layout.
Choosing a construction model
Murphy described an important choice the committee will need to make between two models for construction: “Design-Bid-Build” and “Construction Manager at Risk.” He said the advantages of the latter are that the construction manager is selected early by the building committee from prequalified bidders and is present throughout the design process, collaborating with the building committee, architect, and community; he or she brings on about half of the subcontractors; bids can be put out early for things like site, foundation, and steel. There are likely to be fewer change orders. Disadvantages are that the construction manager has to be paid up front, before the total cost of the project is known, and the costs are generally higher. The Design-Bid-Build model requires that the committee choose the low bidder from among prequalified general contractors, and that is done late in the design process. On the other hand, the contractor fee is stated as a separate cost in the Design-Bid-Build model, where it can be clearly identified; in the Construction Manager at Risk model the fee is rolled into the bid rather than displayed separately as a line item.
The building committee’s next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 13, at 3 p.m. The committee plans to invite a variety of town officials and town board members, such as the Historical Commission, to join it and the design team earlier that day to tour the town center and school sites before the meeting.
