TSBC Meeting Minutes – 1/25/2021

---

January 25, 2021
Tisbury School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes

2021-01-25_TSBC_MeetingMinutes

---

Tisbury School Building Committee
2019-2020
5:30PM, Wednesday, January 25, 2021
by Zoom Cloud Conference due to Covid-19 Restrictions

TSBC Members Present:	Chair Harold Chapdelaine, John Custer, Sean DeBettencourt, Peter Gearhart, Rita Jeffers, Reade Milne, Rachel Orr, Jim Rogers, Michael Watts*
Others:	Susannah Bristol, Marie Laursen, Alice Robinson, Recorder – Marni Lipke, Daedalus Projects – Richard Marks, Christina Opper, Amanda Sawyer, Tappé Architects – Chris Blessen,
MVPS:	Julie Brand, Sean DeBettencourt, Anna Cotton, Prin. John Custer, Meredith Goldthwaite, Rita Jeffers, Natalie Krauthamer, Emily Levett, Nevette Previd, Anne Williamson, TS student – Felix Milne, PTO – Siobhan Mullin, TSC – Michael Watts,
Town:	Select Board – Jeff Kristal, Jim Rogers, Town Administrator Jay Grande, FinCom – Jynell Kristal, Planning Bd. – Ben Robinson, Emergency Management – Christina Colarusso,
Press:	Louisa Hufstader – Vineyard Gazette,
	* TSBC members late arrivals or early departures.

1. Call To Order & Virtual Meeting Reminders

• The Tisbury School Building Committee 2019-2021 (TSBC) meeting was called to order at 5:35PM.
(Recorder’s note: Discussions are summarized and grouped for clarity and brevity.)
• Chair Harold Chapdelaine reviewed the protocol for remote meetings occasioned by the pandemic. All participants were welcome. In order to facilitate the technology he asked that:
– microphones be muted to reduce background noise,
– participants raise hands either by Zoom option or on video;
– non-TSBC members turn off their video to preserve bandwidth.
The meeting was being recorded for posting, along with all background documents, on the Project website http://www.tisbury-school-project.com. Written WSHC minutes would be available by contacting stonebridgeone@comcast.net.

2 . Tisbury School Building Committee (TSBC) Attendance – was called.

3 . Review and Approval of Minutes from the December 14 , 2020 and January 6, 2021 Meetings

• ON A MOTION DULY MADE BY MS. RACHEL ORR AND SECONDED BY PRINCIPAL JOHN CUSTER THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 2020 AND JANUARY 6, 2021 MEETINGS WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS CORRECTED AND THE JANUARY 13, 2021 NOTES ACKNOWLEDGED AS RECEIVED/AMENDED: 8 AYES, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTENTIONS: PRIN. CUSTER—AYE, MR. SEAN DEBETTENCOURT—AYE, MR. PETER GEARHART—AYE, MS. RITA JEFFERS—AYE, MS. READE MILNE—AYE, MS. ORR—AYE, MR. JIM ROGERS—
AYE, MR. MICHAEL WATTS—AYE, MR. CHAPDELAINE—AYE FOR DECEMBER 14, 2020 AND ABSTAIN FROM JANUARY 6, 2021.

4 . Tisbury School Enrollment Projection Report from the New England School Development Council (NESDEC)  (See documents on file & below: Actions.)

New projections showed a rise in Tisbury School enrollment to about 323 students in 5 years and about 390 in 10 years (see 4/5/21 Minutes p.1 #3), working out to about 20 students per class section.
• These annual projections were often introduced with the following provisos.
– They were fairly accurate for the first 5 years, but 10 year data was less reliable.
– They were based on a complex data formula including birthrates and housing starts.
• The Town and Island experienced a number of changes lately. The birthrate was up, and during the pandemic many seasonal residents stayed over into the winters—which might or might not be a permanent shift. In addition two affordable housing developments were in the planning or construction phase in Tisbury.
• Tisbury students choosing other schools or non-Tisbury students choosing Tisbury School (whether involving other Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools (MVPS), the Charter School, or Falmouth Academy) had become flat, partly due to the past year’s building problems.
• Mr. Chris Blessen of Tappé Architects addressed the primary issue, which was the impact on the current design. The two potential pinch points were:
– the cafeteria which could seat 132 so even at 386 would still fit 3 seatings;
– classroom size which would have to accommodate 22 student desks, making it less spacious than 18 desks but still possible.
In addition designed flexibility such as the media/library cores and small learning spaces would add to building capacity—as would scheduling.
• The TSBC was satisfied that no further action was needed.

5 . Overview of Cost Estimating of Building Systems and Finishes in Schematic Design Phase (See also below p. 5.)

These discussions were in response to community questions and issues.
• Estimated materials and finishes were targeted to fit within the cost per square foot, neither cheap/bottom nor high/“luxury” prices but rather good durable items for reduced maintenance and prolonged lifespan at industry standards representative of elementary schools across Commonwealth. Materials were tested and chosen to avoid having to be replaced/revisited 5 years down the line. Examples were noted.
– Porcelain mix tiled floors were somewhat pricey but less likely to crack. On the other hand there were no wooden floors, which were wonderful but expensive.
– Tile wainscoting on the walls only had to be wiped down, (not constantly repainted).
• The Tisbury Select Board (TSB) might or might not continue the current TSBC at the next design/construction level.
– Although open to process, the design and Owners Project Manager (OPM) team advised that finishes/colors design by committee or public was problematic. The matter would be better handled by a small interested group including School staff and team interior designers.
• Mechanical finishes (sheet metal, insulation, etc.) were not variable, but rather determined by the choice of system. For example VRF duct systems were slightly more expensive but balanced by substantial gains in efficiencies and sustainability—as were other systems (plumbing, daylight harvesting, room sensors, non-touch fixtures, etc.).
– (Tisbury Emergency Manager Christina Colarusso reported serious backup heat and maintenance problems with the current VRF system at the newest Airport building.)
• The Tappé design team and engineers typically did lifecycle cost analysis during the design development phase.
• There was some community pushback on landscape design. Mr. Chapdelaine explained there was continued opportunity to review and refine the site plan which had been conceptually accepted with a lot of feedback from both the TSBC and the Historic Commission (see Minutes: 12/14/20 p.1-3 #4, & 1/6/21 p.2-4 #3).
– Mr. Blessen emphasized that it was the Town’s job to decide what it could afford and the team’s job to design a school that would meet educational needs within that budget. Given such constrictions the community might not get every item they wanted – projects this large seldom made everyone happy.
• A parent reported taxpayer feedback on the “high” price of the project. The TSBC reviewed their mission for a renovation/addition that fit the educational program and the long process to reduce/contain costs throughout—including the final work to move from the first $56,000,000 estimate to $53,000,000. On the advice of the OPM, the Town was proposing a $55,000,000 article as a cushion to insure against unknowns that might require having to return to the taxpayers.
– The Select Board sponsored a measure to put aside short term rental revenues to relieve taxpayer pressure.
• Other feedback showed that the temporary school arrangements were of paramount importance and that parent support was dependent on a concrete plan being in place.
– The $53,000,000 estimate included $2,500,000 in temporary school costs although real costs might be upwards of $4,000,000. Mr. Richard Marks of Daedalus Projects recently worked on a comparably sized temporary school in Lincoln, MA (see link in Chat).
– (The School/Town priced 4 modulars to meet current Covid-19 6 ft. distancing needs.)
– The Town had been working hard on the issue. The Educomp building purchase was stalled, and the Select Board was looking at the 55 West Williams St. property.
– After some discussion, TSBC and TSB member Jim Rogers declared and then confirmed the temporary school to be the responsibility of the TSB and the Tisbury School Committee (TSC). The $2,500,000 would remain in the project budget but no further TSBC conversations were necessary and regular joint TSC/TSB meetings were being scheduled with the issue on the agenda. Comments and questions should be sent to Town Administrator Jay Grande or Prin. Custer.

7 . Energy and Solar

The $1,600,000 solar energy component was not part of either the $53,000,000 estimate or the $55,000,000 bond authorization. Installation would pay for itself within 6-7 years by eliminating the $250-300,000 in electricity bills to be net financially neutral and then a positive benefit to the Town. A meeting with the Energy Committee was scheduled to discuss ways to facilitate how it could become part of the Project. – Cape and Vineyard Electric Collaborative (CVEC) and Vineyard Wind were both interested in partnering with the Town on the School Project.
– Net zero would require 30,000 sq. ft. of paneling, including canopies in both parking lots (taking into account emergency vehicle access) as well as the School roof.
– Battery storage was also requested. Ms. Colarusso emphasized the need for alternate energy and battery backup, when ferry service disrupted more traditional fuel delivery.
– The TSBC suggested a stand-alone STM/ATM placeholder article to fund the installation with language that could reduce the amount if other funding sources became available (similar to the $55,000,000 School Project language).

6 . Community Outreach, Content and Method Requirements

• There was a very strong emphasis on the urgency and work needed to publicize and support the project. Other important issues besides those noted above were circulating:
– why not re-apply for State funds?
– too high price and the “the-old-school-was-good-enough-for-us” attitude;
– set plans for temporary student housing;
– solar/net zero as a less urgent issue.
It was agreed that coordination with (Historic Commission, Planning Board, etc.) and support of the rest of Town government (TSB and FinCom) would greatly help the project. The Select Board was very supportive of the Project and working tirelessly to find alternate funds.
• The TSBC now had $25,000 for voter education which had very strict guidelines on information dissemination requiring vote neutrality although the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) had greater financial and publicity freedoms. All communications would be bilingual. The TSBC discussed a number of initiatives:
– direct mailing to all registered voters;
– press inserts;
– flyers;
– posted videos (easy access website, MVTV, etc.);
– large posters with minimal texts at gathering places (post office, grocery stores…) referring to easy access postings;
– Zoom Question and Answer (Q & A) sessions with a shared screen presentation.
– The Outreach Working Group was expanded to include: Ms. Christina Opper (Daedalus), TSB member Mr. Jeff Kristal; TSC/TSBC member Mr. Michael Watts, TSBC Chair Harold Chapdelaine, PTO President Siobhan Mullin and community members Ms. Alice Robinson and Ms. Anna Cotton .

5 . Overview of Cost Estimating of Building Systems and Finishes in Schematic Design Phase (See documents on file.)

Procurement methods of bid/build versus Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) still seemed to be in play. It was the consensus of the TSBC that given the difficulties of the renovation and the advice of the OPM and design team that CMR would be the more efficient and reliable method. The cost was included in the estimate.
• Mr. Blessen and Mr. Marks explained the benefits and issues.
– CMR carried an upfront cost charge while bid/build was awarded by low bid.
– CMR would substantially shortened the Project timeline under (Mass. General Law (MGL) Ch. 149a) by allowing subcontractor bidding in packages. This facilitated preconstruction (such as demolition) so that workers could be mobilized within a couple months of a successful June 2020 vote.
– Bid/build would require a complete design with solid specs and financial numbers before putting the project out to bid (about 8-9 months) during which no preconstruction/construction work could be done.
– Although both methods produced change-orders, many of the problems that would be potential bottlenecks (such as ferry service) or change-orders with bid/build, could be navigated around by a CMR by rescheduling work.
– Either way was acceptable but the OPM advised getting the bid out as soon as possible to take advantage of the favorable market.
• Town Administrator Jay Grande agreed that on this particular project CMR was the way to go—with the strongest component being the reduced timeline which represented substantial savings but also addressed facets of the project as it unfolded.
• The TSBC re-affirmed their strong support for CMR as an important component of a successful project:
– referring to the successful CMR Martha’s Vineyard Museum renovation during a year when almost 500 ferry runs were canceled;
– noting the construction expertise from day one for coordination and tight plans;
– the reduction in costly change-orders; and
– dealing with unknown site issues as well as already known lead and asbestos disposal.

5 . Project Funding – See above throughout.

4. Public Comments – None

6. Adjournment

For the next meeting Chair Harold Chapdelaine asked members to consider whether they wished to formally submit the design to the Select Board.

• ON A MOTION DULY MADE BY MR. DEBETTENCOURT AND SECONDED BY MR. WATTS THE TISBURY SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED AT 7:51PM: 9 AYES, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTENTIONS: PRIN. CUSTER—AYE, MR. DEBETTENCOURT—AYE, MR. GEARHART—AYE, MS. JEFFERS, MS. MILNE—AYE, MS. ORR—AYE, MR. ROGERS—AYE, MR. WATTS—AYE, MR. CHAPDELAINE—AYE.

Appendix A: Meetings/Events:
• Planning Bd. – 5:00PM, Wednesday, February 3, 2021 – Zoom
• TSB/TSC joint agenda – School Project – 5 :00PM, Tuesday, February 9, 2021
• Energy Committee – 3 : 0 0PM, Thur sday, February 18, 2021 – Zoom

Appendix B: Actions
Mr. Chapdelaine/Mr. Watts: contact Superintendent re: demographic projections
Mr. Chapdelaine: post Energy Committee as joint meeting.
Mr. Chapdelaine: schedule joint meeting with the PTO.
Tappe/Daedalus: send Mr. Grande accurate solar estimate including battery storage.
Outreach Com. – contact Sarah York re: downtown posters.

Appendix C: Documents on File: Available at :
http://www.tisbury.mvyps.org / click on Tisbury School Project
(Official archive hard copies on file at Tisbury Town Hall & Tisbury School):
• Agenda 1/25/21
• NESDEC, Tisbury Elementary School, Vineyard Haven, MA, 2020-2021 Enrollment
Projection Report (9 p.)
• NESDEC, Tisbury MV, MA, Historical Enrollment (& p.) 12/9/16
• Enrollment Projections, Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools, Tisbury, Prepared by
NESDEC (8 p.) 12/5/17
• Enrollment Projections, Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools, Tisbury, Prepared by
NESDEC (8 p.) 12/5/18
• Enrollment Projections, Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools, Tisbury, Prepared by
NESDEC (8 p.) 12/5/19
• Chat:
– 17:29:09 From Reade (Tisbury School student Felix) Milne : hello everybody i am doing my homework. booring
– 18:59:05 From Christina Opper: The link to the October presentation that Harold mentioned can be found here:
https://tisbury-school-project.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/2020- 10 19_TSBC_Presentation.pdf
– 19:17:51 From Anna Cotton: How do we join communication committee?

Minutes respectfully submitted by Office On Call/Marni Lipke.

Approved as amended by the TSBC 4/5/21

---