2026-10-21 - RHS Building Committee

00:0096.

00:01Um, today is Wednesday, October 21st,

00:042026.

00:06The time is 5:32 p.m. Roll call, please,

00:10Linda.

00:11>> Thank you very much, Susan. I am going

00:13to start with Mike Picardi.

00:16>> Here.

00:18>> Um,

00:18Stacy Rizzo, I don't see her. Um, let me

00:22check the waiting room. Nope. Um, I'm

00:24going to note as absent for now. Susan

00:27Gravelese.

00:28>> Here.

00:29>> Dr. Kelly.

00:30>> Here.

00:32>> Carl Svenson,

00:34not here, absent. No. Steve Knozi.

00:39>> Here.

00:41>> Rich Viscay.

00:43>> Here.

00:44>> Don Scarmella.

00:45>> Here.

00:47>> Nick Reistrom.

00:48>> Here.

00:50>> Um, Mayor Keefe.

00:53Absent for now. Tom Skrowronski,

00:56absent. No. John Stamatopoulos.

01:01Absent. Anthony Cogliandro.

01:05Absent.

01:07Don Martelli.

01:10Absent. Joshua Miranda.

01:13>> Here.

01:15>> Chris Scarmella.

01:17>> Here.

01:19>> Thank you. I am also going to just check

01:21the Somebody just

01:24um,

01:26joined the waiting list. Nope, that is

01:28it. Okay, we still do have a quorum. So,

01:30thank you very much, everyone. Brian,

01:32I'm going to turn it over to you

01:35to go through the agenda and all the fun

01:37stuff for tonight.

01:39>> Sounds good. 1 second. I just want to

01:42get one more file open.

01:48Okay, let me share my screen.

01:57Okay, so, uh, first order of business

02:00agenda item two, approval of meeting

02:02minutes from September 23rd, 2026.

02:05There are no questions or comments, we

02:07would move that to a motion to approve.

02:09>> So moved.

02:11>> Second.

02:20>> Sorry folks, give me a second here. I

02:22see John Stamatopoulos just arrived, so

02:25I'm going to note him as arriving at

02:285:35.

02:32And do the roll call for the minutes,

02:36uh starting with Mike Picardi.

02:39>> Yes.

02:41>> Uh Susan Gravelese.

02:42>> Yes.

02:44>> Dr. Kelly.

02:45>> Yes.

02:47>> Steve Kenosian.

02:48>> Yes.

02:49>> Rich Viscaino.

02:55>> Yes.

02:56>> Thank you, Rich. Don Ceramella.

02:59>> Yes.

03:00>> Nick Reistrom.

03:01>> Abstain.

03:03>> Thank you.

03:05John Stamatopoulos.

03:12John, I I know you just joined. We are

03:14going through the um

03:16invoice or the um

03:19approval of last month's meeting

03:22minutes, and I see you putting a note

03:25that you're on a flight.

03:27Are you able to give us a thumbs up for

03:30your vote on the meeting minutes?

03:40I don't see any chat. I will put a

03:44question mark for now. Um Joshua

03:46Miranda.

03:47>> Yes.

03:49>> And Chris Ceramella.

03:50>> Yes.

03:52>> Thank you.

03:55>> Thank you. Next we'll move into

03:57invoices. Let me move my zoom controls

04:00here.

04:03Uh four groups of invoices tonight. All

04:05the typical ones. First is left field

04:07invoice billing to 32% completion of the

04:10construction phase

04:12uh in the amount of $185,274.

04:16If there are no questions or comments,

04:17we would move that for a motion to

04:18approve.

04:20>> Motion to approve.

04:22>> Second.

04:29>> And I will do the roll call uh for left

04:33field invoice. Mike Picardi.

04:35>> Yes.

04:36>> Susan [snorts] Gravelese.

04:38>> Yes.

04:40>> Dr. Kelly.

04:40>> Yes.

04:42>> Steve Knoosie.

04:44>> Yes.

04:45>> Rich Biskay.

04:46>> Yes.

04:48>> Don Ceremello.

04:51>> Yes.

04:52>> Nick Reistrom.

04:54>> Yes.

04:57>> John Stamatopoulos. Are you able to give

04:59us the vote?

05:00>> Yes, [clears throat] please. Pay the Pay

05:01the bills. Yes. Thanks.

05:03>> Yes, perfect. Thank you.

05:05Uh

05:06Joshua Miranda.

05:07>> Yes.

05:09>> And Chris Ceremello.

05:10>> Yes.

05:13>> Thank you.

05:14>> Uh next Briggs uh independent

05:16construction testing uh material testing

05:19agency. Uh

05:20this month in the amount of $55,604.38.

05:24We have consumed 72% of this $400,000

05:29uh budget. This is one of the items

05:30we've noted probably in a

05:32two-ish months, maybe a few meetings

05:34from now, December or January, we're

05:36going to recommend a value to uh add to

05:38that $400,000 budget that is in our

05:41monthly forecast of one of the few

05:43categories here that uh might need help.

05:47Uh but we still have adequate money to

05:49be uh, moving through steel and

05:51concrete, which is where the bulk of our

05:52testing is. This uh, this will be a

05:55lesser value as we move forward uh,

05:57after all the steel and concrete tests

05:59we're doing. So, uh, more info to come

06:02on how to what we will recommend

06:05increasing this overall $400,000 budget

06:07to, but for tonight, the Briggs invoice

06:09is ready to go. $55,604.38.

06:16>> I'll move.

06:17>> Thank you.

06:18>> Second.

06:32>> Linda, you're unmuted.

06:35>> Oops, sorry. I had my

06:36>> Sorry. [laughter]

06:39I'm having too much trouble getting my

06:41brain to uh, connect with what my hands

06:43are doing. Um, that second was by Mike

06:45Picardi, correct?

06:47>> Yep, that was me.

06:48>> Thank you.

06:49>> [laughter]

06:50>> Um, and for the roll call, um, Mike

06:52Picardi.

06:54>> Yes.

06:55>> Susan Gravelese.

06:56>> Yes.

06:58>> Dr. Kelly.

06:59>> Yes.

07:01>> Steve Knoosie.

07:02>> Yes.

07:04>> Rich Viscay.

07:05>> Yes.

07:06>> Don Seramella.

07:07>> Yes.

07:10>> Nick Reistrom.

07:10>> Yes.

07:12>> John Stamatopoulos.

07:16>> Yes.

07:18>> Thank you. Joshua Miranda.

07:20>> Yes.

07:22>> Chris Seramella.

07:26>> Yes.

07:28>> Thank you.

07:30>> Thank you. Next invoice, Perkins

07:31Eastman, 17% of the construction phase

07:35uh, billing to no sub-consultant

07:36invoices. Total amount, $442,750.

07:40And just a reminder that I mentioned it

07:43every month. Um

07:44there um Perkins Eastman in their

07:46contract there construction phase

07:50uh

07:51began after ours did. Uh they So, these

07:54numbers, while they're not the same, um

07:57when we calculate out how these

07:59contracts are supposed to bill out and

08:00how they were structured, it remains

08:02accurate. So, um there are any

08:04questions, we would look for a motion to

08:06approve Perkins Eastman Perkins

08:09Eastman's invoice.

08:11>> So moved.

08:12>> Second.

08:20>> Thank you. Just noting that Carl Swenson

08:24has arrived at 5:40, so he will be

08:27included in the roll call for Perkins

08:31Eastman invoice. Mike Picardi.

08:33>> Yes.

08:34>> Susan Gravelese.

08:36>> Yes.

08:37>> Dr. Kelly.

08:39>> Yes.

08:40>> Carl Swenson.

08:41>> Yes.

08:43>> Steve Conosky.

08:44>> Yes.

08:45>> Rich Viscay.

08:47>> Yes.

08:48>> Don Sermella.

08:50>> Yes.

08:51>> Nick Reistrom.

08:53>> Yes.

08:55>> John Stamatopoulos.

08:57>> Yes.

08:59>> Joshua Miranda.

09:01>> Yes.

09:03>> Chris Sermella.

09:04>> Yes.

09:06>> Perfect. Thank you.

09:08>> Thank you. Final invoice.

09:10>> The uh Consigli September construction

09:12requisition 16A.

09:14Um high-level point on this just um

09:18the pro- the review process on this all

09:20of the subs as they bill Consigli,

09:22Consigli vets whether their percentage

09:25is complete and what they're um billing

09:27for is accurate. Left Field then does

09:28the same thing when the draft

09:30requisition comes through us. So, um

09:32this bill uh on a monthly basis goes

09:34through a lot of hands to make sure we

09:36feel it's accurate. Overall, billing to

09:3821% completion of the construction

09:40contract with the major contributors

09:43remaining to be concrete, which is

09:45approaching 50% complete and build out.

09:48Structural steel just over 50% and then

09:52the other main areas of focus are site

09:54work and geothermal wells billing to 50%

09:56and 59% respectively. The other smaller

10:00items of trades that are are underway

10:03are waterproofing. There is a initial

10:05waterproofing is scope along the

10:06foundation and along the base of the

10:08building. Metal siding billing 1% is the

10:11first bill from them. That spawns and

10:13support for the mock-up panel and then

10:17some of our MEP trades with early

10:19purchase equipment and long lead items.

10:21Fire 4% of fire protection build, 8% of

10:24HVAC build, 3% of electrical build. So,

10:28again, we've put a lot of attention into

10:29this in a monthly basis. We feel these

10:31are all billing to the appropriate

10:32percentages. As always, retainage comes

10:34off the bottom. We'll discuss retainage

10:36release of retainage a lot further along

10:38in the project. If there are no

10:41questions on the Consigli bill, we would

10:43entertain a motion to approve in the

10:45total amount of $10,964,840.85.

10:51>> Brian, just one question on the negative

10:53value on the CM contingency.

10:57>> The CM contingency negative value, I

11:00believe Darren, you might have to help

11:02me out. I remember talking to Brian

11:04Johnson he couldn't be on this meeting.

11:06I think that was a I forget what that

11:09was a credit for. Um

11:12I don't think it was buyout savings, but

11:14I'd have to jump in there to check. I'm

11:16not sure if you know off the top of your

11:18head, Darren.

11:18>> I don't know that number off the top of

11:21my head. I'll have to look at it closer.

11:27>> I might have to follow up with that, but

11:29um I remember talking to Brian about it.

11:31It was a credit uh for some item. Most

11:33credits within any of these sections

11:36flow into the contingency before at the

11:38end of the job them coming back to the

11:40owner.

11:43>> We always like credits.

11:45But if you could get clarity for our

11:46next meeting, that would be good.

11:48>> Yeah, we'll do.

11:56>> I'll make the motion to pay the Consigli

11:59invoice in the value of $10,964,840.85.

12:06>> Second.

12:12>> Thank you. Uh roll call, Mike Picardi.

12:16>> Yes.

12:18>> Susan Gravilleese.

12:19>> Yes.

12:20>> Dr. Kelly.

12:21>> Yes.

12:23>> Paul Svenson.

12:24>> Yes.

12:26>> Steve Knoesel.

12:27>> Yes.

12:28>> Rich Viscay.

12:30>> Yes.

12:31>> Don Scaramella.

12:32>> Yes.

12:33>> Nick Reistrom.

12:35>> Yes.

12:36>> John Stamatopoulos.

12:38>> Yes.

12:40>> Joshua Miranda.

12:42>> Yes.

12:44>> Chris Scaramella.

12:45>> Yes.

12:47>> Thank you.

12:49Brian.

12:50>> Thank you. Uh next agenda item four, um

12:53we have an item that we have been

12:56previewing as

12:57uh potential for an uh additional

13:00service contract amendment for Perkins

13:03Eastman. Uh at first, I'm going to jump

13:05into this budget summary. Uh this is an

13:08item that's been living on the

13:10architecture and engineering line in the

13:12current exposures column for a few

13:14months. Um

13:16we knew when we

13:18executed the um initial

13:23not the GMP contract, but the early

13:25construction awards,

13:27um that we did not have coverage in the

13:30existing base contract for Perkins

13:32Eastman for geotechnical monitoring

13:35during construction. Um and we would

13:37like to go through this today. Let me go

13:40through these two slides. I'll be pretty

13:42quick. And um

13:45and we'll get through this. The short

13:47story is that we carried when we awarded

13:50construction and began construction, we

13:52included a 10-week duration

13:54for the on-site monitoring of

13:56construction by the GGA um team. They're

13:59our geotechnical engineer. That's

14:01related to observations for site work,

14:04ground improvements, geothermal wells,

14:06foundations, steel, concrete. Um

14:09basically a lot of the heavy stuff that

14:11we need to ensure that the uh all the

14:13settlement parameters of various pieces

14:15of the site are all within spec and

14:18working. We also included a 16-week

14:20duration for vibration monitoring, which

14:23is uh primarily done through devices

14:25that are deployed on the site that

14:27report back to us that um the

14:29geotechnical engineer analyzes, passes

14:32reports through to make sure we're not

14:34exceeding any vibration

14:36um

14:37levels leading the site leaving the site

14:40at the uh perimeter of the site.

14:42For record, we have had no um

14:45instances of one of those vibration

14:47monitors going over the limits of what

14:49we're watching it for.

14:50Um however, based on all the items that

14:52we've been talking about related to site

14:55work, slow getting out of the ground,

14:56and some of our challenges with getting

14:58to the point where we were erecting

15:00steel,

15:01uh these services were really only

15:03carried through the end of September.

15:04So, as of this month, we asked the

15:07architect to put together a final

15:09proposal uh to cover both the monitoring

15:13of construction because we still have

15:14ground improvements, geothermal wells,

15:16foundation steel underway. And um

15:20based on some discussions, we feel it's

15:22in the project's best interest to extend

15:23the vibration monitoring through the end

15:25of the project. So, long story short,

15:27we're proposing, in addition to the

15:2910-week duration that was already

15:31carried and has already elapsed, an

15:33additional 70 days

15:35um for the construction monitoring, and

15:37we're requesting to run that vibration

15:40monitoring through the end of the

15:41project's substantial completion in

15:432028. Um but you can see in the middle

15:46of this page, down in this area,

15:49is um the original four tasks in GZA's

15:52proposal that made up the last Perkins

15:54Eastman amendment. Um RFI and submittal

15:57review, the original cost was $30,000.

15:59There's no change to that. And general

16:02project meetings and management, 80

16:04hours were carried, it remains accurate,

16:05there's no change to that.

16:07Um we are looking to add 70 days to the

16:1020 weeks that we carried for

16:12construction consulting in the cost of

16:14$154,000,

16:16and carrying the vibration monitoring

16:18past the 16 weeks we originally carried

16:21through completion of the project. Uh

16:23those total $256,080.

16:28I'll take a quick pause there to talk

16:29about this before we run we go to a

16:31motion. I just want to talk about how

16:33this would get funded in the the health

16:36of the contingencies that fund this. But

16:38I'll stop now to see if there's any

16:39questions or comments.

16:41>> I have a question.

16:43>> Sure.

16:45>> Help me understand

16:47why we had 16 weeks of vibration

16:50monitoring at 23,900,

16:53and why we need to

16:56spend fivefold on that. Is that

16:58something we need to do, or is that

17:00something that's nice to do? Uh what's

17:02what why is it quadrupling?

17:04>> Uh it's really simply it's based on

17:07time. Um

17:08at at the time when we executed the

17:10original contract, our original thought

17:12was we wanted to carry it at least

17:14through

17:15establishment of the foundations and

17:17structural steel and some of the heavier

17:20site work.

17:21Um as we've

17:23as we've continued to talk with the

17:25engineers, with Consigli, we feel it's

17:28in the city's best interest interest to

17:30continue this monitoring. It's not

17:32required by law, so to speak. However,

17:35if there are any um events that do that

17:38might cause damage offsite, we feel this

17:42is an investment in being able to uh

17:45rebuff any claims being that we're

17:47alongside a neighborhood and a train

17:49track, uh the commuter rail. So, this

17:52more or less gives us hard data if any

17:55entity outside the site comes back in

17:57the future and says, you know, banging

17:59around all that steel, hauling all that

18:01site work affected my my train, affected

18:05my house, affected my business, we would

18:07at least have a baseline to uh show

18:11show numerical values for um what did or

18:13didn't leave the site.

18:15>> And 16 weeks isn't enough data?

18:19>> Um in the 16 weeks we haven't tripped

18:21the threshold. We think keeping the

18:23machines and keeping the monitoring

18:24there through completion, I understand

18:26it's a $102,000 cost is uh

18:29is a worthy investment for the city.

18:33And I'm not sure if anyone from the

18:35project team wants to add into that. Um

18:37I'm just seeing who's on.

18:38>> I'm still not clear why it's worthy, so

18:40someone may have to take another crack

18:42at it.

18:42>> And

18:43uh and one of the reasons

18:44[clears throat] or the considerations

18:46are that um just like for instance the

18:49surveys that we did of the surrounding

18:52uh residences uh

18:54to the site is that we are protecting

18:58the school from the possibility of a

19:02claim being made for damages to the

19:04residents. The vibration monitoring is a

19:07similar uh means by which to protect the

19:10school from future claim that could be

19:13made by showing that we've had data and

19:16baseline established throughout the

19:18whole project that therefore if a claim

19:21would be would to be made that some

19:23vibration caused cracking in someone's

19:26foundation for instance, we could go

19:28back to this data and show that in fact

19:33we were below the thresholds.

19:35>> Why wasn't it in there in the first

19:36place then?

19:39>> Um

19:41It could have been should have been it

19:44would have been included as a additional

19:46cost in the original Perkins Eastman

19:48contract if we had included it. We did

19:51not it wasn't included as basic services

19:53so once we got to construction and had a

19:55real construction schedule, we were

19:57going to have to budget this from the

19:59soft contingency. Um and perhaps at the

20:02beginning when we signed them up for 16

20:04weeks we maybe should have had the

20:06discussion that we recommended going

20:07through completion at that time but

20:10either way the cost would have been the

20:11same whether it was then or now.

20:16>> Brian, can I ask a clarifying question

20:18on that?

20:19It makes sense to me to I think it's a

20:21you know $100,000 to protect the city

20:24from any litigation that

20:26people could say well you didn't

20:28continue to collect data after those

20:29first 16 weeks. That makes sense to me

20:31to spend the money.

20:32But I think Rich's original question

20:35which I have also is if the first 16

20:38weeks of vibration monitoring cost

20:40$23,000,

20:42why does the next let's call it 12 weeks

20:46cost $102,000?

20:49Do you see the discrepancy there?

20:51>> Yeah, this number is over 2 years. So

20:54through completion is 2028.

20:57It's it's it's more or less 26 months is

21:00what this 102 would entail as opposed to

21:03the 6 weeks. And it's

21:05we sort of count the what is the weekly

21:07rate. And this weekly rate is actually a

21:11little less than the weekly rate that

21:13was established here. Part of that is

21:15one of the efficiencies we can find in

21:17this is not needing a report every 2

21:19weeks from them. We can reduce the

21:21frequency of getting a report um

21:24because during the initial 16 weeks

21:26nothing has happened. We have our

21:27baseline. So, it's a little cheaper on a

21:30weekly basis for this 102 than it was on

21:33the 239 original.

21:35>> Okay, that makes sense to me. I think it

21:37would be clearer if instead of through

21:39completion it actually said

21:41>> Yeah.

21:42>> what the time was.

21:43>> So, yeah. I I think it works out to be

21:45about 26 months is what that should say

21:48instead of through completion.

21:55>> And I know Don Chiaramella has his hand

21:58>> Sorry, I didn't see that.

22:00>> Hi

22:01guys. Um so

22:04um you know, the data can also work

22:07against us. You you're assuming that

22:09we're always going to stay under the

22:10threshold of um vibrates of vibration

22:14monitoring.

22:15But, most of the heavy construction has

22:16been done.

22:18So

22:19I think there's probably less chance of

22:23um vibration in the site. You have to

22:25agree that it is a little remote from

22:27houses. Not so much the train.

22:31But, the houses I don't think would be

22:33impacted by the

22:35construction going on because you know,

22:38you're kind of an island out there.

22:40Um

22:42Also, is there a protocol for

22:45um

22:46vibration monitoring for construction

22:49projects of this scale?

22:52>> Uh to my knowledge this is not required

22:55by any permit or code.

22:58Um it's a belt and suspenders that is

23:00mainly about um being able to defend

23:04against potential claims and

23:08I'll I'll leave that answer. I I have

23:10just another comment on your initial

23:12comment.

23:12>> I think

23:14Let Let Dan call and respond, please.

23:19>> Sure.

23:22I didn't know that I had started

23:24speaking.

23:26>> No, I I The question was So, the

23:28protocol I've been doing this a long

23:30time. My experience is buses and trains

23:32actually vibrate more

23:35than the construction equipment on site.

23:38So, what we've seen over the years is

23:39the MBTA will come back and say they've

23:43got track improvements

23:44and they want proof.

23:46Well, we have to be able to defend that

23:49our vibrations were less than their

23:50vibrations as one example. MBTA buses,

23:53believe it or not, on

23:56out on the road there, actually bounce

23:58more and make more vibration than the

24:00equipment on site.

24:02The big picture is we're going to be for

24:05quite a while still working heavy

24:06equipment, especially down towards the

24:09um the houses. We still have the fields

24:12down there.

24:13>> Yeah.

24:13>> The fields.

24:14So,

24:15none of us disagree this is

24:19probably never going to exceed that

24:21limit.

24:22>> And maybe maybe it's possible that

24:25this duration can be trimmed back as we

24:28get closer to the finish line.

24:30>> So, that that's a worthy note that these

24:32are both These aren't lump sums. So, the

24:35both both these 70 days are going to be

24:38tracked and if there's a point in the

24:41future, namely I

24:43if we get through the work on the

24:44northern side of the site towards the

24:46neighborhood, the heavy rolling and

24:48heavy site work,

24:50we could decide to pull the plug on this

24:51at the in the future and it would just

24:54the remaining money would come back to

24:56the owner. So, neither of these are a

24:58full commitment out of the gate. If we

24:59only end up needing 50 of these days,

25:01there'll be money left over and returned

25:03to the owner. And if we decide to pull

25:04the plug after we're done rolling those

25:07fields and digging that retention basin

25:10out in the back upper corner of the

25:12site, we could always pull the plug on

25:14this at a future point. And we can make

25:17note to discuss that regularly with the

25:18team if that's something the committee

25:20is interested in.

25:23>> Do I have to wait for a motion to amend

25:25that or can I amend this motion?

25:28>> Um you can

25:29you can amend the motion however you'd

25:30like.

25:31>> I amend the motion to appropriate

25:33$180,000 for this service.

25:38>> For total, so 154

25:42plus

25:43>> I don't I don't care how it's split up.

25:45>> [clears throat]

25:49>> So, 180k. I'm just trying to do this

25:52150.

25:5726. So, that's going to that more or

25:58less would change this 102 to 26.

26:02>> Yeah, but I'll I'll I'll I'm willing to

26:04double it and I want to report on some

26:07kind of Gantt chart on when the ideal

26:09times would be to do vibration checking

26:11cuz I tend to agree with Donnie. I think

26:13most of the heavy stuff's done. If we

26:15want to do some spot checking and have

26:16some good data, but I think this is a

26:18little bit of overkill. So, that's my

26:20motion.

26:22>> Okay.

26:23>> If I could just discuss on the motion,

26:27um

26:28I

26:29I just feel like we have some

26:31construction experts in the room. I know

26:33John Ciaramella is one of them.

26:35Um but we have others who have built

26:37schools and done projects like this. And

26:39if

26:40the money is not at risk of going out

26:44the door tomorrow, but we can allocate

26:46the funds so that those

26:48in charge um can act in ways that they

26:52to without being overly loose with it

26:55and have regular check-ins, I'd rather

26:57allocate the full $256,080

27:00requested

27:02and just make sure that we have those

27:03check-in meetings that Brian Day can

27:05just describe.

27:08>> Yeah, Dr. Kelly, to the same effect, I

27:09feel like if there's a need for more

27:11money, they can always come back, too.

27:13So, I'd rather the I'd rather have a

27:15little bit more control over this

27:17because I don't have enough data, but I

27:18respect your opinion.

27:20>> Um, excuse me. I'm trying to raise my

27:22hand, but I can't find it on this chart.

27:24So, I'm raising my hand manually instead

27:27of virtually.

27:29Um, I believe the process when a motion

27:31is made and someone has an alternate

27:33motion, they have to

27:35make a motion for the alternate motion,

27:37then it has to be voted on. And if that

27:40alternate motion is approved, then it

27:42will move forward.

27:44As far as like Robert's Rules, am I

27:46correct, DK?

27:48>> Yes.

27:50>> Uh, and I just want to follow along.

27:52>> That's why I asked in the first place.

27:54>> Nobody's made the original motion.

27:56>> That's what I was asking in the first

27:58place.

28:02>> And and that's also correct. I think the

28:04original motion is just proposed

28:06language by Brian, so there's no actual

28:09motion on the floor for there to be an

28:11amendment except So, Rich's motion would

28:14be the motion on the floor if somebody

28:17seconds it.

28:18>> That is correct. My interpretation.

28:20>> Yep. Yes.

28:25>> I'll second it.

28:27>> Chris.

28:30>> And can we repeat the motion on the

28:33floor before we have a vote, please?

28:37>> 108,000 dollars total as opposed to 256.

28:41>> Okay.

28:42Thank you.

28:47>> Okay. So, I'm going to do the roll call

28:51for the motion on the floor currently as

28:53it stands. Mike Picardi.

28:59>> I'm thinking. I'm here.

29:01>> Go back to him.

29:02>> [laughter]

29:03>> Back to me.

29:04>> back. Susan Gramlich.

29:06>> No.

29:08>> Okay.

29:09Dr. Kelly.

29:11>> No.

29:13>> Carl Svenson.

29:15>> Yes.

29:17>> Yes. Steve Knozi.

29:20>> No.

29:22Under all

29:22>> No.

29:24>> Yes.

29:24>> Mike Picardi.

29:25>> Going yes.

29:27>> Yes.

29:28>> Thank you.

29:29>> Uh Rich Viscay.

29:32>> Yes.

29:34>> Don Sermella.

29:37>> I'm sorry. I'm confused.

29:41Uh I don't mean to break up the roll

29:43call there, but

29:45>> No worries. The motion is uh

29:48not the one that's written, but it's to

29:50allocate 180,000

29:53to both categories tasks three and four,

29:56basically.

29:57>> Yes, but I have a lot of questions.

30:01I don't really think any of it is

30:04necessary. The amended amendment or an

30:08amendment to to continue

30:10seismic monitoring. I just don't agree

30:13with any of it.

30:14>> No.

30:15>> So, how would I vote?

30:16>> You can abstain from voting.

30:19>> I abstain.

30:20>> Okay. I'm going to change your yes to

30:23abstain.

30:26Nick Reistrom.

30:28>> Yes.

30:30>> Yes. John Stamatopoulos.

30:35>> I think we lost John.

30:36>> we lost John.

30:38Yep.

30:42Joshua Miranda.

30:44>> No.

30:46>> No. And Chris Sermella.

30:48>> Yes.

30:50>> Yes. Okay, I'm going to have to actually

30:52check this math here. So, we've got

30:54>> I got one Five yes, four no.

30:57One abstain.

31:00>> Four

31:01Five yes, one two three

31:05four no and one abstain.

31:09Oh, sorry. No. One two three

31:12four

31:14five yes

31:15one two three four no's and one abstain.

31:20>> Agreed. That's what I got, too.

31:22>> Okay, perfect.

31:23>> So, that means the motion passes and we

31:27will um

31:29we will divide that up. We'll come back

31:31with a report on how far that gets

31:33vibration monitoring and if we need to

31:34talk about that in the future, um we'll

31:36bring it back to the committee.

31:39>> Brian, could you ask Could that

31:40evaluation kind of go with the flow of

31:43the type of construction that's going to

31:44be done? What kind of impact, what kind

31:47of vibrations may happen versus

31:49one task versus another?

31:51>> Yeah, I think that's how we'll follow

31:53up. I'll discuss with the team and um

31:55see if maybe

31:57see how far that can get us in terms of

31:59perhaps stopping it and then getting it

32:01back out there when um

32:05when we're rolling those fields and

32:06getting closer to the neighborhood.

32:07We'll we'll come back with some sort of

32:09idea

32:10um

32:10and discuss it further at the next

32:12meeting.

32:12>> And probably worth having the data on

32:15the 16 weeks that were actually done and

32:17see what the

32:18the you know, the bell curve is and how

32:20close we were to any impacts. I mean, I

32:22think that's a pretty big number to

32:24quadruple without much of data, so

32:26thank

32:28>> Yep.

32:31So, I have this next slide. I just let's

32:32just cover this if that's all right with

32:34the committee. I I wanted to snapshot

32:36the contingencies cuz that is um this is

32:39funded by contingency. Just as a

32:41reminder, the two main owners

32:43contingencies, we call one the soft

32:44contingency. That's primarily for things

32:47like this, uh engineers, architects,

32:49OPM's professional services.

32:52Um and that original value was just over

32:542 million for the soft cost.

32:57Um before tonight's motion,

32:591.4 of it was used and 605 was left.

33:04Um this bottom is now slightly out of

33:06date cuz I just used the entire

33:07amendment amount, but um we'll basically

33:10take 180,000

33:12um

33:14as the value. Regardless, the whole

33:16point of looking at this was, yes, we're

33:19eroding soft contingency.

33:21Um we'll have around probably 400,000

33:24remaining, not 349, after we do the math

33:26from tonight's motion.

33:28Um the only known items that we have

33:30against that, one is that topping off

33:32the construction testing budget, which

33:34we'll come back to um with some better

33:37ideas at the next meeting of what that

33:39value should be.

33:40And next is um something that's been

33:43lingering for a little bit that we

33:44talked way back in the day that once we

33:46get construction rolling, we potentially

33:48want to um

33:50go through whatever process is needed

33:52from an environmental environmental

33:54permitting point of view to clean up the

33:56ditch, to clean phragmites out of the

33:58ditch, to clean trash and other items

34:01out of the ditch. So, those items are

34:03the only ones we have on our radar, so

34:05to speak, that might go against this

34:07remaining balance, which would end up

34:08around 400K.

34:11I wanted to point out we haven't touched

34:12the owner's hard contingency, which it's

34:14primary uh this primarily funds

34:18construction changes, physical changes.

34:21Um we haven't touched it and there's

34:23nothing in the pending column to go

34:25against it. Um however, the story is a

34:28little bit better than that. I wanted

34:29just to remind folks that in addition to

34:31the untouched 18.5 million contingency,

34:34we do have 14.8 million in savings from

34:37signing up the GMP. Once we receive the

34:39MSBA project funding agreement bid

34:42alternate um

34:44the PFA bid amendment, sorry.

34:46This money will probably most likely

34:48flow into this 18 value. So, the 18.5

34:52and the 14.8 will be combined.

34:54And to date against buying out the GMP,

34:57which was 14.8 million under, we're

34:59tracking almost 3.5 million under on

35:02buyout savings. So, that savings

35:04ultimately would get moved to the CM

35:06contingency and any unspent CM

35:09contingency gets returned to the owner.

35:10So,

35:11the point of this was even though the um

35:13soft cost contingency on paper is you

35:16know, been eroded and has about 400k

35:19left,

35:21in the event that it ever zeros out, we

35:23can still tap this hard contingency if

35:26needed. But, generally speaking, the

35:28project is uh very financially uh

35:31healthy.

35:32And as we get further into getting that

35:35PFA amendment back from the MSBA and we

35:37get closer to the end of construction,

35:40we'll be previewing where we think we'll

35:42land. I'm confident we'll exceed any of

35:44the values we've discussed with the

35:46city, the committee, and you, Rich, um

35:48at the end of the day. But, we need to

35:50get this next 2 years of construction

35:52done.

35:59Uh I hid my Zoom controls. If there's no

36:01hands up, I'm going to move back to the

36:03agenda.

36:06Uh we'll come back to the very end

36:08talking steel topping off. But, uh quick

36:10in terms of monthly report overview

36:12before I hand it over to Consigli for

36:14their update. Um the two most important

36:17pages summaries from the monthly report.

36:20Again, GMP schedule in green middle

36:22columns current schedule in blue. Long

36:25story short, looking down at the bottom

36:27line, we are still tracking uh 48 days

36:30ahead in terms of substantial

36:32completion. Contract substantial

36:33completion date November 8th, 2028, and

36:36currently tracking towards September

36:3821st, 2028. So, we still got a lot of a

36:42lot of 0% we're working our way down

36:44from earthwork into the structural frame

36:47and closing the building in. So,

36:49this has to hold up for the next few

36:51years, but schedule overall is in very

36:53good shape. And same outlook for the

36:56budget. I know I just touched upon that

36:58a minute ago,

37:00but here you can see those two values I

37:02talked about the 18 million and the GMP

37:04savings added into 133 million in hard

37:07contingency, none of it expended, and

37:09nothing on the radar against that.

37:13Ultimately, 400 or so 400 and change

37:16remaining in soft contingency with the

37:18project about 22% done overall.

37:22>> All right, before we before we go too

37:24deep into budget, can we go back to

37:25schedule?

37:26>> Sure.

37:27Let me Which was that in? That was in

37:30here.

37:31>> Is there anything that's changed here

37:33since last month?

37:37>> Um

37:40There's been small

37:43movement one way or the other, but

37:46the the the thing that you want to

37:48always be focused on is substantial

37:51completion date.

37:54Last month, we were showing 921, I

37:57believe, and this month we're still

37:58showing 921.

38:03Versus versus the the target substantial

38:07complete, or I should say not the

38:08target, but the

38:10the GMP agreement

38:13number

38:14date of 11/8.

38:17Which is a static number.

38:20That's what's in the yellow yellow

38:23columns are are what we must

38:27obtain versus in the blue columns which

38:30are what we're tracking.

38:34>> Right. It's I think it's just helpful to

38:37see or to hear

38:39so that everybody doesn't have to go

38:41line by line comparing two dense

38:43spreadsheets.

38:45Uh if that if there was anything changed

38:47if we could know what that is from month

38:49to month.

38:51>> What I can do Dr. Kelly is uh in advance

38:53of the building committee meeting I'll

38:54do a comparison to last month's and just

38:56highlight a few cells um and we can sort

38:59of see up in here the these numbers all

39:01get these dates rather all get updated

39:03on a monthly basis or not if there's no

39:05change. And what we can start doing is

39:08I'll jump in this file after Consigli

39:10sends it over and just highlight a few

39:11areas. Did we lose time? Did we gain

39:13time? Um

39:16>> That would be helpful.

39:19>> Okay. You can note.

39:23Okay.

39:24Um

39:26Wasn't much more to say in the budget

39:28department. Um

39:30we're going to move the money the

39:32preview of the GZA money that we moved

39:35tonight out of the exposures column

39:37and into the $180,000 of it into the

39:41approved CEO column.

39:43Otherwise we're still previewing the

39:44same potential overrun for furniture.

39:46We'll be talking about that a lot more

39:48this winter. And

39:50um a couple of potential overruns namely

39:53testing services which we're plugging

39:55150k in this value for now. Um and just

39:59a small value 25,000 is in this column

40:03for if we need to return to uh

40:06some sort of permitting effort based on

40:07cleaning up the ditch. So really nothing

40:10new in here except for the removal of a

40:14$200,000 preview we had about the

40:17National Grid permanent electrical

40:19service. Um we have since got the final

40:22permanent electrical service back charge

40:24from National Grid. It is not over

40:27budget like we feared it would be. So, I

40:29have removed uh 200,000 from the current

40:32exposure column in the uh miscellaneous

40:35cost category as compared to last month.

40:37So, in terms of a compact the last

40:39month, this month's current exposures in

40:42the budget are 200,000 less than they

40:45were last month.

40:49>> That's good news, Brian. Where does that

40:50200,000 live now?

40:54>> Uh the 200,000

40:55>> no, no, no, where?

40:57>> Yeah, nowhere. Correct. It came out of

40:58this cell that only has the 150 left for

41:01potential um

41:04I'll see if I can zoom in and you can

41:05sort of see my note a little better, but

41:07the the note that pops up here, I

41:09removed the 200,000 from this cell and

41:12we're keeping 150 as a preview for um

41:17potentially needed in

41:19testing category. So, it came out of

41:21this cell, H14.

41:23>> I got it. Thank you.

41:32>> Oh, that was John in the chat. Um

41:36If there are no other questions on these

41:38items, I will turn it over to Consigli

41:41uh for their progress update.

41:48>> Okay. Um um

41:50Just one one minute while I get

41:56if I can uh share here.

42:08Okay. Hopefully, everyone is seeing my

42:10screen.

42:11>> Looks like it's loading. Yep, it's

42:13there. Got it.

42:14>> All right.

42:16Okay, so for the last um

42:20for this meeting, this kind of shows the

42:23latest and greatest where we are over

42:25the last uh

42:27several weeks.

42:29Um

42:32I I'm assuming everyone is fully aware

42:35of the project layout, but I'll I'll

42:38start scrolling to some of the locations

42:40and explaining where we're at.

42:43Um

42:44So, the net this item here is a uh

42:48aerial view of the geothermal well

42:50field, which will eventually be

42:53the baseball field.

42:55Um the geothermal wells have all been uh

42:58drilled. They're uh all So, all the

43:01drilling is complete, thankfully,

43:03finally.

43:05Uh we are now in the process of running

43:08all of what we call the circuitry, which

43:10is the the lines that make connections

43:14uh from the drill wells all the way down

43:17to the end uh which would tie into a

43:22series of vaults

43:24that then feed from those vaults to the

43:26building.

43:28So, right now what we're doing is we're

43:30we're back we're trenching to run those

43:33circuits between the each one of the 300

43:36wells

43:38across the field to the end of the

43:40field, and um

43:43uh and then we're um

43:45in the process we're also um

43:48removing a lot of

43:50uh unsuitable uh

43:52unsuitables in the field, uh in this

43:54case peat.

43:56Uh and then we're backfilling. So,

43:59we're um

44:00we're about uh a little

44:03around halfway across the field at this

44:05point

44:06uh with regards to that process, but we

44:09still have a ways to go in terms of the

44:11general uh thermal well installation. We

44:14still have to set the vaults. We still

44:17have to run all the the lines from the

44:20vaults to the building.

44:22But, this is coming along uh pretty

44:24well.

44:27Um

44:29drone photo over here over the entire

44:32site or I should say the entire

44:34footprint of the building. Uh in the uh

44:37foreground is building C. Uh the walls

44:40are nearly complete. Um what you don't

44:43see at the very bottom here is the end

44:46wall, which is in the process of being

44:48formed

44:49uh right now to be poured in. That would

44:52complete everything, the entire

44:54perimeter foundation of the building

44:56with the exception of

44:58uh an entranceway that we're using for

45:01logistical uh purposes at the center of

45:04the building,

45:06uh what we call uh well, building B.

45:09And uh as soon as we get uh farther far

45:12enough along with the uh steel erection,

45:15uh which will be in approximately 3 to 4

45:19weeks, we're going to uh move to that

45:23area and uh go ahead and put in the um

45:28the final section of wall.

45:32Um

45:33you can also see that and there'll be a

45:35a better view of this in a minute, but

45:37uh

45:38uh just to reiterate, this

45:40[clears throat] tallest tallest section

45:42to the right is the what we call

45:44building E.

45:46That is the

45:48where the auditorium will be.

45:50In the background uh is the gymnasium.

45:55Uh let me see if I can just zoom in a

45:58little bit better here for everybody.

46:00This is a little bit better to see.

46:03Um

46:05So, again, the gymnasium uh is behind

46:07building E in this in this picture. Uh

46:10you have building G

46:12uh which is basically going to be

46:14eventually the courtyard area.

46:16Um

46:17And then uh build the first section of

46:21the front uh classrooms of the building,

46:24which is building A, and we've we've

46:27erected that up to the

46:29to the uh roof at this point.

46:32I'm going to um go back to

46:36full view here. And uh then I'm going to

46:39scroll down. Uh we've Logistical's, but

46:42we we've got temp power established.

46:44This is kind of an important one for us

46:46so that we can move forward with the

46:48rest of uh construction in a more

46:51efficient manner and not work off of uh

46:53generators for the rest of the job.

46:57Now, moving into uh the uh gymnasium.

47:01Um

47:02To try to pan down a little pan back a

47:06little bit and uh scroll down. Whoops.

47:09One second here. Just trying to maneuver

47:11this

47:12this little bit.

47:14Uh so, this is we we have we poured the

47:18gymnasium uh floor

47:21over the last week. So, this is the uh

47:23concrete floor that's been poured in the

47:25gym

47:27first level.

47:28Uh there's still uh another level that

47:31has to be poured in the gym uh

47:33between uh

47:35between the building F and building G.

47:38Um but that's a a nice shot of the

47:41progress of the gymnasium floor.

47:44Uh obviously, that floor is not an

47:46exposed concrete and it will be uh

47:49covered with uh sports floor uh

47:53um

47:54>> [clears throat]

47:54>> gymna- uh, gym floor

47:56uh

47:57finish floor system. Um,

48:00concrete slab placement, just another

48:02example of an area in the gymnasium

48:05where we're pouring uh, kind of a action

48:07shot, if you will, of the progress of

48:10making the pour where in the background

48:13you can see the concrete being poured in

48:14the foreground. The uh, area still uh,

48:17remains to be poured during that day.

48:20Um,

48:22another shot here. This is uh,

48:24This is the building G. Again, this is

48:27the what will be the courtyard and that

48:30that entire uh, concrete slab was poured

48:33slab on deck was poured as well. So,

48:35it's in place.

48:37Um,

48:40moving down into uh, the garage area.

48:43We've also started the spray

48:45fireproofing of the structural steel

48:47members

48:48uh, in the garage.

48:51Um, which is an important uh, part of

48:54what we have to do to get ready to pour

48:56the slab on grade

48:58uh, eventually in the garage.

49:02Um,

49:05another shot of the uh, formwork for

49:07just one of the stairs

49:09that is going to be uh, poured in the

49:12future here.

49:14Uh, this is at the first at the ground

49:16level going from the garage up to what

49:20will uh, up would be to the uh, first

49:22level.

49:23Just an example.

49:26Um,

49:27and this shot here, I'll try to zoom in

49:31a little bit better so everybody can

49:33see.

49:34Uh, this is just like we did last uh,

49:37month, kind of showing how the job is

49:41uh, progressed over the last month in

49:43terms of erection. So, um,

49:46last month

49:48uh, on the left-hand side you can see

49:50that uh, while the building F and

49:53building uh, E were are in the same

49:56situation now as they were then

49:59except for the slab pores. Building A

50:02had just kind of begun erection and as

50:06you can see on the left-hand side of

50:08that picture there's there's no steel on

50:11top of the foundation.

50:13If you go to the

50:15let me just

50:17try to

50:19I'm not

50:21losing effect here.

50:24So once again, no steel on this half of

50:28building A, but the other half of

50:29building A the steel is underway.

50:32All right, then you go to this month

50:36and this month's update and

50:39as you can see that the building A steel

50:43building A steel has all been erected up

50:46to the roof the roof line in this shot.

50:50The next

50:51the next outlook here is that we're

50:53starting to erect

50:56building

50:57building D.

50:59If I go back to the first page

51:04overall to give everybody kind of a

51:06better outlook on what

51:08building D is.

51:11Um

51:13So we have a we have a crane set up

51:16within the footprint here now and we are

51:18beginning to

51:20erect what what will be building D which

51:23is the cafeteria.

51:25Um so we're going to work on that over

51:28the next month as well as we're going to

51:31start getting back on to the erection of

51:36areas of building E that were incomplete

51:39due to the to to the foundation walls.

51:43I can answer questions on anything

51:45regarding that if you like after I'm

51:48through with the

51:49presentation here, but uh the plan is to

51:52work on uh building E

51:54as well as uh

51:55commence with building C. We're going to

51:59start erecting building C. Um so, one

52:02crane will move over into building C,

52:05the other crane will work in D, uh and

52:08then one of those two

52:11who uh whichever one's first ends up

52:13going uh and retreating to the rear to

52:16uh finish up the remainder of building

52:18E.

52:20>> [snorts]

52:21>> Um and then

52:23before I leave this, Dr. Kelly,

52:26regarding your question on the uh CM

52:29contingency,

52:32um

52:33that is

52:36if uh if the if everybody will remember,

52:39we

52:40uh

52:41we procured the site, the concrete, and

52:44the steel

52:46uh last year, about this time actually.

52:50Um they were early procurement packages.

52:52The contract documents were not 100%

52:56complete um at the time because of uh

53:00the projected GMP completion, which uh

53:03of the of the contract documents, which

53:05occurred in uh December of last year.

53:09So,

53:11following the completion of the contract

53:13documents,

53:14a reconciliation of scope with some

53:18things that that materialized that

53:21affected uh site,

53:24uh concrete, and steel uh were

53:27reconciled, and that 70,000 is just kind

53:31of a

53:32uh

53:32one of

53:34a few of the first

53:37change orders, if you will, but they're

53:39not change orders, they're just

53:40contingency uh

53:42everything is being applied to the

53:44contingency. So, what you're seeing is a

53:46net result of us um

53:50of us uh

53:52putting that money or uh uh

53:55billing that uh contingency for those

53:58changes to reconcile those scopes.

54:03>> Am I correct in interpreting that as uh

54:06it came in about 70,000 less than what

54:08we anticipate?

54:12>> Yes, in fact, yeah, that's that's the

54:14net result of that particular one, but

54:17but be careful because we're we're not

54:19entirely done with that process yet. I

54:21mean, this is just the four first foray

54:24into a few others that still have to be

54:27uh that the design team, the

54:29construction team, the the the OPM, and

54:33the design team have to still uh

54:36uh complete uh their the process of

54:39approval.

54:41So,

54:42it's not 100% done yet.

54:46>> Understood. Thank you.

54:50>> Okay, that

54:51that kind of uh

54:55I guess uh finalizes my uh presentation.

54:58Is there any Are there any questions?

55:04>> Uh I don't see any hands, Darren, and um

55:10if anyone's

55:12thinking of questions, I'll just say

55:13right now, we haven't finalized any

55:15days, and and Darren, correct me if I'm

55:17wrong here, but

55:19we are shooting for um

55:22somewhere in the early to mid-December

55:24to do a steel topping off ceremony, and

55:27we're working out logistics to have a

55:29beam on site that can uh we'll have

55:33we'll call them visiting hours uh for

55:35people to come and sign the beam, and

55:36then there'll be a ceremony. We wanted

55:38to give you guys a heads up. Um it won't

55:41We'll have our November meeting, so

55:42we'll be able to definitively tell you

55:45before then. But um if you have anything

55:48to add, Darren, on just uh it's one of

55:50the things we wanted to give the

55:51committee a heads up that's coming.

55:53We're not quite there yet. It'll be in

55:54there in December and we'll have it

55:56worked out in the next week or two. Um

55:58but

55:59just wanted to throw it out there.

56:02>> Correct. We're just We're working with

56:03Dr. Kelly on making arrangements to get

56:06the beam uh signed.

56:09The uh beam's going to be delivered in

56:11the next uh couple of weeks.

56:13And then uh

56:15we're working with Dr. Kelly to um

56:18make arrangements with uh

56:20those folks uh

56:22with the city, the school that want to

56:24um

56:25be a part of that signing.

56:27>> And I think uh just for clarity that we

56:30were looking at doing any kind of

56:32signing a little bit earlier, like maybe

56:34the week before Thanksgiving, just to

56:36have that finished and completed and we

56:39can take pictures of it and all of that.

56:41And then um as Brian and Darren

56:43indicated, the actual topping off

56:46ceremony is probably mid- December, when

56:50um folks can actually come and watch

56:52that final beam be lifted on the top of

56:54the building.

56:57>> Brian, Don Seramella has his hand up.

57:01>> Yep.

57:03>> I I just have a question and in

57:05comparing this building with some of our

57:08other schools that we have, um

57:13something that I know nothing about, and

57:15that's the courtyard and how that works.

57:17And this is probably not a question for

57:19this meeting,

57:21but

57:22um what are some of the details so that

57:24this

57:25courtyard doesn't become a maintenance

57:28problem as far as, you know,

57:31um

57:32I I know I when I was looking at some of

57:34the pictures that Darren was displaying,

57:36uh looking at some of the reinforcing

57:38rod that's used in a lot of the

57:40applications that's you know, it's

57:42uncoated. It's not epoxy coated.

57:45And I was just wondering if that if that

57:48theme can

57:49ran through the whole project as far as

57:51the the deck for the courtyard.

57:54Um

57:55you know, we learn by some of our

57:57mistakes and some of the old schools and

57:59you know, Dr. Kelly is is tasked with

58:01some of the problems many of the

58:03problems that some of the existing

58:04schools have

58:05and

58:06um

58:07I was just kind of curious. What are

58:08some of the details as far as the deck

58:11is concerned so it doesn't become a

58:12maintenance problem as far as

58:14waterproofing and application to the

58:16steel. Was the epoxy coated rebar used

58:18in the in in embedded in that concrete?

58:21Um so it doesn't rust or spald the

58:24concrete. Just curious. I mean, it's

58:26done in I'm just kind of curious.

58:30>> Um so I'll I'll I'll defer I'll defer

58:33I'll defer

58:34>> to Dan on any specifics, but I would

58:37just say I would offer that the design

58:40team has required that the concrete uh

58:44that's being poured have um corrosion

58:47inhibitors additives as part of the

58:50concrete mix design. So even and so

58:53there's some concrete areas that do not

58:57have epoxy, but all the concrete has a

59:00corrosion inhibitors.

59:02Uh but there are some areas of concrete.

59:05So for instance, that that one uh view

59:08that you saw, that was

59:10um

59:11it's it's in the basement, so it's under

59:14the building, okay? It's not outside.

59:17But um but like [clears throat] I said,

59:20the concrete has uh corro- corrosion

59:23inhibitor admixtures in the concrete.

59:26When you get outside the building,

59:29like for let's say

59:31retaining walls and exposed concrete

59:34areas,

59:35that concrete

59:36it does have epoxy coating on it. That

59:40I'm sorry, the rebar has epoxy coating

59:42on it.

59:45>> That probably makes the most sense to

59:47share the details with you.

59:49>> So but the

59:51>> I'll certainly send them to you.

59:53>> The rebar that was used in the deck for

59:55the courtyard was

59:58bare steel?

1:00:01>> It is not epoxy, no.

1:00:04>> Okay.

1:00:05>> There are other waterproofing agents

1:00:07that are being will be employed that to

1:00:10Dan's point,

1:00:12that that those details can be relayed

1:00:15to explain how

1:00:17the the green deck, if you will, which

1:00:20is this is a green roof basically, how

1:00:23that green roof system works.

1:00:26>> There's a substantial build-up above

1:00:27that deck.

1:00:29>> Yes.

1:00:29>> Okay. So where are the

1:00:31>> That's that's you're not walking on

1:00:33that.

1:00:33>> Yeah, where it is where we're at at a

1:00:35pivotal point with that deck where

1:00:38all the necessary

1:00:40precautions have to be taken so that

1:00:43you know, that deck doesn't deteriorate

1:00:46ahead of its time.

1:00:48>> That deck is thoroughly protected by

1:00:51many layers. That's why I think it's

1:00:53best if I send you the details and

1:00:55you can take a look at how this is

1:00:56really built up.

1:00:57>> Like I said, I know nothing about them.

1:01:00Thank you.

1:01:02>> John, we'll follow up. We can at least

1:01:03walk you through some of the design

1:01:04measures

1:01:05um

1:01:06to protect against what you're

1:01:08what you're justifiably concerned about.

1:01:11>> Thank you.

1:01:16>> Uh any other questions for Darren or

1:01:18about construction progress?

1:01:23>> It looks great.

1:01:27>> I was actually going to say I just

1:01:28looked back. This was a

1:01:30$4 million steel month and I think from

1:01:32those

1:01:33um

1:01:34to put it into numbers, to put it into

1:01:35dollars, from those pictures Darren had

1:01:37left and right.

1:01:39Um that's that's what $4 million worth

1:01:41of steel looks like and I will be

1:01:43we'll be right up around there for the

1:01:44next

1:01:452 months probably.

1:01:48>> And I'll just add that um

1:01:50Dave from Consigli sent us a link to a

1:01:53drone fly through of the

1:01:57it building as it exists right now and

1:01:58that's going to be going up on the

1:02:01new building website if anybody wants to

1:02:02take a look at that. I don't know Linda

1:02:04if it's gone up yet. You can maybe let

1:02:06us know when that's going to

1:02:07>> Yep, I'll get it up tomorrow morning.

1:02:11>> I was thinking of throwing that on the

1:02:12screen, but I think it would crush our

1:02:15throughput of connectivity here and

1:02:17probably crash our Zoom. So we'll get I

1:02:19can circulate that link and we'll get it

1:02:20on the website.

1:02:26After no other questions or comments, we

1:02:28will move to agenda item seven, public

1:02:30comments. Let me just just first check

1:02:31the committee. We good to move to public

1:02:33comment?

1:02:37Looks like uh yes.

1:02:39Um if anyone

1:02:42out in the public is on the meeting, you

1:02:44will have to raise your hand.

1:02:47>> We only have

1:02:48uh

1:02:50one person in as an attendee, which is

1:02:53Bob Bell. So

1:02:55no public attendees today.

1:02:57>> Bob Bell

1:02:58is a Perkins Eastman employee for any of

1:03:00those of you who forget. So uh

1:03:02>> Yes, Bob. I did invite him.

1:03:05>> [laughter]

1:03:05>> I did invite him to be a panelist if he

1:03:08wanted to say something, but he rejected

1:03:09it. So

1:03:11>> [laughter]

1:03:11>> I think he's more comfortable in the

1:03:14in the waiting room, I guess.

1:03:17>> Sounds good. We'll just do a for the

1:03:19record going twice public comment seeing

1:03:21none. We would entertain a motion to

1:03:24actually is there any other new business

1:03:25or other business from the committee

1:03:27agenda item eight.

1:03:33Seeing none. We would entertain a motion

1:03:37to adjourn.

1:03:39>> Motion to adjourn.

1:03:42>> Thanks everybody.

1:03:44>> Thank you.

1:03:44>> Thank you everybody.

1:03:46>> Thank you everyone.

1:03:53>> Recording stopped.