Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

September 18, 2024, Finance Committee Meeting - In-Person Meeting - Galvin Middle School Library. Minutes

Finance Committee · Record date 2024-09-18 · Record 5ebd3a379b4a04cce1

Saved text from 6 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original. Retrieved 2026-10-15.

Canton Finance Committee                Minutes Voted on: 10/7/24
801 Washington Street                Vote: 5-0-0
Canton, MA 02021

Joint Meeting of the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee
Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2024
Galvin Middle School Library

Finance Committee Members Present: Dave Clough, Dan Cole, John Leonetti, Emilio Mauro, Maureen Menconi,
Kristin Mirliani and Cindy Thomas.

Finance Committee Members absent: Anne Lang and Reuki Schutt.

Guests Present:

Derek Folan, Superintendent, Canton Public Schools
Ellen Jones, Recording Secretary

Randy Scollins Ill, Finance Director

See below minutes for list of guests.

Call Meeting to Order: Mr. Mauro called the joint meeting of the Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee
to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Mauro introduced himself as the Chair of the Finance Committee and asked that attendees
introduce themselves. The attendees introduced themselves as follows (in order of introduction):

Kristin Mirliani, Finance Committee                      Charlie Doody, Town Administrator

Cindy Thomas, Finance Committee                    Mike Loughran, Chair, Select Board

Maureen Menconi, Finance Committee                 Bob McCarthy, Buildings Renovations Committee
Dan Cole, Finance Committee                         Bob Benedetti, Buildings Renovations Committee
John Leonetti, Finance Committee                      Dave Clough, Finance Committee

Derek Folan, Superintendent of Schools                Maureen Moran, School Committee

Jonathan Quell, Ai3 Architects                            Randy Scollins, III, Finance Director

Justin Thibeault, Ai3 Architects                           Jeremy Driscoll, Consigli Construction Co., Inc.
Lisa Lopez, Capital Planning Committee              Tim Ericson, Consigli Construction Co., Inc.

Greg Murphy, Capital Planning Committee            Bill O’Rourke, Consigli Construction Co., Inc.
Dave Emhardt, Capital Planning Committee           Alyssa Chatani, LeftField

Adam Nichols, Capital Planning Committee            Linda Liporto, LeftField

New Business - Mr. Mauro announced that since the last Finance Committee meeting the Committee has two new
members: John Leonetti and Anne Lang (not in attendance). Mr. Mauro welcomed John to the Finance Committee.

Galvin Middle School Building Project Presentation

Mr. Mauro turned the meeting over to Superintendent Folan. Mr. Folan thanked everyone for attending and stated that
he is the Chair of the School Building Committee (SBC). Members of the SBC at the meeting also included Mr.
McCarthy, Mr. Scollins, Mr. Doody and Mr. Benedetti. The SBC has been meeting over the past 15-18 months and is
pleased to report that the Galvin Middle School Project was submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority
(MSBA) on June 27, 2024 and was approved by the MSBA on August 28, 2024. Mr. Folan stated that the purpose of
the meeting was to make sure everyone is informed about the project and to see if any attendees have any question.

Mr. Folan turned the meeting over to Justin Thibeault of the architecture firm (Ai3) that has been working with the Town
on the project. Mr. Thibeault stated that he had a 71-slide presentation to present to the committees and guests.

The following topics presented by Mr. Thibeault were as follows: (see the slide presentation attached to these minutes
for details).
e The MSBA process.
Funding.
Project Schedule and milestones competed to date.
Next steps.
Two parallel tracts: 1) Educational Program and the Vision and 2) Development of a physical building to match
the educational vision.

FINCOM 20240918 Minutes EM FINAL.docx           Page 1 of 6                                              10/6/24

e How the SBC came to consensus for critical votes and how the decision came to a single schematic design
project.

e The project started in 2017/2018 when the Town did a feasibility study and a long-range study and in 2021
presented a Statement of Interest and was welcomed into the MSBA program. At that time, the MSBA became
a funding partner with the Town, which means the Town has to follow the MSBAs' rigorous funding process.

e® In 2022, the Eligibility Period started with the Project Team formed with LeftField (the Owner's Project
Manager) and with Ai3 (the Architect). These teams were selected based on qualifications and interviews and
once established the project moved into the feasibility study.

e The feasibility study is made up of two phases: Multiple designs/information gathering to determine what
exactly the project would be and then narrowed down to a single submission for schematic design. Only one
project design is submitted to the MSBA.

* The MSBA approved the project for funding at their August 28, 2024 meeting. The Town has 120 days to
procure the two votes to move the project forward. The project must pass at the Fall Special Town Meeting
and the debt exclusion vote by ballot.

e Then, a detailed design would take place and Consigli Construction takes over the project.

e Funding the project is a major milestone in order to continue moving the project forward.

e Critical decisions are made by the School Committee (SC), such as voting on the type of performing art space
(auditorium, cafetorium or gymatorium). They were also required to vote on a delivery construction method
(either design, bid, build or construction management at risk). The SC was also required to vote on which
option moved into the schematic design phase. The SC was required to vote on the grade configuration for
the project (either Grades 6-8 or Grades 5-8). The SC was also required to vote on the final educational
program. The project was then submitted to the MSBA.

e Mr. Thibeault discussed in detail the Educational Program and the processes that led to a submission as
required by the MSBA.

e Building Options — Nine options were considered, with the final option being new construction, with an
auditorium and Grades 5-8 included being selected.

e Community Outreach — Several community forums were held: September 27, 2023; October 25, 2023;
November 13, 2023; and November 29, 2023. Grade Configuration, Site Amenities and Performing Arts
spaces were considered.

e Grade Configuration is not a typical consideration with every MSBA project. However, the MSBA
acknowledged the space capacity needs for the project and allowed Canton to investigate a grade
configuration adjustment as part of the Feasibility Study. The Grade Configuration (per MSBA) needed to
happen at the Preferred Schematic Report stage.

e Based on attendees of public events held and historical information at the various Canton Schools, it was
concluded that an auditorium would be needed at the new Galvin Middle School.

e The School Committee voted unanimously to reconfigure the grade configuration.

e After months and months of analysis and community feedback the SBC voted unanimously to include an
800seat auditorium as part of the building project.

e Based on votes taken by the SBC and SC on December 20, 2023, SBC Options 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were no
longer considered

e A Ranking Criteria Matrix 9 (Educational Program, Community Access, Construction Phasing, Sustainability
and Cost) was developed to help decide between options 7 and 9. The SBC voted unanimously to move
forward with Option 9E (demolition of the existing 131,903 sq. ft. and new construction of 218,350 sq. ft.).

e There was analysis done on existing conditions and why a renovation project was not being recommended.
Existing Floor Plans were analyzed by size compared to MSBA guidelines. A very large number of existing
areas were less than the MSBA space guidelines.

e The Education Vision was used by the Architects to design the new construction. DESE has reviewed the
schematic design, which will integrate special education spaces within general learning areas.

e Construction Delivery — Design-Bid-Build (DBB) (M.G.L. C. 149) or Construction Manager at Risk (CMr)
(M.G.L. Ch. 149A). SBC voted unanimously to move forward with a CMr as the delivery method for the
project. With this method, the Construction Manager joins the team prior to document completion to provide
insight on items like schedule, logistics, constructability and phasing. A transparent accounting process is
used to develop Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).

e Construction Manager for the Project — Qualifications were reviewed and interviews were held, with Consigli
Construction Company, Inc. being chosen as the Construction Manager.

e Schematic Design - This was the process of how a single design was chosen for the project. Drawings for
Civil, Landscape and Architecture, Project Manual, and a Report including Final Design Program, Budget &
Work plan, DESE Submission and local Actions & Approval Certification were all considered.

e Total Project Cost: $241,764,835.

e Mr. Thibeault reviewed all the site plans as well as all of the various floor levels and locations of grades within
the proposed building.

e The SBC voted to include synthetic turf for all of the athletic fields as well as athletic lights for night use.

e The SBC also voted to include geothermal wells to support HVAC equipment for the public spaces
(gymnasium, auditorium, cafeteria etc.). A note on the slide: “A building energy model and geothermal test

FINCOM 20240918 Minutes EM FINAL.docx            Page 2 of 6                                                10/6/24

wells have not been completed yet. These items will occur at a future phase and will determine the exact size
of the systems needed to support the building.”

At approximately 7:44, Mr. Thibeault turned the discussion over to Jonathan Quell from Ai3.

Mr. Mauro asked that discussion be opened up to the Committee members who might have questions about the project
before proceeding to Mr. Quell’s presentation.

Ms. Thomas inquired about the CMr process and to what extent that has allowed the Town to assure that they
are getting the most competitive pricing as opposed to the M.G.L. Ch. 149 method of going out for a bid. She
also commented that many community members have asked as to why there are no bids and is the Town
getting the best “bang for its buck”. Mr. Thibeault explained that the unique thing about CMr is that it is a
transparent process meaning all of the numbers, all of the values, all of the consultant's numbers — that whole
process is an open book, accounting process. At which time, Ai3 can ask questions and ask for additional
backup. They can go through a de-scoping process with all of the contractors to ask for additional information
to insure that what they are providing meets the design intent but also is not inflated because they know the
final number. With a truly open accounting process, it allows the team to know where the numbers are coming
from. CMr allows conversations to take place as to where the construction is, details to truck access, blackout
times for deliveries, etc. In the alternate Design-Bid-Build method an envelope is submitted with a single
number. Supt. Folan explained that there were many things taken into consideration in planning the project:
existing building, construction fence, new building, drop off locations for both the Hansen Elementary School
and the Galvin Middle School and use of the existing fields behind the Galvin.

Ms. Lopez of the CPC inquired about the 5-8 grades consisting of 1,020 students and to what extent does the
design contemplate enrollment growth over time and if the student population does not grow as anticipated,
is some of the community space multifunctional, so that it could be used by different age groups in the
community. Mr. Thibeault responded that as part of the MSBA pipeline, they actually provide what the
enrollment is going to be based on student capacity. The 1,020 is based upon MSBA’s analysis of
demographics projecting out 5 years, 10 years out etc. based upon what the MSBA knows is a flexible number
in that if you do have an enrollment bubble of students you can accommodate it but you are not overbuilding.

Ms. Thomas inquired if there was any part of the project that was not reimbursable. Mr. Thibeault stated that
there were a number of different items that are non-reimbursable as well as a number of caps. The dollar per
square foot is capped, certain areas are capped at a specific square footage and if the project goes above
that amount it may be deemed ineligible. The auditorium is ineligible for MSBA reimbursement. Regarding
the additional half-court of the gym (there are plans for two full courts), ne and a half courts are eligible, but
one half of a court is ineligible. He also stated that there are not many spaces in the total square footage of
218,350 that are ineligible. There is also a site cap, which allows the MSBA to equally fund districts.

Mr. Cole inquired if the total project cost of $241 million is in today’s dollars. Ms. Liporto responded that the
cost is in 2026 dollars and beyond. Mr. Thibeault reported that there are contingencies built into the total cost
of $241 million such as construction contingencies, overrun contingencies etc. Total contingencies are $11-
$12 million. Ms. Liporto stated that the construction cap cost is approximately $550 per square foot. Form
3011 within the MSBA budget report itemizes specific budget caps for certain items.

Mr. Mauro clarified that the Town has to approve the full amount of $241 million and, as the project progresses
and parts are completed, the Town will be reimbursed for those portions. Mr. Mauro inquired as to program
space and how much thought is put into flexibility for expansion in the new building in future years. Regarding
the district’s vision of how curriculum has evolved and how to get to achieve that vision, the MSBA has high
praise for the district’s vision and their understanding that things are changing. The building allows for flexibility
because no one knows what the future of learning will be during the life of the building. The best process is
to review past history and project where education is going and using the vision as much as possible to get
there. With a new building you do not have to compromise as with an existing structure. Mr. Mauro inquired
with regard to sustainability if in the future other parts or the rest of the proposed building could utilize
geothermal wells. Mr. Thibeault responded with no, but he added that just because other parts of the building
do not utilize geothermal wells does not mean it is not sustainable. The non-geothermal sections will be all
electric, thus fossil-free. The building will allow the option of being fossil free with the future installation of
solar panels that the building will be built ready to have installed. The retrofitting of spaces vacated in the
elementary schools by the 5" grade will not be included in this project.

Mr. Emhardt expressed his concern regarding the geothermal component of the project. Speaking as a
member of the Water and Sewer Committee, Mr. Emhardt stated that across the street from where the
proposed geothermal system would be installed are wells and a trea that supply public water. He stated that
the Department of Environmental Protection Agency has regulations about the wellhead protection area, which
is zoned around the location of the wellheads. Mr. Emhardt stated that even if this is a closed geothermal

FINCOM 20240918 Minutes EM FINAL.docx             Page 3 of 6                                                   10/6/24

system, it is unknown what a heat map will do or if the system in 40 years might fail. He is very concerned
about what the geothermal system might do in the future and how it might affect our partial water supply. The
Town does have an overlay district for water protection, however, with geothermal being such a new
technology it is not being discussed in the Town’s overlay or in the State’s regulations. There is nothing that
says the Town cannot install a geothermal system but the town should be cautious at having the system so
close to a water supply. Mr. Mauro inquired as to how much consideration has been given to ground water
contamination. Mr. Driscoll from Consigli responded that there has been careful consideration of the
geothermal location to the wells. Consigli is still in the very preliminary exploratory stages. The first step is to
determine the location of the system within the site and in relation to the water supply protection overlay zone,
to perform a test to determine what type of parameters they would see and also examine ground gallons per
minute and estimate what that would produce. A thermal connectivity test would also be done. Mr. Emhardt
stated that the unknown for everyone is what the heating of the ground might do to the water supply. He
suggested that if the project could go forward with electric, there are other sustainability options. While there
has been no outreach to the Town’s Public Works Department, Mr. Driscoll explained that as part of the
permitting process there are lines, locations and maps available for mapping out the aquifers and that there
are parameters for mapping out setbacks. Mr. Doody had provided names of the local authorities. Mr.
O’Rourke of Consigli stated that they were originally going to do the test in the summer, however, when a heat
map was created they realized how close the system would be to the aquifer. The test is scheduled for
December during Christmas break when there is no one in the Galvin Middle School. He further stated that
the team does share and understand the Town's concerns. Eventually, Ai3 will hire an engineer and
consultant for the geothermal system but they are trying to expedite the process and learn as much as they
can to get to the testing point.

e Mr. Murphy of the CPC inquired if the whole project would be net zero in terms of energy. Mr. Thibeault stated
that the building will be “Net Zero Ready’ and that to be “Net Zero Ready” you would need to have an energy
source on site. The solar panels are an alternate for the project but they could be added to supplement the
building to provide enough energy to make it net zero. At a minimum, the building will be “Net Zero Ready”
when opened. Mr. Murphy inquired that if the geothermal portion of the project had to be removed and an
alternative energy route sought, would that affect the project from being Net Zero and/or the cost of the project?
Mr. Thibeault explained that the geothermal systems are more efficient than air sources. From an operational
cost perspective, if the project were to go with a straight source for energy it would lead to higher operating
costs, so you would need more photovoltaic solar panels to offset that operating cost to make it truly net zero.
He further stated that there is an initial premium to the geothermal system but, with the long-term savings,
there would be a payback over a period of time. The cost of the geothermal system is approximately $2.3
million. Mr. Folan stated that geothermal systems are recognized by MSBA and are reimbursable.

e Mr. Murphy also inquired about the $11-12 million contingency representing only approximately 10% of the
total cost of the project when contingencies are usually around 20%. Mr. Thibeault responded that because
the building would be new it mitigates many of the risks associated with contingencies.

e Mr. Murphy then inquired if the amount that the MSBA reimburses the Town is a fixed amount or a flexible
amount based on the final cost. MSBA will release monthly payments or installments to the Town as
submissions are submitted to them. Reimbursement will be based upon items that are reimbursable or not
reimbursable. When the project closes out, the total reimbursement will be close to what has been projected
at the beginning of the project. Reviews will take place throughout the entire process.

e Ms. Liporto explained that the budget that is currently set for the project is based on the current plans and
goals for the project. With more information having been gathered, Ms. Liporto is confident that they can stay
within the budget. The set budget of $241 million already includes contingencies, close-out costs, escalation
costs with other contingencies for those costs. She explained that the advantage of having Consigli on board
now is that, as construction costs occur, the team will be able to track each subcontract assigned and track
expenses for various materials as they are needed, therefore, helping them to stay as close to budget as
possible. She further stated that there will be market variances and that is why contingencies are built into
the cost of the project.

Mr. Mauro recommended that given the lateness of the hour if LeftField could give their presentation at this time it
would be great to ensure that the full presentation would be given during the meeting.

Mr. Quell of Ai3 identified key items of design that were considered for this project: Elements of Design: Massing,
Scale and Repetition, Color, Texture and Solid/Void ratio (location of windows), Shade and Shadow. Mr. Quell also
showed slides of Exterior Renderings showing different views (eye level, close up views of the red brick, main entrance
view, glass portions, bus loops, drop-off points, double gymnasium etc.).

Mr. Driscoll of Consigli presented a logistics animation of the project which included Early Release (June-August 2025),
Enabling (July 2026), Excavation (August 2026), Foundations (September 2026), Structure (November 2026), Fagade

FINCOM 20240918 Minutes EM FINAL.docx            Page 4 of 6                                               10/6/24

(November 2026-June 2027), Demolition (August-October 2028), Field Construction (March 2029-May 2029) and
Project Complete (June 2029).

Mr. Folan summarized that informational sessions/presentations have already been made to the Elder & Human
Affairs/Council on Aging, all of the Canton Association of Parents and Teachers (CAPTs), Community Forums, and
Engagement sessions of Educators. Presentations will be made again to the Council on Aging, CAPTs, and through
additional general community forums for residents. There are legal restrictions on what the SBC and SC can do to
promote the project — they cannot campaign, for example. A representative from the Office of Campaign Finance made
a presentation about the promotion of the project at an SBC meeting. Presentations during the School Committee
meetings, community forums and social media are allowable. Ms. Thomas inquired if there are members of the
community that will be helping out with getting the word out about the project and it is hoped that there will be that form
of community involvement.

Mr. Emhardt made a general comment that the 120-day deadline to complete the Town Meeting and the Debt Exclusion
Vote after the project has been approved by the MSBA Board vote seems harsh, putting the community in a difficult
position. Mr. Thibeault explained that the schedule that was initially laid out with regard to the feasibility and whole
schematic design schedule was strategically planned targeting a specific MSBA Board meeting knowing that Town
Meeting had to occur on a certain date and the Debt Exclusion Vote had to occur on a certain date. Everything was
worked backwards to get to the right board meeting to submit the schematic design in June, submit the earlier Preferred
Schematic Report in February 2024. If the project is passed at Town Meeting with a 2/3 vote on November 18, the
project then moves to a debt exclusion ballot requiring a simple majority on December 10. If the project fails at Town
Meeting, the Town forfeits the grant, and would need to withdraw from the MSBA program and then re-enter the MSBA
program by submitting another Statement of Interest to restart the entire process.

Mr. Folan thanked everyone for their support and time. Mr. Mauro thanked Mr. Folan for all of the work the School
Department, School Committee, the School Building Committee, and the construction professionals have done to
bring this project forward.

Minutes

A motion made by Ms. Thomas to approve the May 13, 2024, meeting minutes was seconded by Mr. Clough.
Vote: 7-0-1. Mr. Leonetti abstained due to his not being a member of the committee in May 2024.

Next Meeting Date

Mr. Mauro asked the Committee members to save the following dates for the next Finance Committee meetings:
September 25 (joint in-person meeting with the Capital Planning Committee), September 30 and October 1. Mr.
Emhardt will poll the CPC members for their availability for meeting dates and will get back to Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones
will poll the Finance Committee members for their availability for meeting dates. Mr. Clough requested that the
Committee meet in person. Mr. Scollins announced that at the next Select Board meeting the Board would be hearing
a presentation from Mr. Scollins about the funding of the Galvin Middle Schoo! Building Project.

Adjournment

Amotion made by Ms. Mirliani to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:06 p.m. was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Vote: 8-0-0.

Minutes reviewed by: Mr. Mauro

Respectfully submitted,

bomb €. Was f

Emilio E. Mauro, Jr.
Chair, Canton Finance Committee

FINCOM 20240918 Minutes EM FINAL.docx            Page 5 of 6                                                10/6/24

Finance Committee
Meeting Documents
September 18, 2024

Please note: Some meeting documents may be found on the Town’s website under the Posted Minutes
section (Laser Fiche).

Agenda — September 18, 2024.
Galvin Middle School Slide Presentation by Ai3, Consigli and LeftField (66 pages).

FINCOM 20240918 Minutes EM FINAL.docx            Page 6 of 6                                               10/6/24