Simsbury, CT - Board of Finance Minutes

Paul Henault, Chairman, called the Special Meeting of the Board of Finance to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Peter Askham, James Belfiore and Michael Wade. Mary Glassman arrived at 5:40 p.m. Also present were Kevin Kane, Finance Director, Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer, Joseph Townsley, Superintendent of Schools, Dan Davis and Jim Beaudin, Fletcher Thompson, Reece Hoben, O&G, Brian Solywoda, Dean Ober and David Friar, Friar Associates, and other interested parties.

Mr. Askham questioned whether the existing high school site can meet the educational needs of 1,700 students, as well as an expansion to 2,000 students on that site. Mr. Davis stated that the educational and extra-curricular needs cannot be met on the existing site without the use of the site diagonally across the street from the existing high school. He stated that the additional parking at the existing site would cause the loss of one athletic field and the land across the street would need to be used for athletic fields in order to address the needs of the physical education program and interscholastic sports. Mr. Davis stated that with the use of the site across the street the existing site can accommodate 2,000 students. Mr. Askham questioned whether moving the football stadium to another site would make the current site easier to use. Mr. Davis stated that the site becomes easier to use whenever the demand on the site is reduced. He pointed out that the stadium is used less frequently than the practice field.

Mr. Askham questioned whether the BOE gave a budgetary number to the architect to consider in their design. Mr. Davis stated that the design was developed with the program in mind and the educational specifications determine the size of the building. He stated that the lowest cost to accommodate 1,700 students, given the educational specifications, is $47 million net cost to the Town.

Mr. Askham noted that the revised design is built to the State allowable size and no longer puts the Town in a reimbursement penalty situation. Mr. Davis stated that the revised design is smaller and is renovated as new. He stated that they can meet the needs of 1,700 students in a 302,000 square foot building. Mr. Askham questioned whether the needs of 1,850 students can be meet with the proposed 99,500 square foot addition. Mr. Davis stated that it would be a challenge to meet the needs of 1,850 students in that size school. He noted that it is rare for a Town to build a school to less than the square footage allowed by the State. He stated that the core facilities could accommodate 1,850 students, but a minor addition would be necessary to meet the educational specifications.

Mr. Askham questioned whether utilization rate and class size was considered in the design. Mr. Davis stated that utilization rate was considered and class size depends on the existing classrooms. He noted that few new classrooms are less than 750 square feet, based on the State’s allowable size. Mr. Davis stated that the average utilization rate is 85% and the proposed renovation would have a 95% utilization rate for 1,700 students.

Mr. Askham noted that various construction terms have been used regarding the modernization plan and he questioned what the net implication is of the proposed plan. Mr. Hoben stated that the original design was for an addition which was not renovated as new. He stated that they concluded that a plan which does not renovate as new would have a more expensive net cost to the Town. Mr. Hoben pointed out that the infrastructure of the 33 year old building needs to be replaced and along with minor renovations in other areas the renovation would not qualify as new and maybe 25% of the project would be eligible for reimbursement. He stated that renovating as new allows approximately 95% of the project to be eligible for reimbursement which equate to a lower net cost to the Town. He pointed out that a lower cost to renovate, not as new construction, would result in a lower reimbursement rate.

Mr. Askham discussed the renovation of Ridgefield’s high school and he questioned how they are keeping their cost down. Mr. Hoben stated that Ridgefield’s existing high school is in better condition and the site work is being done as part of the middle school project. He reviewed the statistics for the Ridgefield project. He noted that the cost per student for the Ridgefield project is $46,000 and the cost per student for Simsbury’s proposed modernization is $41,000. Mr. Hoben pointed out that the reimbursement rate for renovation is 22%, but is 31.4% for renovate as new which equates to a similar cost and the Town ends up with a new building versus a compromised renovated school.

Mr. Askham questioned whether the four year timeline for the renovation could be reduced. Mr. Hoben stated that the renovation timeline can be reduced if 10-15 portables are added or students are moved elsewhere. He explained that in order to reduce the renovation time they would need to open up as much space as possible.

Mr. Askham questioned the cost to upgrade the existing high school to a middle school. Dr. Townsley distributed a project cost summary with a net cost to the Town of $5,260,278. Mr. Hoben stated that the BOE provided a plan to run a 6-8 grade school and, based on the square footage, the net cost is $5.2 million. Mr. Askham questioned why they would not renovate the existing high school at that cost and then add on. Mr. Hoben responded that it would only buy the Town 5-7 years of time and cost them $5 million - $7 million. He suggested that if this will be the Town’s high school for the next 20-25 years it would be criminal not to renovate as new and do additions as necessary to accommodate 2,000 students. He noted that only a portion of the facility would be used as a middle school. Dr. Townsley stated that CREC would lease the top floor if the building were converted into a middle school. He pointed out that converting the building to a middle school would not require an increase in the core facilities or any field and parking renovations. Dr. Townsley stated that converting the building to a middle school would free up 18-20 elementary classrooms. He noted that this plan addresses enrollment growth for the Town, not just the high school.

Mr. Askham questioned the cost for a new elementary school. Dr. Townsley stated that the Town cost would be $18 million for a new elementary school which accommodates 600 students in grades K-6. Mr. Hoben noted that Ridgefield’s entire school plan has a cost of $130 million. Mr. Askham questioned the gross cost for Ridgefield’s new elementary school. Mr. Hoben stated that the gross cost is approximately $24 million. Dr. Townsley noted that land acquisition and location are also a factor with regard to a new elementary school.

Mr. Askham questioned whether the capacity will be too great with the construction of a new high school. Dr. Townsley stated that the Town would have the potential for two middle schools if needed. Mr. Askham noted that there are currently 1,402 students in the high school and the projection is that there will be 1,800 students in a few years. Mr. Davis stated that Dr. Jung prepared these projections and he is accurate and used by the best school systems. Mr. Askham questioned why the BOE is using the high point in Dr. Jung’s range for enrollment growth. Dr. Townsley stated that Simsbury has exceeded Dr. Jung’s enrollment projections and Dr. Jung suggested that Simsbury use the higher point.

Mr. Askham questioned what would occur if the taxpayers want a financial decision and do not want to spend more than $38 million - $41 million. Mr. Solywoda stated that the result would impact the program and effect the site for the new high school. Chairman Henault questioned how the impact could be mitigated. Mr. Solywoda stated that they would look at the educational specifications again and use other athletic fields. Mr. Wade questioned whether the education specifications have changed, other than the addition of students. Mr. Solywoda stated that the education specifications have not been changed to this point. He noted that the BOE sets the education specifications.

Chairman Henault questioned the minimum acreage necessary for a new school with the current educational specifications and 1,800-1,850 students. Mr. Hoben stated that the Town would need 60 acres of usable flat farmland. Mr. Solywoda stated that the acreage at the site for the proposed new high school has been reduced from 120 acres to 91 acres. Mr. Hoben pointed out that not all of the land on the site is usable. Chairman Henault noted that using a Town owned site would reduce the cost by $14.3 million. Mr. Hoben agreed that if the Town has 60 acres of flat farmland the cost would be reduced by $14.3 million, less the site work.

Mr. Belfiore questioned how close the architects are from drawings which could be used to go out to bid. Mr. Hoben stated that they are one year away from having working drawings. Mr. Belfiore questioned the cost for obtaining working architectural drawings. Mr. Beaudin stated that the cost is 75% of the architectural fee. Chairman Henault stated that the cost for the working drawings would be $4.5 million for the new high school and $3.7 million for the renovation.

Chairman Henault questioned what is included in the $15,422,500 cost for the renovation. Mr. Davis reviewed his diagrams outlining the new construction and renovated areas. He stated that the soft costs and site work need to be added to the cost. Chairman Henault questioned how much of the $5 million site work cost involves new construction. Mr. Davis stated that little of the site work cost involves new construction, the site work relates primarily to parking and field improvement. Dr. Townsley stated that the cost could be reduced by decreasing the amount of site work. He noted that they assumed that they would use the Town owned 36 acres for 3 fields as long as there is no deed restriction on the land regarding its use as athletic fields.

Chairman Henault noted that the peninsula of parking requires a lot of space. He questioned whether the man-made pond could be filled in. Mr. Davis noted that this is a wetlands area and based on the requirements they could not fill-in the pond. Ms. Glassman questioned the number of parking spaces. Mr. Davis stated that there are 804 spaces.

Chairman Henault questioned what portion of the soft costs are related to the new construction on the existing high school. Mr. Hoben stated that $5 million - $6 million are soft costs. Chairman Henault suggested that with a site work cost of $2 million, new construction costs of $15 million, and soft costs of $5 million the new construction at the existing high school would cost $22 million. He noted that if the renovation of the high school was reduced to $10 million and a new elementary school cost $18 million the net cost to the Town would be $50 million. He stated that the BOF feels that $38 million of Town cost is acceptable. He questioned whether the needs of the educational specifications can be revised to meet a Town cost of $38 million - $45 million.

Mr. Wade questioned whether the educational specifications have been prioritized and what the impact of prioritization would be. Dr. Townsley stated that the BOE contracted with a consultant to work with staff, and combined with the enrollment projections and the State specifications the educational specifications have been reduced to fit with the renovation plan. He stated that the educational specifications could be re-prioritized, but it would compromise programs.

Chairman Henault noted that there are a lot of soft costs involved with the renovation and the site preparation costs are high for new construction. He questioned how the larger numbers can be reduced. Dr. Townsley stated that if the BOF suggests a budget of $45 million they need to define what period of time they are addressing with that plan.

Mr. Askham questioned why there isn’t a larger savings in the site development for the renovation. Mr. Hoben noted that the renovation project would take 4 years versus 2 years for a new high school. Mr. Askham questioned what the $2 million technology budget includes. Dr. Townsley stated that this is an allowance and they will consider a wireless system, but it is doubtful the amount will be reduced.

Mr. Askham questioned the process if the BOE were allowed a specific budget figure for the project. Mr. Hoben stated that they would meet with the BOE and include what is needed until they reach a Town cost of $38 million. He pointed out that the result would not be renovate as new, which would lower the reimbursement rate. Ms. Glassman questioned the cost differential for the renovation plan if the track and field are relocated. Mr. Davis noted that currently the renovation of the track and field are part of the project and if they are moved off-site then they would have to negotiate for eligibility from the State. Dr. Townsley stated that the Town cost for the stadium is $850,000. He noted that this facility accommodates more than one sport and the track is used for the physical education program. He stated that he doesn’t believe the Town can build a new stadium on Town owned land for less than $850,000.

Chairman Henault questioned how the site for the new high school was reduced. Mr. Ober reviewed the previous site plan and the revised site plan for the new high school. Mr. Askham questioned whether the budgeted amount for remediation is adequate. Mr. Hoben stated that the budget for remediation is adequate based on the information available. Mr. Askham questioned whether all of the land in this area has been tested. Mr. Solywoda stated that a Phase 1 study has been completed which is a paper review of the site. Mr. Hoben pointed out that access to the property is a problem.

Chairman Henault questioned whether any of the other sites considered are possible if the size needed is reduced to 91 acres. Mr. Sawitzke reviewed the other sites that were considered and the issues which exist at each site. He noted that most of the 11 sites were eliminated due to wetlands and availability of utilities. He pointed out that 50-60 usable acres must be available on the site. Mr. Sawitzke stated that the remediation costs are based on a similar site which has been studied extensively by a Town consultant. He noted that the site has already been remediated of a couple of problems as was required by the DEP. Dr. Townsley distributed a comparison of other public school construction costs in Connecticut. He noted that the Simsbury figure was adjusted for a flat site. Mr. Sawitzke stated that he feels the proposed site is the best site in terms of flexibility and impact for a new school.

Dr. Townsley stated that if a renovation is completed in 2004, which addresses a high school with a population of 1,700 students, they need to have a Phase 2 plan in place for additional students. He stressed the importance of creating a budget which addresses a specific time period. Chairman Henault expressed his belief that it should be possible to address the high school at the May referendum. Ms. Glassman stated that she feels strongly that the Town needs to get a referendum, regarding the high school, before the voters to determine if the voters want a more or less expensive plan. She expressed concern that this process not take too much more time before a referendum goes before the voters.