August 29, 2016 at 5:30 PM - Facility Committee Meeting

Description:  The purpose of this agenda item is to review the status of the water infiltration/retention discussion at the Intermediate School. As a reminder, the district hired local civil engineer Roxanne Johnson to provide a peer review of the civil engineering design at the new Intermediate School. Roxanne provided a report, which was previously provided to the Facility Committee. In the weeks that followed, the original engineer (POB) continued to work with Roxanne and the referendum team to prepare design revisions to improve the water situation. The district administration came to the conclusion that we needed one engineer working through the design revisions, and we reassigned these responsibilities to Roxanne Johnson. POB is continuing to complete the project with the punch list,  and other end of project responsibilities. 

Roxanne is working through the design revisions from two fronts - on the district property, and offsite with the Ripp farm property. As far as offsite, Roxanne has been working closely with Jeff Ripp, and they have come to a preliminary agreement on the scope of the work. The scope includes a 15" pipe to move the water away from the Intermediate School site through the Ripp property at a cost of approximately $60,000. We are seeking the committee's approval to have Roxanne send the design to the county for approval, develop a property easement, and present this solution formally to the Ripp family. 

As far as onsite, Roxanne has prepared design revisions that have been sent to the referendum team for feedback and pricing. The design revisions are intended to improve the performance of the water infiltration and retention areas. The original design did meet all State, County and Town requirements, but the original design did not perform as expected due to soil conditions on site. The revised design comes with added costs as improvements such as higher quality sand, higher percentages of sand, temporary water diversion, landscape plugs, etc result in higher performing infiltration and retention areas. 

The district administration has been closely monitoring the construction contingency as these discussions have taken place. As a reminder, the administration requested approval of moving approximately $800,000 in owners contingency funds from the Intermediate School budget over to Heritage for projects to take place this summer. In addition, the Heritage project did not have a builders contingency, so we knew that any contingency draws would come from the Intermediate School builders contingency. The end result of these additional investments in Heritage is clearly seen when you view the renovated interior and exterior spaces. 

The bottom line is that the Intermediate School design and scope changes, including the water infiltration and retention design changes, and the Heritage Elementary School design and scope changes are pulling out of the $900,000 builders contingency. The positive news is that all of the changes to date, including the estimated $240,000 in design changes for the water issues, are within the $900,000 construction contingency. Matt Clagett from Findorff will provide a summary report to the Facility Committee on Monday evening. We are still working with Findorff to identify other potential end of project savings that might increase the builders contingency further. As of right now, the $60,000 in offsite work will not fit within the builders contingency. These costs would need to be covered by potential savings identified by Findorff, potential savings on the district side from the non construction costs, or by the end of the project Focus on Energy/WPPI rebates. We will have the funds for these offsite costs, but the specific source has yet to be identified. 

Thanks for taking the time to review this information. Please contact Steve or Randy if you have any questions prior to the meeting on Monday evening. 

Description:  The new playground equipment at Heritage Elementary is set up to service two different age groups of students -- grades K-2 and grades 3-4.  The amenities for each set of equipment is similar, but different in size and difficulty.  The plan called for the K-2 equipment to be installed on the K-2 side of the playground, and the 3-4 equipment to be installed on the other end of the play area.  The final plans that were sent to Lee Recreation (playground vendor) had the play sets switched in location and they were installed per this incorrect plan.  Steve Summers, Dan Carter, and I have reviewed this situation and have explored options.

First, to have Lee Recreation come back on site and disassemble and reassemble the play sets in the correct locations will cost about $40,000.

Alternatively, we have explored keeping the base of the structures in place, trading some of the amenities (climbing ladders, slides, etc.) and then adding some additional pieces that we feel are more age appropriate.  This would mitigate our concerns, and comes with a projected cost of about $28,000.

I anticipate us working with Lee Recreation to finalize and review additional options, and we have already broached this item with our architect, EUA, since their submittal to Lee Recreation was not correct.  We are seeking their commitment to correct this issue at their expense.  

Description:  We met with Rettler Corporation (engineering and design firm) for the kick-off meeting for the Warrior Stadium project.  At the meeting we began to outline the project scope (field, lights, scoreboard, track, and additionally, storage, and seating).  We also began to broadly discuss timelines.  Through this process they will be considering and costing both a grass field and an artificial turf field.  We will have those cost projections this fall.  We also asked them to render a draft of what a turf field might look with field markings for LaCrosse.  This rendering is a rough draft that the fundraising group can initially use for discussions with potential donors.  The basic field rendering is attached and will include much more detail and specifics as we move forward in the coming weeks.  

We will discuss this topic and be open to answer any questions on Monday evening.

Description:  At Monday's Facility Committee Meeting we will provide you with a tour of a locker room and show what modifications could be made to create more privacy options for students.

Additionally, we have attached a draft guideline prepared by Kurt Eley for how we approach students who identify as transgender. 

The review of our guidelines and facilities was requested by the Board and we are bringing our thoughts through the Facility Committee for review and feedback.

Kurt Eley will be at the meeting on Monday as he has served as one of the point people on this discussion.  

Description:  On Monday night we will take a few minutes to walk through the work being done on the Innovation Center.  It is not complete, but the tour will provide you with a visual of what is taking place and the timeline for completion.  We are still in line for the Open House on September 19th.

Description:  Understory is a local start-up company that I learned about from Jack Heinemann and recently from Tim Schell.  

Attached is document pertaining to Understory’s weather station. 

They are seeking a partnership with the communities and school districts to install these ten foot tall units on roofs of municipal and educational buildings.  They monitor wind, rain, temperature, hail, snow, etc. accurately at the local level and their major clients for the data collected are insurance companies.  Undertstory is a Madison start up. 

They would like to install this technology locally since they are based here.  To control costs and be community minded, they are willing to share the data collected with the municipal staff and teachers and students for use as they see fit.  

The unit covers about a 6x6 foot area on rooftops, weighs 400 lbs, runs on solar, does not need electricity or to be bolted or attached to structures,is ten feet tall,  etc. 

They have pitched $30-50 per month for leasing the space on your rooftops and can indemnify liability of the city.  They are looking for 3-5 years leases and don’t need 24 access to the facilities like cell providers would require if equipment went down. 

We have not fully vetted a location (it can go on one school), but I wanted to get feedback on exploring this opportunity further, and if viable for us, take it to the Board for consideration.