Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-26 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutes000, Reading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meetinq Held on June 26, 2002, 7.30 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: M ° Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Michael Scarpitto (MS) _ c c Alex McRae (AM) r- Dennis LaCroix (DL) > _ c Rich Radville (RR) Jeff Struble (JS) ' Paula Perry (PP) Ray Porter (RP) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Principal - RMHS) Rick Shubert (Liaison - Board of Selectmen) Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) RG began by welcoming Sid Bowen from FAI and relating that he was present to report on the work his firm had done since being chosen by the Committee to do the schematic design for RMHS (at the May 30- 2002 SBC meeting). After noting that the Committee will be meeting often over the next few months to go over FAI's work, RG said that Mr. Bowen had some comments regarding recent public comments made about his firm's performance and litigation history. Mr. Bowen said that some of the comments were somewhat dated, involving schools that had been completed many years ago. Others raised concerns about legitimate issues which FAI is concerned about, particularly in light of Massachusetts' public construction law (Chapter 149). He gave as an example two identical schools built in Everett in which one has severe leaking problems and the other doesn't. Both schools were built with the same plans, specifications and used the same general contractor. Two reviewing engineering groups had found some serious lapses in flashing installation at roof/masonry intersections at the problem school. It appeared that poor preparation and installation practices had been performed by the masonry sub-contractor. FAI felt that the sub-contractor had a responsibility to do the work properly and competently. Failure to do so, they reasoned, resulted in difficult and costly repairs. Similar construction lapses have occurred at other FAI projects (such as in Salem). The Chapter 149 law requires that in the absence of compelling evidence of incompetence, the low bidders for public work (including sub-contractor work submitted as filed sub-bids) must-be-accepted by the soliciting public agency. - - This restrains the amount of control the agencies (and their architects) have over construction and points out the value of the use of construction managers for public projects. CM's know the value and the timing of proper inspection of construction work and serve large projects well. Reading ~ cllool Bz ilding~ Committee .Meeting A:4irlitter fi-ont ,lone 26, 2002 As to the FAI projects which experienced problems, he said that they have learned from them the necessity (and subsequent costs) of adequate inspection of construction. In correcting the problems, he noted that the FAI details used might not have been all they should have been, and if so, they are insured to cover their share of the correction costs. As time goes on, he said, further clarification of the causes of the problems will be made. - JS asked if the flashing problems noted by Mr. Bowen could occur with any re-roofing of RMHS. Mr. Bowen answered that the typical locations for flashing problems were at the junctions of new additions to existing buildings and not at replacement roofs. RG added that he had spoken to school official in Everett concerning FAI's performance and found that due to the ongoing litigation, not much could be related about it. The official did say that they had no problem with the schematic design performance of FAI. RG reminded everyone that the task now being asked of FAI by the SBC was to provide a schematic design, not administer construction. Should the project go forward, another round of designer selection will be required, at which time the construction problems now associated with FAI might well be clarified. In any case, he concluded, the existence of a lawsuit against any party does not of itself constitute guilt. He pointed out the lawsuits against the Town of Reading regarding the new elementary school and their subsequent favorable rulings for the Town as evidence of this point. He said that the Committee is committed to the success of the RMHS project and accepts the responsibility for the choice of the architect. Observer Jackie Mandell asked if an outside review of FAI's Everett projects was being conducted by a Chicago firm. Mr. Bowen said yes; the City of Everett hired the firm. They had proposed a number of issues that may be the cause of the leakage problem (including design issues). Their proposals, as well as those of other outside reviewers, were under discussion by all parties in the litigation. JS asked if Mr. Bowen saw any value to involving a construction manager in the production of RMHS' schematic design, given the restrictions of the site and the discouragement of additions by the SBA (to use as swing space during phasing). Mr. Bowen answered that for the schematic design phase, he felt the involvement of a CM was premature. CM's prove their worth in bringing a contractor's experience to design development, completion of contract documents and overseeing construction, focussing on buildability and cost control. He would certainly recommend the use of a CM should the project continue past the schematic phase. RG asked Mr. Bowen about the status of the contract between FAI and the Town. Mr. Bowen said they were almost finished with a first draft. They were fine tuning the range of options for consultants' work (such as surveying, civil and environmental engineering, etc.). Observer Jackie Mandell asked Mr. Bowen if proceeding with a high school project by way of separate solicitations for architects for feasibility study, a schematic design and full deign and construction was common in his firm's ReadingSehool Building C'onunittee .;Lleeting Minutesfi,ont June 26; 2002 experience. He answered that while it is not the usual procedure (that being only two solicitations for feasibility study and full design), it was not unheard of and he cited the example of the Town of Dover as being one town who had done the same thing as Reading had. Mrs. Mandell further asked if the prospect of being asked to take another architect's schematic design to completion would be attractive to a firm like his (as would be the case for other firms should the Town vote to proceed with FAI's schematic design, requiring another round of architect solicitation). Mr. Bowen replied that his firm would definitely be attracted to such a project. He further pointed out that the architect that produced the actual contract documents for the project's completion would assume the liability of the project; the schematic design architect (if different) would not. - Observer Gary Phillips asked the Committee why they voted for FAI when, in his opinion, they had several shortcomings in their production work. He cited publicized construction problems in other Towns (including Andover High School) and their handling of the new elementary school as examples on which he based his opinion. RG responded that Mr. Bowen addressed some of Mr. Phillips' concerns earlier in the meeting. Other concerns, such as work at Andover High School, led RG four years ago to discuss that situation with Andover's town manager, two Andover selectmen and the (then) chair of the Andover School Building Committee. All said they would hire FAI again. As to the Committee members, they were polled during the interview process and gave their reasons for choosing FAI. RG reminded Mr. Phillips that the responsibility for the choice of FAI rests with the Committee, due to their authorization by Town Meeting and the voters. While Mr. Phillips was entitled to his opinion that FAI was not the best choice, the Committee disagreed as evidenced by its vote and stood behind its choice. RG asked Sid Bowen to give a report of his firm's work thusfar. Mr. Bowen said he had meetings with department heads and faculty on June 5th and 13th and passed out summary notes of them (copy attached). While general turnout was low due to final exams, the meetings with the department heads went well. Those meetings allowed concentration on finding out how the building failed each department in the teaching of their subjects and how they did or did not interact with their colleagues. He invited the Committee to review the meeting notes and bring any new or contradictory information to his attention so that he could include it in FAI's program assessment. - The impression received by FAI was that the faculty did not have entrenched, preconceived notions of what their spaces must be (as might be expected since two feasibility studies had preceded this work). This suggested flexibility in formulating options, according to Mr. Bowen, which he thought, was a positive sign. He discussedthe on-going-schedule,--stating that in the past two weeks, FAI - - had made a good start on programming and that such research would continue through the summer months with administration personnel. With the students gone, the attention of the design team would broaden to include site assessment (i.e. the building's physical plant condition). The objective, he Readhk 'ehool Building Committee Meeting illinutes fi,om June 26, 2002 said, was to document as many exceptions to the original drawings as could be observed, thus producing as comprehensive a record of the existing conditions as possible. Architectural investigations had been concentrating on the exterior of the building; they were beginning to move to the interior. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) engineers had begun that week, with structural to begin the following week. Other disciplines, such as civil, site, landscape, HazMat removal, etc., were waiting for a signed contract between Reading and FAI before proceeding. Mr. Bowen asked for the Committee's help in soliciting input from potential user groups outside of the school department that might have a bearing on designing the building's renovation, such as theater groups, recreation, teaching programs, etc. RG replied that he thought the Board of Selectmen should be sounded out on this subject early on. He also thought that contacting various arts groups would generate interest in the project. He asked if Mr. Orlando had any contacts that he could use to solicit this input. Mr. Orlando said his staff could produce a list of the organizations that had used the auditorium in years past and suggested that these entities be contacted for their views. Mr. Bowen pointed out the dual benefit of doing so in that it would not only add design input for the architects, it would foster support for the project as well. PP pointed out that the Committee should also seek out groups that had avoided using the high school in years past in order to ask them what they would want in a renovation that would make the school attractive to them. RG gave the example of the Reading Symphony Orchestra as one of these groups. He also added that it would be desirable if some outside user groups might be willing to raise additional funds for facility enhancements that would benefit them directly (such as theater groups contributing lighting or rigging for the renovated auditorium). Mr. Bowen commented that it may not be possible to accommodate every group's wishes and gave as an example Everett High School's auditorium, which had to compromise between re-design as a music space or a theater space (music became predominant due to its better adaptability to theater than visa-versa). He stressed, however, that the earlier everyone's wishes were known, the better it would be from a design standpoint. In response to a question from AM, he said he hoped to receive such input in the next few weeks, but he acknowledged the difficulty in soliciting input over the summer months. Observer Linda Phillips asked if now was the time to consider ways to enhance state reimbursability through innovative community uses. She mentioned opening a branch of the Town Library in RMHS and perhaps a health center that capitalized on the presently dormant hospital fund that has long existed for the creation of a hospital in Reading. Mr. Bowen said that now was the time to bring such ideas to the fore, but cautioned that his experience was not encouraging regarding the successful inclusion of such - facilities in high school projects. Mr. Orlando added that he felt the - - inadequacies of the present school library would be rectified as a part of the renovation project. )i'eaditas School Building (::'ontnnittee .Meeting Minutes fr-ont ,Lune 26, 2002 RG opened a discussion about how to get information concerning the progress and development of the project out to a wide public audience. RG himself thought that the two newspapers could be contacted to run regular reports in their papers. AM thought this might be done in the form of press releases. PP wondered if the SBC could make use of the regularly issued bills from the water/sewer department and/or the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) and "piggy-back" announcements about the project in those mailings. Selectman Rick Shubert thought such a process could be worked out with the other involved boards and agreed that a wide audience should be targeted for such a significant project. RG thought that the first order of business was to establish a schedule of regular SBC meetings over the next few months to observe FAI's progress and involve the community as much as possible in the process. It was tentatively agreed to meet every other Wednesday evening beginning on July 10th at 7:30 p.m. (typically) at venues that would be announced, as spaces became available. Observer Jackie Mandell asked if that in light of discussions at the state level that would extend probable reimbursement times from five years to ten years or more, was there any chance to slow down the schedule and not "rush" it. Mr. Bowen answered that he did not think the schedule was inappropriate and attempted to focus people's attention on the project, which was a necessary step. RG noted that Town Meeting's instructions were to bring a schematic design back to them for consideration in the fall. JS took issue with the notion that the schematic design was being rushed, noting that prior to this, no definitive action at all was planned for RMHS. The schematic design, he related, was planned to proceed in an organized, deliberate manner to expose the problems of the high school and put forward a solution to them for everyone's consideration. He felt all the architects interviewed agreed that the schedule was reasonable for such a goal. RG added that due to other pressing Town financial matters, getting a firm idea of what the high school project may cost in the future was a good reason for pressing forward with the schematic design. PP added that the same work would have to be done whenever it was begun and she saw no reason not to do it now. Observer Linda Phillips asked for clarification on the SBC's timeline target dates. She asked why so much time was left between Town Meeting approval and the actual debt exclusion vote on April 8, 2003 and why the design process did not take advantage of that block of time. JS answered that that block was intended to be contingency time ("wiggle room") for use either as extra design time or as time in which to hold an early special election to get the project to the SBA quicker. This might save some months on the bidding and construction time (and save money). Mrs. Phillips said she would feel more comfortable assigning more time to the option development phase. Mr. Bowen replied that sometimes the presentation of options led to the discovery of another one, in which case the contingency n time would be needed. Hence, the deadline for the presentation of options - - - could serve as a catalyst for (more) option development, which the SBC timeline could accommodate. Reading School. Building Committee feeting.Brutes from ,.lung 26, 2002 RG asked Mr. Orlando when he could get a list of all RMHS users ready (not just the auditorium users). Mr. Orlando answered that the list could be assembled in a day or so. RG asked that he proceed with the list and get it to RG when completed. RG also said that protocol demanded that the School Committee be sounded out on uses for the high school, as well as the Board of Selectmen. After then hearing from potential user groups, the general public would be invited to air their views to the Committee. Mr. Orlando suggested using the high school web sites and RCTV community service bulletins to solicit interest. Mr. Orlando reiterated the staff discussions with FAI that Mr. Bowen had presented earlier. RG asked if the faculty had exhibited realistic expectations regarding what might be possible in a renovation project. Mr. Bowen said he was struck by how moderate the expectations were of the staff they interviewed. He attributed part of this moderation to the fact that many of the faculty had spent most of their careers in RMHS and were not aware of what other schools were doing, or what beneficial changes a renovation could create for them. When asked by RG if the staff were willing to look at other schools to see what was possible, Mr. Orlando said that a substantial number of the staff were in transition due to retirement. Those that remain were being urged to get out to see similar operations off-site and broaden their frames of reference, in coordination with FAI. RG remarked that he thought the Town in general had developed expectations of doing "something" at the high school and that if the consensus was that the "something" was deemed reasonable, the Town would never be closer to acting on it than it was right now. PP asked Mr. Orlando if the recent (private) technology drive for RMHS was being coordinated with the technology assessment undertaken as part of the schematic design. Mr. Orlando answered that the two groups were using the same technology consultant (Edvance Technology Design, Inc.) and were indeed talking to each other. Mr. Bowen cautioned, however, that Edvance was concerned that there might not be enough technology staff to properly make constructive use of the updated hardware and software and maintain it, once designed and supplied. Observer Jackie Mandell asked Mr. Bowen and Mr. Orlando if (relatively) recent upgrades to technology wiring and science labs could be salvaged in the schematic design plans. Mr. Orlando said that the wiring put in was thought to be compatible with contemplated technology upgrades according to the technology consultant. Regarding the science labs, the piping and casework that made up the bulk of the recent renovations might be re-usable, according to Mr. Bowen, but until the scope of the science area renovations was known, it was hard to say if the previous furnishings and equipment would remain. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the May 2, 2002 RSBC meeting. PP so moved and was seconded by DL. He called for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. Observer Linda Phillips called the Committee's attention to the Inspector General's recommendations that communities develop contracts with designers that are written to serve the towns' best interests instead of the designers'. The IG discouraged the use of standard AIA (Am. Inst, of Architects) contract forms and favored contracts customized Reading School Budding c'onnnittee ,Meeting illirauter fi°ont ,Iurte 'b; 2002 by communities' Town Counsels for repeated use by the communities they advised. RG stated that Reading's Town Counsel would be reviewing the draft of the contract with FAI as would experienced SBC members (including Tim Twomey whose was an authority on construction contracts, according to RR) to ensure that the Town's best interests were served. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 9:15 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee CCC-e 6 /26 /p Z FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES Meeting Notes Summary DATE: June 17, 2002 PROJECT: Reading Memorial High School FAI PROJECT NO: 2204.00 RE: Meetings with Faculty and Department Heads (June S and June 13, 2002) Summary: FAI met with representatives of the listed departments and groups to initiate the process of gathering concerns and issues prior to the close of the 2002 school year. Additional meetings wilI'be held with available faculty and school personnel during the summer. FAI will meet with faculty, teachers and personnel again when school resumes in September. The following facts, issues, and concerns were presented to FAI by the faculty. These issues will be considered throughout the course of the study. Solutions that impact project scope, cost, or phasing will be reviewed with the Building Committee. Educational Issues will be reviewed with the Principal and the Superintendent. I. Math A. Department office is preferable to general faculty space 1) The office should include `common space' II. Foreign Language . A. Need: One fixed language lab with 30 positions B. Need: One sub-sized classroom for small groups III. Business A. Currently using typewriters, not computers, for keyboarding 1) Typewriters were less expensive than computers 2). Paper provides instant feedback 3) Program could move to computers B. Current room is large, used 6 of 7 periods per day IV. Arts A. Ideally, the arts Visual and Performance programs would be adjacent to allow for integrated curriculum B. A more central position in the schnot is nrafarraA Fiansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 021 19-1910 T617-367-3970 F617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES V. English A. Display and presentation are valuable B. A common departmental office is strongly preferred C. Moveable technology is preferable D. Need: Book storage room or lockable storage in the rooms VI. Guidance A. Current office space is too small B. 200/1 is the ideal student/counselor ratio 1) Currently 300/1 2) No space for interns available, the office can't accept available college interns C. Acoustic privacy is not available D. Parent interaction is important - a position near the main entrance is ideal VII. Music A. More space is needed to provide for: 1) Music Lab 2) Practice Rooms 3) Ensemble 4) Individual and school storage S) Uniform storage B. Need: Recording Equipment VIII. Social Studies A. Ideally, social studies would be adjacent to English B. Presentation space C. Department rooms are currently split up -preferably classrooms would be adjacent D. Project storage: 1) Cannot store or maintain presentation material .2) Natural History Day - large scale materials IX. Science A. Teachers prefer to maintain their own classroom B. The department is short two rooms 1) Field Biology 2) Physical Science C. Departmental office is preferred 1) Combining the Math and Science office would be helpful D. Four (4) prep rooms, and associated storage rooms, required - Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and 9`h Grade E. Biology and Chemistry require sinks in the prep room F. An independent computer room is not necessary, the computer is used in the room G. Lecture space within the room is required H. Vivarium 1) Little use for animals 2) Space is ideal for special projects and computer use 1. Storage in rooms: 1) Lockable book storage is critical Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 021 14-1910 T617-367-3970 F617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES 2) Lockable balance storage is required 3) Lockable microscope storage is required J. Prep Room/Storage includes: 1) Glassware 2) Bottled Liquids 3) Equipment 4) Cleaning Supplies 5) Specimens 6) Lockable files 7) Construction paper and presentation supplies . K. Computers are currently on carts and stored' in prep areas L. Classrooms are currently lockable M . Chemistry currently transports chemicals from room, across corridor, to prep room. There is a potential for accidents N. Two science courses will require fixed computers because they require consistent use of technology 0. Six or Seven 90' grade teachers currently use Physics prep room P. . Students maintain lockable projects drawers in Chemistry rooms X. Athletics A. Use of the existing Gym for PE, and the construction of boy's lockers on the first floor would address Title IX issues for physical education B. PE is not required for Juniors and Seniors C. (3) PE teachers 1) (1) Health with classroom 2) (2 1/2) Phys. Ed D. 13 Boys' sports and 13 girls' sports E. Outdoor track, football field, and bleachers need to be addressed 1) Would like an (8)lane straightaway and (6) lane track 2) Bleachers require replacement 3) The fence needs replacement 4) Polyurethane track is preferred 5) A new synthetic field is desirable 6) The existing concession stand does not meet ADA requirements .7) The existing press box does not meet ADA requirements 8) Toilets for audience are desirable F. The field house floor requires replacement due to cracking and dead spots G. Project Adventure is used H. Entry to the field house is not accessible I. A wood floor for competition basketball is preferable J. Field house heating system is run from the school. The field house requires 'a long period to warm up K. Lighting in the field house is insufficient L. Bleachers are manual and do not meet ADA requirements XI. FAI has not yet met with the following groups or departments (scheduled meetings in parentheses) A. Media Center B. Rise C. Custodial Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 021114-19 10 T 617-367-3970 F 617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES D. E. F. G. H. 1. Administrative Staff Home Economics Information Systems (6/20/02) Tech Ed. Special Education Drama 2204.00/meeting notes/MN 6/17/02 summary Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 021 14-1910 T617-367-3970 F617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com