HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-02 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on May 2, 2002, 7:30 p.m.
(In the RMHS Guidance Career Center)
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Ray Porter (RP)
Michael Scarpitto (MS)
Rich Radville (RR)
Alex McRae (AM)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Paula Perry (PP)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Bill Carroll (BC)
Warren Cochrane (WC)
Featured Guests:
Andrew Grimes (Liaison to Finance Comm.)
Frank Orlando (Principal - RMHS)
Cheryl O'Brien (Asst. Principal - RMHS)
y Cr"_- I V E 0
To,, N CLERK
RI ADING, MASS;
1002 JUN 21 P 4: 2q
RG began by informing the Committee that sixteen (16) responses to the Request for
Qualifications were received from architectural firms interested in performing the
schematic design for Reading Memorial High School. Copies of each response were
distributed to each Committee member. The subcommittee elected at the previous
meeting (April 24, 2002) was directed to evaluate the responses and return to the
Committee at large with recommendations for likely candidates.
RG introduced Andrew Grimes, sent by the Finance Committee to serve as their liaison
to the School Building Committee during the development of the schematic design.
RG announced that the missing architectural and structural plans for the existing 1969
addition to the high school had been found, but no as-built drawings (for any RMHS
building).
RG called for discussion on what the number of recommended candidates should be.
- It was pointed out that the subcommittee would bring back a ranking order of
the respondents and the candidates would be taken from the top of that order
down to the number of candidates that the Committee desired to interview
(assuming the ranking was acceptable).
- - The number fluctuated between four and six in the discussions; withsome
members suggesting waiting to see how closely ranked the top firms were to
each other before choosing a final list. Others cautioned against having too
many candidates, saying that the lower the odds were of winning the
commission, the lower would be the interest level of the candidates. The
Reading &hool Building Committee
t leeting Mirauter fi or7r L1ca} 2, 2002
demands of conducting multiple interviews in two evenings with a final choice
having to be made after the last one was also mentioned as a reason for
limiting the number of candidates. A consensus was reached on four
candidates as the tentative target number of recommendations to be made by
the subcommittee.
PP informed the committee that the Town's website creator would post SBC material for
public viewing. Material would include meeting minutes, questions and answer
handouts, timelines, the RFQ and any other items approved by the Committee.
Observer Linda Phillips asked if the RFQ had been sent out to any architectural firms
prior to the posting in the Central Register. She was informed that the RFQ was sent
only to the Central Register unless a request was made for it after its appearance on that
list.
Observer Jackie Mandell noted that the previous architect evaluation form used for the
elementary school feasibility study was specific in evaluating elementary school
experience in particular. The present evaluation form did not specify high school
experience and she wondered if a more general range of experience was being
reviewed. TT said that he thought candidates should be rated on high school
experience but need not have high schools as their predominant school type as a
condition for being considered. JS asked the Committee if the consensus was that the
subcommittee should favor high school experience in its evaluations (as was his,
assumption as a member of the subcommittee). It was agreed that that was the
consensus.
- RG brought up the subject of community outreach and involvement, relating that three
PTO's had requested appearances by members of the SBC to update them on the
status of the project. Use of the Town's website was encouraged, with WC suggesting
cross-indexing the SBC site with the architect's site to better acquaint the public with the
process and the people involved. Engaging a broad range of the community prior to the
summer months was deemed desirable in order to stimulate interest in the generation of
options that are due in the early fall (according to the present timeline).
The originally scheduled date for the subcommittee's presentation to the Committee at
large was shifted from May 20th to May 21St in order not to conflict with a scheduled
School Committee meeting on the 20tH
At the request of observer Linda Phillips, RG read the names of the firms that had
responded to the RFQ. They were:
• ARCADD
• The Design Partnership of Cambridge
• Dore and Whittier, Inc.
• HMFH Architects, Inc.
• Flansburgh Associates, Inc.
• Stekalovsky and Hoit, Inc.
• Mount Vernon Group
• H.L. Turner Group, Inc.
• McManus/Peterman Architects, Inc.
• Drummey Rosane Anderson
• Alderman and MacNeish
Reaa'itrg School Building Committee 3
lleetinj ?vlirrutes fi orrr ~1cr} 2002
• Symmes Maini & McKee Associates
• HKT Architects, Inc.
• Kaestle Boos Associates
• Tappe Associates, Inc.
• The Office of Michael Rosenfeld, Inc.
With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. RR so moved and
was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
8:15 p.m.).
11v
Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee