HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-26 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutesti°
"
Reading School Building Committee L~
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on February 26, 2002, 7:30 p.m
(In the RMHS Guidance Career Center)
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Michael Scarpitto (MS)
Ray Porter (RP)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Alex McRae (AM)
Paula Perry (PP)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Rich Radville (RR)
RG began by informing the Committee of the schedule for the upcoming informational
presentations to be given by the SBC in March. The schedule was as follows:
• March 5th at the Parker Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
• March 11th at the Coolidge Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
• March 20th at the Reading Senior Center at 7:30 p.m.
• March 30th at RMHS, with an Open House between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.
RG related that there were three warrant articles that were to be put before Town
Meeting in April by petition that affected the SBC. He did not pass out copies, but read
them one by one (Author's note: copies of the articles are attached to these minutes).
The first article seeks to expand the proposed renovation for the Barrows
Elementary School to "include the maximum number of classroom space
possible (sic)" above the current scheme for adding only 6 classrooms
(replacing the portables and the current classrooms which will be dedicated
to art and music). The article seeks to "authorize the Town to establish
associated costs" that will result from this additional scope of work before
Dec. 31, 2002 so that Town Meeting can appropriate the additional funds
needed before that date.
- The second article seeks to replace the current School Building Committee
with a new "Municipal Building Committee" with the specific purpose of
addressing the needs of Reading Memorial High School (refer to the copy of
the article for the proposed make-up of this committee).
- The third article seeks to appropriate $20K "for the purpose of developing at
least two options and their associated costs, for the renovation of Reading
Memorial High School," which would be presented to Town Meeting before
ti. Dec. 31, 2002 "for a vote". The article also directs that this money be "
expended by the "Building Committee" and to see if "the Town will vote to
Reading &hool Budding Committee
Afeetirrg Alinutes f •om .t'ebruary 26, 200'
authorize the Building Committee to enter into all contracts and agreements
as may be necessary to carry out this article."
RG noted that RP had also submitted an article for the upcoming Town Meeting and
asked him if he would explain it to the Committee.
- RP began by saying he had drafted an article concerning financial disclosure
by committee and board members that would affect all Town boards, not just
the SBC. He read the article as follows;
"To see if the Town will vote to amend Reading General Bylaws in
Section 4.4 by adding Section 4.4.6 which will read as follows, `It is
hereby established a (financial) disclosure requirement for all members of
elected and appointed multiple-member boards, commissions and
committees. Each member shall submit annually a signed statement to
be maintained by the Town Clerk as a condition of new or continued
participation on that multiple-member board. This statement shall state
that neither the member nor their spouse have an employer business
interest or investment that may pose a potential conflict with their
objective participation on the multiple-member body on which they serve.'
The effective date of the Bylaw should be July 2, 2003. Failure of the
appointed member of the multiple-member body to comply by July 1 st of
that and each succeeding year shall be (viewed?) as cause which may
result in the removal of that individual from the multiple-member body."
RR asked RP why he was bringing this article forward because (as RR
understands it) it is conflict with State law and he wondered if RP had any
specific issues that concerned him, particularly with any members of the
SBC. RP answered that, as a federal employee, he must make a similar
disclosure statement about potential financial conflicts of interest. He termed
the State's policy a "self-policing" one in this regard and said it was rather
vague. He said Reading has no policy at all. He said that due to some things
he had observed with the Committee and with the RMLD (currently
undergoing investigation for possible financial improprieties), he felt initiating
such a disclosure requirement would be a "process improvement."
RR asked what specifically had he observed with the SBC that caused him
concern. RP responded that he felt there were (in his opinion) "private
agendas" going on with some of the Committee members. He cited as
examples the way meetings are held and/or cancelled, lack of prior agenda
distribution, not following the operating procedures outlined by the Town
Manager for other boards, and generally not having sufficient structure to the
Committee's mode of operation.
- RG then asked what those reasons had to do with his article about conflict.
RP said he didn't know, but he gave further examples about his belief that
private agendas were being implemented, such as not notifying the entire
Committee about the visit from representatives of the SBA. He said that
- when he expressed interest inattending such -a meeting but was not given - - -
the chance to attend, he felt that the response he received (that the SBA
would not appreciate having the board "tagging along") was inappropriate.
Readh g ASchool Building Committee
Weeting 41irautes front .C'ebr-u(ir), 26, 2002
- RG repeated his question, asking what those examples had to do with the
subject matter of his proposed article. RP repeated that he could not answer
that but continued to give more examples, such as how the SBC's article for
Town Meeting (Article 7, 11/13/01 Town Meeting) was not written by the
Committee. When RG attempted to ask how what RP was talking about
related to the substance of his proposed article, RP said it all had substance
and that RG could judge whether he felt it had substance but he strongly felt
that some people on the Committee had private agendas that did not relate to
the processes under which the SBC should operate (in his opinion).
He cited being summoned to a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen, the
Finance Committee and the School Committee to discuss a possible special
election for a debt exclusion for schematic design fees (on December 4, 2001
- refer to the BOS minutes from that date) as an example of Committee
process being directed by a few members rather than the whole Committee
(no prior discussion of such a meeting having taken place). RG responded
that the purpose of that joint meeting was to discuss the possibility of a
special election among all four committees and that prior discussion would
have been fruitless since the SBC has no authority to call such an election on
its own. Only the BOS could make such a call and having the other
committees there who had any involvement on the subject to serve as
advisors was the justification for summoning the SBC, the SC and FinCom.
- RG said that further discussion on this subject should take place on the floor
of Town Meeting. RR made the statement that he felt that all the examples
cited by RP were discussed at previous SBC meetings, at which time
answers were given to his questions. He thought RP was confusing getting
an answer he didn't like with not getting an answer. He said further that he
saw no connection between those examples and RP's proposed article
regarding financial disclosure.
- An observer asked to speak on the matter, but RG said he would not accept
outside comments. When RP asked why he would not entertain such
comments, RG responded that his article was not really the business of the
Committee and that presentation of (all of) the proposed articles was only
done as a point of information.
Upon receiving this response from RG, RP asked to make a motion to
discuss having a new Chair for the Committee. His motion was as follows;
"Move that we discuss having another potential Chair for the Committee;
that we have a vice-chair, quorum and operating procedures."
- RG called for a second to the motion. No second was made, so the motion
did not make it to the table.
AM wondered if the second proposed article (replacing the SBC with a
- - - Municipal Bldg. Comm.) should be taken up for discussion and have the SBC - -
take a position on it. He noted that should the election question pass, the
schematic design was to go forward under the direction of the present
Reading School Building Connnittee
_19eeting a.finutes f -oni F"ehruary 26, 2002
4
Committee and the replacement of that Committee would be confusing.
Further, he said that he thought voters could be dissuaded from voting for the
schematic design funding if they thought this article was likely to pass at
Town Meeting. RG responded that in his view, there would be no point to
taking a position of the proposed article before the results of the election
question were known because those results would certainly affect his
judgement of the value of the article. Should the schematic design question
not pass on April 2nd, he thought the Committee should have a deep,
philosophical discussion about what direction to go in, including the
disposition of the present SBC itself. Hence, he felt to some extent, the
election outcome would decide whether or not a position should be taken on
the proposed article. JS asked if the philosophical discussion should take
place before the April 2nd vote since it was likely that the Committee would be
asked what would happen if the vote failed. RG thought that the only proper
answer to that question would be "We don't know" and that a pre-discussion
would require the input of several other entities (SC, administration, etc.),
which seemed unlikely to happen before April 2na
RP asked if the length of time for paying off the debt assumed by the
schematic design debt exclusion had been determined (if it is not included in
the larger debt assumed by the full design project that might be voted on next
year). JS answered that he had spoken with the Town Treasurer and had
found that the length of time for debt amortization was a function of when the
debt was "sold" and how well the Town's operating budget could handle it.
Shorter times meant larger yearly payments and longer times meant smaller
payments. That decision of how long a repayment period would be made (by
the Treasurer in conjunction with the Board of Selectmen) would depend on
obtaining the best terms for the Town at the time of sale of the debt.
RG called for a motion for acceptance of the minutes of the February 12, 2002 RSBC
meeting. RR made the motion, which was seconded by TT. RG asked if there were any
additions, deletions or changes desired by the Committee. It was noted that several
members had not received copies of the draft of those minutes (distributed at the
previous meeting on 2/19/02) and would like a chance to review them before voting.
RR then withdrew his motion and action on these minutes was postponed to a later
meeting.
RG then called on JS to update the Committee on the RMHS Question and Answer
pamphlet that he had been working on. JS passed out copies of his final draft (copy
attached).
- JS said he incorporated the comments made at the last meeting into this draft
and had added a preamble and a (first pass at a) schedule of informational
meetings to be held in March as a post script. He showed an example of how
the pamphlet could be printed and folded into the form of a mailer if it was to
be used for that purpose.
- - J5 explained how he hadchanged the first question's answers (about what's- -
wrong with the high school) to agree with the Committee's comments and to
better describe the high school's present condition and needs.
Reading School Budding (.onnnittee
.iVIeeting :lliiiutes front.F'i.,hr uar), 26, 20112
The second question's answer (about costs) was updated with a simple
declaration that the costs are unknown at this time and that a major purpose
of pursuing a schematic design was in order to answer this question with
some confidence. He added examples of other towns' project costs to show
the range of costs now being incurred for high school projects.
- The revisions to the third question's answers (about the purpose of a
schematic design) expanded the definition of the term "phasing" and its value
to the project and added a comment about the value of a schematic design
should the full project be rejected at the polls. He pointed out a caution
added about ignoring phasing "at our peril", which the Committee removed.
- The fourth question's answer (concerning post-schematic design activities)
was left largely alone since there were not many comments on it. JS added a
phrase describing the process of producing a solution to the high school's
problems as proceeding in a "calm and timely manner".
- RR made the suggestion that time at which the schematic design is
presented to Town Meeting be left unspecified in case circumstances arise
during its production that cause that time to shift.
RG recommended that the statement that any funds expended on the
schematic design would be money well spent should be tempered with the
phrase "we believe", or words to that effect.
TT recommended that reference to "antiquated building codes" be modified to
read, "what are today antiquated building codes" to avoid giving the
impression that the building was improperly designed to begin with.
- Discussion ensued about the preamble and its contents, with the consensus
being that it should be omitted and left to the users of the document to decide
how to preface the Q&A (if used in a flyer or as a handout).
- MS began a discussion about how to show the range of costs for projects
such as these, wondering if the document should show examples that
corresponded to the costs of the options from the feasibility studies. AM felt
that the SBA's review of the options put the probable costs in the lower range
of those options and including the higher range might be misleading. Various
members and an observer discussed the pros and cons of listing the range
stated, with some noting that the range was historically accurate while others
thought it unrealistic given the SBA's comments on the options. Some
argued that an estimate should be given while others felt that that would be
prejudging a major result of doing the schematic design in the first place. A
consensus was reached to leave out the numerical range and simply state
that the cost estimates done heretofore had covered a wide range.
RG then asked RR to give an update on the production of the RFQ document.
RR reported that he had made the Committee's revisions from the last
meeting and had sent the revision to Town Counsel through the
Reading School Building C_ onnnittee
Lleeti» Rlinutes fi one t'ebr ucrr) 26, 2002
Superintendent's office. He had discussed it with Town Counsel and noted
that she was updating it for proper legal language and presentation. The
Superintendent's office was going to assemble the final draft of the document
and get it back to RR for the Committee's final review. He would have a copy
of the final draft available for the informational meetings in March.
RG reviewed the presentation format for the informational meetings (refer to the 2/19/02
minutes). JS expressed his wish that the meetings be more informal and less like a
lecture. RG and PP said that people would come expecting to be given information
about the subject and that the emphasis should be on presenting it for them. It was
agreed that a balance should be struck between presenting the information and
answering questions from the attendees.
With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT so moved and
was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
9:00 p.m.).
Minutes prepared and submitted by:
F
Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
WARRANT ARTICLE
To see if the Town will amend Article 5 of Subsequent Town Meeting of December
1998 to insure that the redesign and renovation for the Alice M. Barrows Elementary
School on Edgement Avenue will include the maximum number of classroom space
possible over the currently proposed design of 6 classrooms included in the referendum
vote of January 1999 and currently funded at a cost of $7,100.000. This enlargement will
accommodate any possible increases in the newly proposed housing developments in the
Barrows School District. This will attempt to equalize Barrows, in size, to our other 3
existing elementary schools.
This article authorizes the Town to establish associated costs for this additional scope of
work so that Town Meeting, before December 31, 2002, can appropriate the additional
funds to carry out this warrant article and to complete any additional requirements to
incorporate this change.
We the undersigned, widerstand that the specific language of the Warrant Article may
change to reflect correct legal wording, not alter the intent of this Article.
%f / IT
]
% WARRANT ARTICLE
To see if the Town will vote to create a new "Municipal Building Committee" for the
purpose of bringing into being the renovation of Reading Memorial High School. This
new Municipal Building Committee will replace the Instructional Motion of Article 3, of
the Adjourned Subsequent Town Meeting of December 8, 1988, and Article 2
Subsequent Town Meeting of November 9, 1992.
This Building Committee will be an Ad Hoc Committee whose purpose will be to
address the needs of the High School, from the selection of Town's option through
project completion, including equipping the renovated facility.
The membership of the committee will still consist of eleven (11) members and
breakout as follows:
One (1) Member of the School Committee
One (1) Member of the Selectmen or their appointed representative
One (1) Town Manager of his appointed representative
One (1) High School Principal or his Staff Representative
Seven (7) Citizens at Large - appointed by the Moderator
We, the undersigned, understand that the specific language of-the Warrant Article
may change to reflect correct legal wording, not alter the intent of this Article.
/7
a L)
WARRANT ARTICLE
To see if the Town will raise up to $20,000 by borrowing, or transferring from
available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of developing at least two
options and their associated costs, for the renovation of Reading Memorial High School,
to present to a Subsequent Town Meeting by December 31, 2002 for a vote; and for the
sum to be expended by, and under the direction of the Building Committee; and to see if
the Town will vote to authorize the Building Committee to enter into all contracts and
agreements as may be necessary to carry out this article.
We, who have signed below, understand that the specific language of the Warrant
Article may change to reflect correct legal wording, not alter the intent of this Article.
On April 2"d, Reading voters will be asked for their consent to exclude a new debt of $450,000
from the normal property tax limits in order to pay for a schematic design of a renovation to
Reading Memorial High School. Producing this design was the recommendation of the School
Building Committee (SBC) to Town Meeting on November 13, 2001 as a means to obtain more
specific information about the needed renovations and how they will affect the Town. By a vote of
118 to 12, Town Meeting accepted this recommendation, subject to the approval of the debt
exclusion by the general electorate. This pamphlet is an intended to answer some of the more
common questions about this schematic design. It was prepared by the SBC and paid for with
private donations (printing and mailing).
Question: What are the problems with Reading's high school? Why do they cost so much to fix?
Answer. The high school is a large, sprawling building of outmoded design that has never had a
comprehensive renovation in its 48-year history (33 years for its Bldg. A addition in the rear of
the complex). Consequently, its physical plant systems are wearing out and its ability to
adapt to changing education requirements is also deteriorating.
Examples of the physical plant systems needing repair are:
• the plumbing (not just the fixtures, but the distribution network)
• the electrical system (not just lights, but the building's power network)
• the heating and ventilation systems (replace the inefficient windows and many unit
ventilators, repair worn out piping, upgrade boiler efficiency, improve air circulation)
• the communication system (non-existent or non-functional in many areas).
System upgrades trigger building code-compliance requirements and the high school's
mechanical systems were designed to antiquated building codes; thus, they cannot be merely
patched, they must be completely overhauled and brought up to present Code standards.
Other required Code updates are:
• the installation of a fire protection system (sprinklers) for the entire building
5
• making all areas handicap-accessible
j
• installing seismic hazard protection (against falling masonry walls)
• removing all hazardous materials (asbestos, PCB's, etc.).
Most importantly, the building must continue to serve its purpose: education of our high
school students. Without a renovation, the faculty must continue to teach our students using
outdated facilities with diminishing effectiveness as the curricula become more stringent and
F
enrollments increase. At a minimum, the School Building Committee (SBC) has concluded
LLJ_
that the following are vital improvements that must be done:
• update the entire facility for new technology (computer network / Internet)
• create four new science labs (to maintain accreditation)
• improve circulation between buildings
• correct gender inequality issues in the athletic facilities.
All this must be done before addressing the teaching facilities in general, such as dedicating
space for the music and drama departments, creating computer workstations and a modern
language lab and replacing obsolete equipment. On top of facility reorganization comes
restoration of the building's deteriorating finishes - such as walls, floors and ceilings - and
there are quite a lot of them (there are 340,000 square feet in the building).
Each undertaking in renovating this space has a cost associated with it. Total reimbursable _
renovation costs in the range of $100 to $200 per square foot are quite common for
Massachusetts's high schools. Hence, big school buildings have big costs associated with
fixing their problems and Reading Memorial High School is no exception.
2
Question: How much will it cost?
Answer. Simply put, we don't know for certain. A major reason for producing a schematic design is to
be able to answer this basic question with an acceptable level of confidence, which is in large
part why the SBC has recommended it. The reason for this uncertainty is that there are too
many unknowns at this point to make a reliable prediction about probable cost. Examples of
the unknowns are how to best upgrade the educational program without building new
additions, how to maximize State reimbursements under the new regulations and how to
accommodate major reconstruction in the (still occupied) building while maintaining quality
education and safety for the students.
The SBC feels strongly that costs for such a large project should be predicted with as much
accuracy as possible. By using the specific information produced in a schematic design
phase, a cost estimate could be based on itemized pieces of preliminary design rather than
on a broad diagrammatic description - an "idea" for a design.
This latter method of estimating is the only extent to which a feasibility study can go and was
used in the initial high school feasibility studies. These studies (based on old state
guidelines) produced several options that ranged from $30M+ to $60M+, depending on how
the "unknowns" were answered. Given the old basis on which they were produced and the
variation of their estimates, choosing one of these options to commit to - even as a "ballpark"
number - would be guessing. For comparison's sake, however, one could look at other
communities' high school projects to get an idea of the cost spectrum:
t
• Lexington High School - $28.6M / 328,500 sq. ft. ($87.17/ sq. ft.)
t . Newburyport High School - $34.2M / 190,000 sq. ft. ($180.26/ sq. ft.)
• Westborough High School - $42.5M / 283,000 sq. ft. ($150.18/ sq. ft.)
• Framingham High School - $54.OM / 390,000 sq. ft. ($138.46/ sq. ft.)
Thus, finding out how much the project will cost as accurately as possible is of primary
importance. To the SBC (and hopefully to the voting public), the $450K cost for a schematic
t design seems a reasonable price to pay to gain more specific knowledge for pricing such a
significant project and help answer this important basic question.
As to the cost of the schematic design itself, under a "worst case" scenario (no State
reimbursement because the resulting project is not accepted by the Town), the cost of
bonding the $450K will depend on how long it is bonded, which is a decision made at the time
of sale of the bonds. If bonded for three years, the cost will be a maximum of $20.11 per
year to the average Reading property ($320K assessment). If bonded for ten years, this cost
would be $8.68 per year (max.). These amounts would diminish as the debt is amortized.
Question: What's the point of doing a schematic design?
Answer. The most direct answer to this question is to let the community know just what they're voting
for when the request for funding the project's full design and construction is made.
The high school renovation will be of a size and scope several times larger than any Town
project yet undertaken and the effects on the residents will be far-reaching, both in terms of
cost and on the use of the building itself. Just "What to do?" to the high school has yet to be
decided, owing to changes in the State's guidelines over the past year.
Feasibility studies answer questions like this, but there are other crucial questions they don't
answer, like "How to do it?" and "What will it look like?" The "How" question is particularly
important since it involves performing full-scale construction in a building being shared with
students and faculty performing full-scale high school education. This is a logistical balancing
act known as "Phasing" - how to schedule major renovation work around teaching within the
same environment, done in distinct phases - and it has tremendous influence on project
costs, project timing and the students' well being; we ignore it at our peril. Phasing plans are
not produced at the feasibility level, whereas they are at the schematic and they go a long
way in answering not only "How?" but "How much?" (since time is money in construction).
Where feasibility studies produce block diagrams and verbal descriptions of what can be
done, a schematic plan will produce actual drawings and specifications that inform the
community of just what it will look like, what is going into it and what they'd be paying for. In
addition, parents who will have their children attending the high school during the renovation
f
j ~
will know what to expect.
Providing a schematic plan is also the first step of actual design of the renovations; it is not
another study. If accepted by the Town as the basis for full design and construction, it will
qualify as a reimbursable fee by the state's School Building Assistance bureau (SBA) and put
the project well along on its design schedule. If it's rejected, valuable information will still
have been produced to base an alternate scheme on (particularly regarding physical plant
issues), avoiding having to start from scratch. Either way, it will be money well spent to move
h
L-L
-~~j
t
e project forward.
Question: What happens after the schematic design is completed?
Answer. The first use of the schematic design will be to present it to Town Meeting in the fall of this
year for its review and to ask for approval to put it before the general electorate in the
following spring election (2003) as the solution to the high school's problems. It is during this
process that the general public will begin looking at what is going to be done to RMHS and
how it will happen, hopefully contacting their Town Meeting members with their comments
and questions. The particulars of the project will be thoroughly explored by Town Meeting, if
its past reviews of school projects are any indication, and it is hoped that approval will be
given (or modifications will be requested that will lead to approval).
n~
4
j
Once Town Meeting has so acted, the schematic design will be presented to the public at
large through several public presentations for their review and approval by way of the ballot
box, repeating the process followed for funding the schematic phase. Approval at that time
will mean that Reading voters will allow full funding of its SBA-mandated share of the finished
design and construction cost of the project that was outlined in the schematic design (by way
of a debt exclusion).
That will be the final step in the review/approval process begun at last November's Town
Meeting. This process is a very deliberate one that advances in step-by-step fashion, each
new step building on the previous ones. It will ensure that all Reading residents who have a
say in the decision to update RMHS will have ample opportunity to learn (in a calm and timely
manner) just what the plan is, why it's being proposed and how it will be executed.
Hopefully, then, the only outstanding question to answer will be "When?" This question and
its answer will be entirely in the hands of the voters. Should approval be given in the spring
of 2003, the earliest the project might be completed would be the fall of 2006.
During the month of March, the School Building Committee will be holding public
information meetings at various locations around Reading to allow interested
residents to come and have their questions answered about this project. The schedule
of these meetings is:
• March xx: Reading Public Library at 7:30 p.m.
• March xx: Parker Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
• March xx: Coolidge Middle School at 7.30 p.m.
• March 30r": Reading Memorial High School - Open House from 9 a.m to 9 p.m.
Please feel free to come and talk to School Building Committee members and
high school administration personnel at any of these meetings. The Open
House on March 30t`' will be of particular interest to people unfamiliar with the
high school. We hope to see you there.
On April 2°0; Reading voters will be asked for their consent to exclude a new debt of $450,000
from the normal property tax limits in order to pay for a schematic design of a renovation to
i' Reading Memorial High School. Producing this design was the recommendation of the School
Building Committee (SBC) to Town Meeting on November 13, 2001 as a means to obtain more
specific information about the needed renovations and how they will affect the Town. By a vote of
118 to 12, Town Meeting accepted this recommendation, subject to the approval of the debt
exclusion by the general electorate. This pamphlet is an intended to answer some of the more
common questions about this schematic design. It was prepared by the SBC and paid for with
private donations (printing and mailing).
Question: What are the problems with Reading's high school? Why do they cost so much to fix?
Answer. The high school is a large, sprawling building of outmoded design that has never had a
comprehensive renovation in its 48-year history (33 years for its Bldg. A addition in the rear of
the complex). Consequently, its physical plant systems are wearing out and its ability to
adapt to changing education requirements is also deteriorating.
Examples of the physical plant systems needing repair are:
• the plumbing (not just the fixtures, but the distribution network)
• the electrical system (not just lights, but the building's power network)
• the heating and ventilation systems (replace the inefficient windows and many unit
ventilators, repair worn out piping, upgrade boiler efficiency, improve air circulation)
• the communication system (non-existent or non-functional in many areas).
System upgrades trigger building code-compliance requirements and the high school's
mechanical systems were designed to antiquated building codes; thus, they cannot be merely
patched, they must be completely overhauled and brought up to present Code standards.
Other required Code updates are:
• the installation of a fire protection system (sprinklers) for the entire building
€ • making all areas handicap-accessible
• installing seismic hazard protection (against falling masonry walls)
A . removing all hazardous materials (asbestos, PCB's, etc.).
I
Most importantly, the building must continue to serve its purpose: education of our high
school students. Without a renovation, the faculty must continue to teach our students using
outdated facilities with diminishing effectiveness as the curricula become more stringent and
enrollments increase. At a minimum, the School Building Committee (SBC) has concluded
that the following are vital improvements that must be done:
• update the entire facility for new technology (computer network / Internet)
• create four new science labs (to maintain accreditation)
• improve circulation between buildings
• correct gender inequality issues in the athletic facilities.
All this must be done before addressing the teaching facilities in general, such as dedicating
space for the music and drama departments, creating computer workstations and a modern
language lab and replacing obsolete equipment. On top of facility reorganization comes
restoration of the building's deteriorating finishes - such as walls, floors and ceilings - and
there are quite a lot of them (there are 340,000 square feet in the building).
Each undertaking in renovating this space has a cost associated with it. Total reimbursable
renovation costs in the range of $100 to $200 per square foot are quite common for
Massachusetts's high schools. Hence, big school buildings have big costs associated with
fixing their problems and Reading Memorial High School is no exception.
Question: How much will it cost?
Answer. Simply put, we don't know for certain. A major reason for producing a schematic design is to
be able to answer this basic question with an acceptable level of confidence, which is in large
part why the SBC has recommended it. The reason for this uncertainty is that there are too
many unknowns at this point to make a reliable prediction about probable cost. Examples of
the unknowns are how to best upgrade the educational program without building new
additions, how to maximize State reimbursements under the new regulations and how to
accommodate major reconstruction in the (still occupied) building while maintaining quality
education and safety for the students.
The SBC feels strongly that costs for such a large project should be predicted with as much
accuracy as possible. By using the specific information produced in a schematic design
phase, a cost estimate could be based on itemized pieces of preliminary design rather than
on a broad diagrammatic description - an "idea" for a design.
This latter method of estimating is the only extent to which a feasibility study can go and was
used in the initial high school feasibility studies. These studies (based on old state
guidelines) produced several options that ranged from $30M+ to $60M+, depending on how
the "unknowns" were answered. Given the old basis on which they were produced and the
variation of their estimates, choosing one of these options to commit to - even as a "ballpark"
number - would be guessing. For comparison's sake, however, one could look at other
communities' high school projects to get an idea of the cost spectrum:
• Lexington High School - $28.6M / 328,500 sq. ft. ($87.17/ sq. ft.)
t • Newburyport High School - $34.2M / 190,000 sq. ft. ($180.26/ sq. ft.)
( Westborough High School - $42.5M / 283,000 sq. ft. ($150.18/ sq. ft.)
• Framingham High School - $54.01VI / 390,000 sq. ft. ($138.46/ sq. ft.)
Thus, finding out how much the project will cost as accurately as possible is of primary
importance. To the SBC (and hopefully to the voting public), the $450K cost for a schematic
design seems a reasonable price to pay to gain more specific knowledge for pricing such a
significant project and help answer this important basic question.
As to the cost of the schematic design itself, under a "worst case" scenario (no State
reimbursement because the resulting project is not accepted by the Town), the cost of
bonding the $450K will depend on how long it is bonded, which is a decision made at the time
LZIJ of sale of the bonds. If bonded for three years, the cost will be a maximum of $20.11 per
year to the average Reading property ($320K assessment). If bonded for ten years, this cost
would be $8.68 per year (max.). These amounts would diminish as the debt is amortized.
Question: What's the point of doing a schematic design?
Answer. The most direct answer to this question is to let the community know just what they're voting
for when the request for funding the project's full design and construction is made.
The high school renovation will be of a size and scope several times larger than any Town
project yet undertaken and the effects on the residents will be far-reaching, both in terms of
cost and on the use of the building itself. Just "What to do?" to the high school has yet to be
decided, owing to changes in the State's guidelines over the past year.
Feasibility studies answer questions like this, but there are other crucial questions they don't
answer, like "How to do it?" and "What will it look like?" The "How" question is particularly
important since it involves performing full-scale construction in a building being shared with
students and faculty performing full-scale high school education. This is a logistical balancing
act known as "Phasing" - how to schedule major renovation work around teaching within the
same environment, done in distinct phases - and it has tremendous influence on project
costs, project timing and the students' well being; we ignore it at our peril. Phasing plans are
not produced at the feasibility level, whereas they are at the schematic and they go a long
way in answering not only "How?" but "How much?" (since time is money in construction).
Where feasibility studies produce block diagrams and verbal descriptions of what can be
done, a schematic plan will produce actual drawings and specifications that inform the
community of just what it will look like, what is going into it and what they'd be paying for. In
addition, parents who will have their children attending the high school during the renovation
will know what to expect.
Providing a schematic plan is also the first step of actual design of the renovations; it is not
another study. If accepted by the Town as the basis for full design and construction, it will
qualify as a reimbursable fee by the state's School Building Assistance bureau (SBA) and put
the project well along on its design schedule. If it's rejected, valuable information will still
have been produced to base an alternate scheme on (particularly regarding physical plant
issues), avoiding having to start from scratch. Either way, it will be money well spent to move
the project forward.
LIL
LLIJL
Question: What happens after the schematic design is completed?
Answer. The first use of the schematic design will be to present it to Town Meeting in the fall of this
year for its review and to ask for approval to put it before the general electorate in the
following spring election (2003) as the solution to the high school's problems. It is during this
process that the general public will begin looking at what is going to be done to RMHS and
how it will happen, hopefully contacting their Town Meeting members with their comments
and questions. The particulars of the project will be thoroughly explored by Town Meeting, if
its past reviews of school projects are any indication, and it is hoped that approval will be
given (or modifications will be requested that will lead to approval).
Once Town Meeting has so acted, the schematic design will be presented to the public at
large through several public presentations for their review and approval by way of the ballot
box, repeating the process followed for funding the schematic phase. Approval at that time
will mean that Reading voters will allow full funding of its SBA-mandated share of the finished
design and construction cost of the project that was outlined in the schematic design (by way
of a debt exclusion).
That will be the final step in the review/approval process begun at last November's Town
Meeting. This process is a very deliberate one that advances in step-by-step fashion, each
new step building on the previous ones. It will ensure that all Reading residents who have a
say in the decision to update RMHS will have ample opportunity to learn (in a calm and timely
manner) just what the plan is, why it's being proposed and how it will be executed.
~ i
(
i
~i
Hopefully, then, the only outstanding question to answer will be "When?" This question and
its answer will be entirely in the hands of the voters. Should approval be given in the spring
of 2003, the earliest the project might be completed would be the fall of 2006.
During the month of March, the School Building Committee will be holding public
information meetings at various locations around Reading to allow interested
residents to come and have their questions answered about this project. The schedule
of these meetings is:
• March xx. Reading Public Library at 7.30 p.m.
• March xx: Parker Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
• March xx: Coolidge Middle School at 7:30 p.m.
• March 30': Reading Memorial High School - Open House from 9 a.m to 1 p.m.
Please feel free to come and talk to School Building Committee members and
high school administration personnel at any of these meetings. The Open
House on March 30m will be of particular interest to people unfamiliar with the
high school. We hope to see you there.