Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-12 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on February 12, 2002, 7.30 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Rich Radville (RR) Tim Twomey (TT) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) ° 'r' Alex McRae (AM) -a Ray Porter (RP), U, r Michael Scarpitto (MS) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Principal, RMHS) RG called for a motion for acceptance of the minutes of the January 29, 2002 RSBC meeting. DL made the motion, which was seconded by RR. RG asked if there were any additions, deletions or changes desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the affirmative. RG noted that Kendra Cooper, working as a volunteer for RCTV (local cable television), has had problems with recording the audio content of the SBC meetings in the Superintendent's Conference Room (she distributed copies of a memo to the superintendent to the board members describing the situation; copy attached). Apparently, it is easier to record in the RMHS Career Guidance Center (the location of this meeting) and so, RG said that the next two meetings (Feb. 19th and 25th) would be held there. RG directed discussion to the draft RFQ prepared by RR and distributed to Committee members at the last meeting (refer to the 2/5/02 minutes with a copy appended to them). RR began by saying that Town Counsel would be submitting input concerning the RFQ soon, but had not done so as yet. He had added language requiring a code analysis and would add revisions to the language concerning seismic upgrades as well as specific requirements for copies of plans. DL asked if the RFQ would contain a definition section. TT responded that the RFQ is written for architects who should have familiarity with the terms used, so such a section would not be necessary. RG asked RR if he would prepare explanations of what an RFQ is and what are the differences between a feasibility study and a schematic design for those who are not architects and will be curious to know (during the March public presentations). RR agreed. JS suggested changing the language referencing upgrades to structural systems to meet current seismic codes to refer directly to the specific requirements in the building code concerning seismic provisions for existing Readizag School Building t~'o>TZrazittee Afeeting Mzzzutes flyor1z I ehruary 12, 2002 buildings (Section 3408). TT noted that complying with that section would be contained in the need to comply with all applicable laws, of which the building code is one (CMR 780). AM cautioned against being too narrow in defining applicable sections of the code, preferring a reference to all applicable sections. AM advocated for requiring a forecast of projected enrollment for a minimum of twelve years from the present instead of ten. He based this on his experience with following the enrollment projections through the years, noting that he expects the peak enrollment to occur beyond ten years out and that the renovation should be planned to handle peak enrollments. Various members discussed the reasons for ten-year projections, ranging from the diminished accuracy of projections longer than ten years to the requirements of the SBA for projections used for reimbursable projects. The difficulties with longer-range projections were acknowledged and it was agreed that the RFQ should mention the desirability of knowing what could happen to the school population beyond ten years as accurately as possible (in addition to a minimum ten-year projection). AM further suggested direct reference to the letter from the SBA that was received in response to their review of the feasibility study options (refer to the minutes of 10/23/01). After discussion, this was thought to be unnecessary since the specific items included in the description of the desired schematic design were in many ways crafted by the Committee in - response to that letter. The SBA might also change its views in the course of the next few years, so it was thought unwise to index the plan to a relatively - recent opinion. - JS suggested that the RFQ contain requirements for the architect's participation in presentations before Town Meeting and the SBA. Also, language outlining the responsibilities for protection/repair of existing finishes (such as ceilings and walls) after on-site investigations by the design team should be included. - RR reported that he had contacted the Director of Public Works about existing plans and documents for the high school. The Director was "99% certain" that these materials were available in the archives of the DPW. It was agreed that all such materials should be gathered for the architect's use. RP mentioned the enrollment projections made in the DRA feasibility study from 1996 as having been reasonably accurate over time and that their methodologies should be considered when forecasting enrollments for the schematic design. Also, he asked the Committee to consider revising the language that required the design team to conduct an educational program review through "interaction" with the SBC to read "under the direction of the SBC. RR felt the word "interaction" was appropriate since the review would involve such a process, but he suggested modifying the phrase to read "interaction and direction from" the SBC, which was satisfactory to the Committee. - RP raised a question concerning the degree of specificity in the RFQ, wondering how specific it should be when including previously discussed Reading School Bjt ilcldng Committee Meeting Alinutes front h-ebruary .72, 2002 criteria reviewed by the Committee (as well as the RMHS administration). RR said he would review the administration's criteria and add any items that were not already covered. The discussion continued on the subject of specifying cost estimates for various items to demonstrate the expected scope of the project to voters (such as Title IX corrections). Comments included being too restrictive with a cost estimate for a specific solution that may not be the best one and pre-judging a major result of the schematic design (to produce accurate cost estimates). It was mentioned that this subject was discussed at the last meeting (2/05/02) when going over questions to include in the informational flyer. Observer Jackie Mandell asked if the RFQ was requiring the architect to re- do the programmatic investigations and assessments already performed during the feasibility study phases. Members of the Committee answered that that previous work was referenced in the RFQ and is to be made available to the architect. Any further assessments performed would be to update that programmatic information, acquaint the (new) architect with the staff and the school and to allow for the creation of new programmatic solutions that may improve upon the ones put forward in the feasibility studies. Ms. Mandell asked if the enrollment projections called for would be additional to the ones now obtained through Reading's subscription to NESDEC on a regular basis (she passed out copies of NESDEC's 12/13/01 projections, copy attached). Members of the Committee answered that the RFQ put the responsibility for obtaining the projections on the architect, who usually have professionals like NESDEC on their team. Requiring the choice of that professional to be NESDEC was seen as being too restrictive, although it was thought that the RFQ could mention the Town's membership in NESDEC as a point of information (not as an endorsement). During the discussion it was clarified that the RFQ did not put forward any design option that used past enrollment projections in its makeup. The SBC has never endorsed or rejected any option formulated in the feasibility studies, - PP passed out copies of her simplification of the RFQ for possible distribution during the March informational presentations (copy attached). This material was to be digested individually by Committee members and discussed at the next meeting (2/19/02). JS posed a question concerning the possibility of being too specific in the charges to the architect in the RFQ. He wondered if the inclusion of relatively precise criteria to be used in the production of schematic plans might hamper the architect's normal procedures in crafting schematic design solutions. Various members of the board responded that the RFQ as drafted was indeed more specific than would normally be expected, but that it contained language that required exploration of other criteria to meet the needs of the school. Observer Linda Phillips asked ifthe SBC would be responsible for entering - into the contract with the architect selected and paying their bills. RG answered that he doubted that the Committee had contract or requisition- signing authority and would defer to the advice of Town Counsel. She asked Readh gSchool Building Committee fleeting Mitzutesftonx February 12, 2002 4 if the SBC would be responsible for seeing that the terms of the contract are followed. RG answered that it would. She asked if the full Committee would be interacting with the architect at all times of contact. RG responded that that would not be necessary; smaller groups might work with the architect and report back to the full body. RG asked for the observers watching to submit any questions they want answered about the proposed schematic design to the SBC. The object was to provide a list of questions that the Committee could use to prepare the informational flyer and the presentations that will be given in March. - PP said that she had received questions regarding the difference between a schematic design and a feasibility study and whether or not the cost of the schematic design was reimbursable. - Frank Orlando was asked to gather questions from high school parents. - RP said that he had heard questions mostly about probable cost. - Jackie Mandell wondered about the relationship between the $450K amount for schematics and the final project cost. It was noted that amount of work required to produce schematics for projects in a wide range of final costs would be similar. RG went over the status of the formation of an advocacy group (looking for leaders) and the upcoming tours of the high school (updated by Mr. Orlando). The disposition of the computer equipment now being sought by a parents' group for the high school was discussed, particularly in regards to how it would be affected by the high school renovation. It was acknowledged that the funds for the equipment now being raised would not be reimbursed by the State since it was not included in the project. Coordination of the equipment purchases with the design phase of the technology renovations might be possible, however. Leasing of the equipment is also being investigated. RG asked if the Committee would be interested in discussing the project with RMHS students and student groups to get their viewpoints and support. The Committee expressed interest and Mr. Orlando said he would ask for interested students. Withholding a portion of the $450K for contingencies was discussed and thought to be a prudent measure to include in the contract with the architect. 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 9:10 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee To. Superintendent Harry Karutunian From: Kendra Cooper Re: Video gang Public Meetings Date: February 11, 2002 17 7 re IT r 01 I would like to clarify a few issues with you regarding videotaping public meetings on school property. 1. Since Summer 2000 when I as a volunteer independent producer first began to videotape School Building Committee meetings for airing on RCTV, I have tried, under constraints, to enable the Reading public to see and hear the business of the School Building Committee. 2. As evidenced in our correspondence (your letter to me Sept. 1, 2000 and my Sept. 9, 2000 memo to you), an issue continues to be inadequate time to set up equipment in the Superintendent's Conference Room that allows the proceedings to be audible. In your letter, you wrote: I will not allow equipment to be set up to film any meeting at the Central Office until just prior to the meeting." During the past year and a half, the amount of time you have allowed me access to the public meeting room (to set up and test equipment) has ranged from-5 minutes after the meeting was scheduled to begin to 10 -15 minutes before a 7:30 PM meeting. This has not been enough time. 3. During the past year, RCTV has spent thousands of dollars to install an extensive audio system specifically in that public meeting room. However, as I have indicated several times to you and your staff, even with new equipment in that room, I still need at least 45 minutes to set up, connect to and test the system before videotaping a meeting in that room. Please. note that the time needed to set up and test equipment varies with different meeting rooms. Please continue to anticipate that I will need adequate time to set up equipment before School Building Committee meetings, I look forward to your making the locations available to me in a timely manner. Thank you. cc Reading School Building Committee Chair Russ Graham Reading School Committee Chair RCTV Board of Directors RCTV Director Amy Brough Reading Public Schools Enrollment Data Actual (October 1, 1997 to 2000) and Projected (October 1, 2001 to 2005) Pupils 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 ® Elementary ■ Middle 0 High Enrollment As of Elementary Middle High October 1. Schools Schools School Totals 1997 2,097 976 1,046 4,119 1998 2,047 1,043 1,071 4,161 1999 2,006 1,048 1,140 4,194 2000 2,037 1,027 1,148 4,212 2001 1,995 1,033 1,209 4,237 2002 2,038 1,040 1,231 / 4,309 2003 2,067 1,060 1,217 4,344 2004 2,130 996 1,249 4,375 2005 2,209 948 1,249 4,406 Projections 2002 to 2005 by New England School Development Council on December 13, 2001. Projections do not reflect any impact from the sale of Longwood Farm or Spence Farm. 42 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Fiscal Year DRAFT*DRAFT* DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT* Scope of Work for RMHS Schematic Design 1. Documentation of Existing Conditions Construction Techniques of all walls Conditions of all building components (interior finishes, exterior, roofing, windows, doors, etc.) Structural Systems Security and technology systems Mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems Code and regulation compliance (i.e. handicapped accessibility) 2. Program Review and Verification - Enrollment/Capacity Study - Understanding of Educational/Program goals for RMHS 3. Alternate Design Solutions that addresses the following issues - Maximizing state reimbursement Staying within the existing building footprint (to the extent feasible) - Solve the inequities in the existing athletic facilities (Title-9) - Increase/improve science labs - Upgrades to all (including Field House) existing finishes and mechanical, electrical, technology, communications and security systems - Upgrades to structural systems, as needed to meet current seismic codes - Handicapped accessibility as required by code - Dedicated space for Music and Drama - Dedicated Language Lab - Internal traffic and circulation problems 4. Based-on the design-that School Building Committee selects, a ,fully developed schematic design that includes Complete Floor Plans Diagrams of proposed system upgrades for all trades (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc.) Preparation of Phasing Plans (goal of 3 summers/2school years time span) - Supporting Data for Capital Override campaign Cost-estimate-that-includes all costs (including phasing plan) - - To. Superintendent Larry Hmutunian From: Kendra Cooper tom.-•~= Re: Videotaping Public Meetings Date: February 11, 2002 p E# Al: an? I would like to clarify a few issues with you regarding videotaping public meetings on school property. 1. Since Summer 2000 when I as a volunteer independent producer first began to videotape School Building Committee meetings for airing on RCTV, I have tried, under constraints, to enable the Reading public to see and hear the business of the School Building Committee. 2.1 As evidenced in our correspondence (your letter to me Sept. 1, 2000 and my Sept. 9, 2000 memo to you), an issue continues to be inadequate time to set up equipment in the Superintendent's Conference Room that allows the proceedings to be audible. In your letter, you wrote: I will not allow equipment to be set up to film any meeting at the Central Office until just prior to the meeting." During the past year and a half, the amount of time you have allowed we access to the public meeting room (to set up and test equipment) has ranged from 5 minutes after the meeting was scheduled to begin to 10 -15 minutes before a 7:30 PM meeting. This has not been enough time. I During the past year, RCTV has spent thousands of dollars to install an extensive audio system specifically in that public meeting room. However, as I have indicated several times to you and your staff, even with new equipment in that room, I still need at least 45 minutes to set up, connect to and test the system before videotaping a meeting in that room. Please note that the time needed to set up and test equipment varies with different meeting rooms. Please continue to anticipate that I will need adequate time to set up equipment before School Building Committee meetings. I look forward to your making the locations available to me in a timely manner. Thank you. cc Reading School Building Committee Chair Russ Graham Reading School Committee Chair RCTV Board of Directors RCTV Director Amy Brough Reading Public Schools Enrollment Data Actual (October 1, 1997 to 2000) and Projected (October 1, 2001 to 2005) Pupils 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 ® Elementary ■ Middle O High Enrollment As of Elementary Middle High October 1, Schools Schools School Totals 1997 2,097 976 1,046 4,119 1998 2,047 1,043 1,071 4,161 1999 2,006 1,048 1,140 4,194 2000 2,037 1,027 1,148 4,212 2001 1,995 1,033 1,209 4,237 2002 2,038 1,040 1,231 / 4,309 2003 2,067 1,060 1,217 4,344 2004 2,130 996 1,249 4,375 2005 2,209 948 1,249 4,406 Projections 2002 to 2005 by New England School Development Council on December 13, 2001. Projections do not reflect any impact from the sale of Longwood Farm or Spence Farm. 42 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Fiscal Year DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT*DRAFT* Scope of Work for RMHS Schematic Design 1. Documentation of Existing Conditions Construction Techniques of all walls Conditions of all building components (interior finishes, exterior, roofing, windows, doors, etc.) Structural Systems Security and technology systems Mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems Code and regulation compliance (i.e. handicapped accessibility) 2. Program Review and Verification - Enrollment/Capacity Study - Understanding of Educational/Program goals for RMHS 3. Alternate Design Solutions that addresses the following issues - Maximizing state reimbursement - Staying within the existing building footprint (to the extent feasible) - Solve the inequities in the existing athletic facilities (-Title 9) - Increase/improve science labs - Upgrades to all (including Field House) existing finishes and mechanical, electrical, technology, communications and security systems - Upgrades to structural systems, as needed to meet current seismic codes - Handicapped accessibility as required by code - Dedicated space for Music and Drama - Dedicated Language Lab - Internal traffic and circulation problems 4. Based on the design that School Building Committee selects, a fully developed schematic design that includes Complete Floor Plans Diagrams of proposed system upgrades for all trades (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc.) Preparation of Phasing Plans (goal of 3 summers/2school years time span) Supporting Data for Capital Override campaign Cost estimate that includes all costs (including phasing plan)