HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-29 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesV
Reading School Building Committee J
RK
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on Januarv 29, 2002, 7:30'p m "ASS.
(In the Superintendent's Conference Room at RMH )
C1rCb 13 3:2~
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Michael Scarpitto (MS)
Ray Porter (RP)
Alex McRae (AM)
Paula Perry (PP)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Rich Radville (RR)
Featured Guests:
Dr. Harry Harutunian (Superintendent - Reading Public Schools)
(Agenda provided: copy attached to these minutes)
A. Call to Order
RG called the meeting to order and pointed out that until the community votes
on the override for the schematic design funds for the high school, the SBC
was in a "holding pattern" in regards to working on that project. He called for
discussion on ways the Committee should attempt to educate the voting
public during this period.
B. Review Status of Action on Override
RR said that the Committee should be working during this period assembling
a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) which defined the expected scope of work
for the schematic design. This would be used for soliciting an architectural
firm as soon as possible should the override pass and funding became
available. He volunteered to begin drafting one for the Committee's review.
RG recalled that the last RFQ was produced between Dr. Harutunian, the
Town Manager, the business manager for the town's DPW and Town
Counsel, noting that the business manager had experience with writing many
RFQ's for the Town. Several members thought that putting the Committee's
previous items of consensus into the RFQ document would be a valuable use
of the time before the override election and could be used during the public
education activities to demonstrate the intent of the schematic design. Dr.
Harutunian said he would work with the Attorney General's office and Town
- Counsel to help draft the "legalese portion of the RFQ, coordinate with RR
and bring it to the SBC for its review.
Reading School Building- Committee 2
Afeeting Al mutes ftom danueny 29, 2002
RG asked Dr. Harutunian to confer with the Town Manager concerning the
legal requirements for public solicitation of architectural firms for the
schematic design phase. At issue is whether or not the firm solicited for the
schematics can be allowed to continue on with the remainder of the
architectural services needed to complete the project without out a new round
of solicitation (another RFQ) for those services. Dr. Harutunian relayed his
discussions with Town Counsel from some time ago in which he was told that
design services beyond the feasibility phase did not need separate
solicitations for schematic and final services. JS reminded the Committee
that this subject was discussed at the last meeting (11/07/01) and it was
mentioned that the need for additional solicitations after the schematic phase
depended on how the RFQ for the schematics was written (refer to the
11/07/01 minutes). The consensus was then to get a definitive ruling from
Town Counsel. After remarks from observer Linda Phillips concerning her
discussions with the Attorney General's office, the consensus was to ask Dr.
Harutunian to ask the Town Manager and Town Counsel to contact the
individual at the AG's office identified by Ms. Phillips and obtain the ruling.
A discussion of timing of the RFQ's production and the education period led
to the decision to use the month of February for putting together the RFQ and
using March for public education.
RG opened the subject of an informational mailing being produced and
disseminated to the general electorate for discussion. A question and answer
format was put forward as a likely approach for such a mailing and Dr.
Harutunian suggested that the Committee members forward likely questions
to him for compilation. He said he would then review them with the chairs of
the SBC and the School Committee and distill them down to four or five
pertinent questions with accurate answers. RG wondered if the questions
shouldn't come from individuals who are removed from the Committee's
deliberations in order to gauge the degree of familiarity of the public with the
project and then tailor the Q & A's to best inform them of what they need and
want to know. Dr. Harutunian said he could canvas the budget parents'
group for their questions.
Discussion ensued about the particulars of the education period, touching on
subjects like how many public meetings to have, where to have them, what
manner of presentation to use, how to publicize them, and how effective they
might be. It was thought that some of the locations of the meetings should be
in non-school venues and that weekly meetings or appearances would be
useful. Locations mentioned were both of the middle schools, the Senior
Center, the library and the high school itself. An open house-style meeting in
the high school close to the election date was suggested. The Committee
discussed the uniqueness of this election due to the facts of it being an
override election and that it was not for a project but for the planning of a
project. Possible comparisons between feasibility plans and schematic plans
were mentioned as a part of the Committee's informational presentation. RR
offered to put together a package of diagrams modeled after Option B.1 as a
demonstration of the products (and limitations) of a--feasibility study.
Cieadhtg School Building Committee
Meeting Wirautes, f -0171,.lanuarl; 29, 2002
RG asked if any advocacy group could be formed within the community to
promote passage of the override, since such an undertaking would not be in
the SBC's purview (as advisers to Town Meeting). Such tasks as raising
funds for a town-wide mailing would have to be done by such a group. Dr.
Harutunian and PP would try and canvas parents' groups for interest in this
area.
JS volunteered to undertake the assembly of the Q&A flyer, noting that he felt
the informational mailing should be prepared by the SBC since it sponsored
the article that led to the override election. PP and TT agreed, with
acknowledgement that the school administration needed to include accurate
information concerning the specific problems and needs of the high school.
TT also said that the differences between a feasibility study and schematic
design should be spelled out, pointing out the benefits of the enhanced
information gained by advancing to the schematic level. Dr. Harutunian said
he would canvas the audience to the next night's forum on the school budget
for questions regarding the RMHS override election and send the information
to JS to begin the process of developing the flyer.
RP asked if the Committee had come to a point of closure on what items to
include in the RFQ, expressing his belief that such items should be identified
for the community at large. He also mentioned a recent newspaper article
(passing out copies; attached) describing proposed cutbacks in State funding
for new school projects. He expressed concern that the effect of such
cutbacks could be to make any high school project more expensive as the
time waiting for State reimbursement lengthened. He felt that prioritizing a list
of items to be included in the project (from "must do" through "would like to
do") should be done through coordination with the high school administration;
that list should then be put before the public as a "menu" to choose from in
order to gauge how much the Town was willing to pay for, given the expected
delay in reimbursements. He referenced the list of basic costs assembled by
RR for the 11/13/01 Town Meeting as an example of items that might be put
in the RFQ.
Several members answered that the list of items for the RFQ had been
discussed by the Committee over past meetings and should be considered
accepted for inclusion. The cost list presented at Town Meeting was not an
option itself; rather, it demonstrated the fundamental "must do" items culled
from the feasibility studies and from Committee deliberations that form the
bare minimum upgrades required before considering educational upgrades.
RR explained that he will assemble those minimum requirements with the
educational program items already discussed by the Committee into a scope
of work to be requested in the RFQ and bring a draft of it back to the
Committee for review.
RG spoke to the issue of the State's cutbacks, reminding the Committee that
the SBA program has been faithful to its participants (the towns) over its
history and he felt that the local legislators from affected communities
(including Reading) would try hard to maintainthe State's commitment to it. -
He also commented that a schematic design would produce a valuable tool
for crafting alternative solutions for Town consideration should any initial
Rec dhl sz School Budding Committee
feeting Minutes f •om danuaiy 29, 2002
4
(total) solution fail to pass its override attempt. RP and AM voiced their views
that a schematic design would be valuable for producing an integrated
phasing plan and identify costs associated with code compliance.
Several members discussed the genesis of an advocacy group, with the
consensus being that volunteers must come forward from the community to
form such a group. The form of the future public meetings was also briefly
discussed, with ideas for less formal presentations being voiced. The
informal tours and conversations coupled with formal presentations used at
the Coolidge Middle School during that project's public information campaign
were given as examples.
- A tentative schedule for meeting during the month of February was set up,
with Tuesday nights (Feb. 5, 12, 19, and 26) being reserved for SBC
meetings (in the Supt.'s conference room at 7:30 p.m., except for the 12t"
which must be at another location).
RG asked for any additions, deletions or corrections to the minutes of the
October 23, 2001 RSBC meeting. AM asked that the second paragraph on page
4 be amended to change the phrase "average voter" to ""people removed from
this Committee", which he said was a more accurate recording of his words and
meaning. With no objections being noted to the correction, RG called for a
motion to accept the minutes as amended, which was made by RR and
seconded by PP. A vote was taken and the results were unanimous in the
affirmative.
C. Adjourn
- With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT so
moved and was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in
the affirmative (time 9:20 p.m.).
Minutes prepared and submitted by:
n
f
Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
READING SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
Leading, Massachusetts
DATE: January 29, 2002
PLACE: Superintendent's Conference Room
TIDE: 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. A. Call to Order
B. Review Status of Action on Override
C. Adjourn
P." cu '16 F4 0,
00 $x$o0
00 Ed
A w
3 o 6 F° 3 v
p O 0.
7', '00 mo
> a~+ n a ~3 o err q ti a v
8 ~ p ~p I t~ py"p off" A d i y°
h Rj N c'~ .L.~i ,tlU3V C
C~ aa4Z (L) :340$~t❑CJ~da ~oo "$'Gy+c~ a"i45 'C
0.4 . 2 X3
10 0
ic-M 78 1 , 2
8 rs m C7 $
12 In rq .91
w cd
W
O
H
E~
V
0
V-V oz
04
ti,sE -0
type sU ` ° x s y y ° d s -1
.2 '00 bO
U v .2 " OT
w P. .40 00 .2
'o 0.0 1
*tl -
w
2- m 49
191, 0.9 0
d y o ` c 0
PO
Id Ei
w z7 y O W' O y o O u cd c~
-8-51 ol W
C Si' d " q 0> O Fri c~ C b w O w
09 <u
0 Id
w; .2
W U cd Fem.. N VJ c9 'i A xrt bgg " > p> O O .y..~iy. G' Li
HbAu y0' p Cy O cE t 41 O Fii c~ vv,
-ca
w ch _
c. ~ U 0 A
pooCoi vo3°~a cu a) _
4. Id
40.
= T.+ Rte.. CU.. N N ~ 3 O ' 't 0
w .0 C1 v5 90 >a c. =0 S a' U
N
3
u
Q)
V ~I
Cd
O
o
^
o
cd~m Ck0
S. Y t l
Ow, W"
a 3a
~I'D~
49 3
~i? t& A ..q
"
o chi deb ~'m W b >,U3 .a~ 4
bro
e& 0 W CU
O +~-~b 011Cfl+4 .w
0,0 0-6 0
CJ A Q)
bio
C~
Q8ow a 0 04
-1
1
?W
Piz
M~m
='a U O°-