Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-01 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReadin_a School Building Committee v ~r1SS. Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on November 1, 2001, 7:30 p.m. (In the Library of the Parker Middle Schoo )Q FES P 2: 55 Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Rich Radville (RR) Jeff Struble (JS) Alex McRae (AM) Ray Porter (RP) Paula Perry (PP) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Principal - RMHS) RG relayed the information that the Finance Committee had unanimously endorsed the upcoming Article 7 (town meeting warrant article authorizing the request for schematic design fees for RMHS via override election) and that the Board of Selectmen had discussed the article with RG at a recent meeting (no action taken by the BOS). He indicated that the purpose of this meeting was to go over the items previously noted as being necessary and desirable by the Committee as review them in light of the SBA's recent letter regarding reimbursability. RP asked that before taking up those items that the Committee discuss several questions of his regarding Article 7's production and the Committee's operation in general. RP wondered how the language of Article 7 was written (by whom, when, etc.) and whether the entire SBC should have been consulted about its wording and content before being placed on the Town Meeting warrant. RG responded that the Committee's actions regarding Article 7 had been in response to an instructional motion directing it to come before Town Meeting in the fall with a plan for soliciting an architect for the production of a schematic design for the high school. The production of the article and the language therein was done in the same manner as previous articles sponsored by the SBC, written by Town Counsel to satisfy the legal requirements which the Town must operate under. DL voiced his understanding that the article as written contained the substance of the deliberations undertaken by the Committee and that the responsibility for writing the "legalese" of the article-proper should fall on the TownManager / Town Counsel. He felt comfortable with that process. Readhi g School Building Committee ltileeting- Minutes f -om November 1, 2001 2 RP pointed out a phrase in the warrant that mentioned "one or more" plans being sought by the SBC which he felt contradicted the Committee's decision to pursue just one plan. RG, DL and others explained that such open-ended provisos were common practice in warrant language to allow Town Meeting the legal right to modify the article as it saw fit, including the possibility of adding more than one plan if it so desired. If the language were absent, such a modification may not be legally binding. RP then had questions about the portion of the article that authorized the expenditure of funds by the SBC, wondering if such a task was usual practice. Observer Jackie Mandell also noted this item, stating that the SBC heretofore had handled funds for feasibility studies while the School Committee handled design and construction expenditures. RG and others responded that this scenario was unusual in that the process being overseen was the production of a schematic design rather than a feasibility study, but that the School Committee would oversee final design and construction, as was the normal procedure. There was still some uncertainty as to the legal requirement for another solicitation for an architect to complete the design after schematics, but that would have to be answered by Town Counsel. - RP still expressed discomfort with the sponsorship of the article by the SBC when he (as an SBC member) had not participated in the crafting of the particulars of it. JS expressed his satisfaction with the process, citing the success of past sponsorships begun in the same way. AM noted that RP's objections were not about content but on procedure,which may not be the most pressing concern of the Committee at this juncture. PP expressed her understanding that this article did represent a departure from the normal path followed for school projects, but that its size and scope warranted a unique approach to allow the Committee to be able to educate the public adequately. RG emphasized that the expenditure of funds by the SBC was part and parcel of its fulfilling its responsibility to advise Town Meeting about a solution to the problems which exist at RMHS, using the schematic design as a basis for its final recommendations to Town Meeting. On the subject of operating procedures, RP wanted to discuss aspects of the March 1995 draft of operating procedures set down by the Town Manager (see minutes from 10/23/01). Specific items included the manner of scheduling/canceling meetings, quorum/ground rules, vice-chair, minutes distribution, advanced agenda distribution, and conflict of interest. This last item drew questions from others on the Committee as to the requirement for such a thing, with the consensus being that an upcoming seminar for Town employees on this very subject would answer them. RG mentioned that his review of the Town Manager's document showed nothing that the SBC did not do. He also noted that the document was intended for boards that answer directly to the Board of Selectmen and by itself was not binding on a special committee of Town Meeting (such as the SBC). RP questioned whether the SBC follows quorum rules, to which RG - - - -responded that he felt the SBC did. -JS expressed support forthe conceptof a vice-chair, citing the need to have continuance of relations with State Treading .School Building Committee Nketing Alinutes from November 1, 2001 officials should the chair be incapacitated. It was suggested that the subject be pursued at a later date. RG turned the Committee's attention to the list of items produced at the June 26, 2001 SBC meeting for possible inclusion in the plan to renovate RMHS, noting that the SBA's letter discouraged any new construction. He began discussion by asking if the Committee should instruct the architect chosen to produce the schematic design to restrict renovations to the existing footprint of the building. DL and RR wondered if the SBA letter applied to the new links contemplated to improve circulation. RG said that his impression of the SBA's attitude toward circulation improvement was that they would only be interested in the issue if safety were to be improved. RMHS Principal Frank Orlando cited bottlenecks that exist between Buildings B and C and between C and A as potential hazards. RR felt that such conditions were important enough to correct to keep in the program and could be presented to the State as being necessary additional space. Observer Emerson Tucker expressed concern that such an obvious design flaw (in circulation patterns) was not addressed when the high school was first built and could such an oversight happen again. RR answered that circulation may not have been seen as a major design issue back then. With the Committee's insistence, however, it could be made to be an issue in the upcoming renovation. Frank Orlando said that he would not like to abandon the idea of adding science classrooms in the bottom of C-Bldg. in order to handle increased enrollments, as the feasibility studies had suggested. RR and RG answered that the SBA's letter seemed to make such an addition unlikely and that new solutions might be forthcoming from the new architect if so directed by the Committee. - DL commented that his interpretation of the SBA's letter was that additions might be permissible as long as all solutions using existing space were analyzed and found to be educationally deficient. He felt that giving the architect specific directions along those lines would be satisfactory to all concerned. AM thought that the production of the instructions to be included in the RFQ to be issued upon the voter's passage of the override would be a valuable demonstration of the Committee's intention to adhere to the State's guidelines regarding additional space. He felt that the Committee should not directly prohibit additions but should follow the SBA's concerns that all possible uses of available space will be exhausted before additions are considered. JS agreed with AM, adding that his view of the SBA letter was that the State feels that Reading should attempt to solve its major programmatic issues with - available space first before considering additions. If safety, practicality or - code concerns warrant additions, he felt the State would see the need for them. Reading School Building Committee .tweeting Minutes ftom .November 1, 2001 General discussion among various members concluded that the RFQ should instruct the architect to restrict renovations to the footprint of the building unless no practical and cost-effective solution could be found under that restriction and could be demonstrated as such. Only then would additions be considered. Turning to the specific items from the 6/27/01 meeting, the inclusion of a general technological upgrade of the RMHS facilities was deemed necessary by consensus. Discussion touched on the possible decrease in cost of computer equipment, the benefits of using up-to-date technological resources consistently through elementary, middle and high school, and the reimbursability of leasing (rather than buying) equipment. Inclusion of links in the proposed plan was covered under the discussion about additions. The solution to Title IX issues was deemed to follow the same approach, namely to attempt to solve the inequality between boys and girls phys. ed. facilities within the existing space(s) and only consider additions if that approach was found to be unworkable. AM mentioned the reorganization of the present girls' locker room into both boys and girls locker rooms that was suggested in the original feasibility study. MS noted that the development of the solutions that used additions were expecting to re-use the existing girls' lockers and gym for other educational program space. Providing more space for the music and drama departments was seen to be a primary challenge for the architect, needing to do so within the confines o the existing building footprint. Mr. Orlando pointed out that the time period between the feasibility studies saw a large increase in the number of students involved in these programs and that was the reason the second study addressed their needs much more prominently than did the first. - RG and AM briefly related their impressions that the SBA will not be very interested in subsidizing renovations designed as "innovative community use" (RG from his discussions with them; AM from research of recent State documents). Regarding the enlargement of undersized classrooms, it was thought after general discussion that the SBA would reimburse a plan that left some classrooms with square footages less than the targets set by the DOE. Given the strong recommendation from the SBA to stay within the building footprint, keeping some undersized classrooms may be unavoidable. Mr. Orlando said that scheduling of classes using smaller classrooms for smaller classes would be difficult. Updating the mechanical services of RMHS was deemed essential to the project, a "must-do" item, and one that incurs considerable cost even before educational program items are addressed. RG asked RR and JS to develop a list of essential upgrades and their costs with a view to present that information to Town Meeting. Reading School Building Committee Iketing Aflnuter from November 1, 2001 Shared classrooms were acknowledged to be an almost certain result of restricting the renovations within the existing footprint of the building. Mr. Orlando and MS went through some of the implications of sharing classrooms in course scheduling, noting that their inclusion in the plan could be accommodated. - Relocating non-high school programs was seen to be inevitable in light of the SBA letter. This means that the cost of relocating facilities that the Town must support (such as RISE and the Superintendent's office) must be included as non-reimbursable expenses that accompany the State-supported renovations. - Regarding enrollment projections, RG asked AM to get the latest projections from January 2001 and distill them into presentable form for Town Meeting. - The need for a modern language lab was deemed significant enough to definitely include in the plan, even though its inclusion might take space away from other educational programs. - Renovations to the Field House were seen to be limited to its present footprint and that plans for expanding it would not be considered by the State. RG related the State's disinterest in this area as being a reversal of the previous SBA administration's position on the Field House. Upgrading of science labs were of interest to the SBA and made it clear that they would consider inclusion of such a programmatic enhancement. The Committee held to its previous conviction that they are a "must do" item. The development of a phasing plan that continued the education of the students while performing renovations was discussed as being of major importance, not only to ensure that the quality of the education was unchanged but that the duration of the project was as short as could possibly be. In this, the SBA was in complete agreement. It was noted, however, that the omission of additions would make phasing much more difficult due to the lack of "swing space" which additions could provide. RG asked JS to update his timeline to demonstrate the effects of phasing over the next few years. RP asked if the list of programmatic improvements assembled by Mr. Orlando at the Committee's request should be discussed. Mr. Orlando said that the preceding discussions had for the most part covered those items, with the possible exception of the need for increased security around the campus, which was briefly mentioned by the SBA during their visit. It was thought that this comment was motivated by`a general concern for security measures that developed after the September 11th tragedies but was not articulated by the SBA to any extent. AM asked if the SBA had made any comments about any of the options put forward in the second feasibility study by Strekalovsky & Hoit or about - M., - enrollment increases during their visit.- Mr. Orlando and RG answered that - - - they spent very little time on the proposed options and concentrated instead Reading ,Sehool Building Committee Meeting Alinaites front November 1, 2001 on observing the campus itself and asking questions about physical plant and the educational functioning of the school in its present state. RG suggested that the Committee meet again before Town Meeting to articulate the Committee's recommendations and formalize their presentation. A tentative date of November 7, 2001 was set for this meeting to be held in the Superintendent's conference room at 7:30. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. RP so moved and was seconded by DL. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 10:35 p.m.). " ~r Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee