The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-08-21 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesV RECEIVED Reading School Building Committee yC1 u OWN CLERK IN; _AOING, MASS. Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on August 21, 2002, 7:30 .m. (In the Town Hall Conference Room/Selectmen's Roo C1 ®3 P 12. 18 Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Ray Porter (RP) Tim Twomey (TT) Warren Cochrane (WC) Rich Radville (RR) Jeff Struble (JS) Paula Perry (PP) Alex McRae (AM) Bill Carroll (BC) Featured Guest: Robert Peirce (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) Joint Meeting with Reading Board of Selectmen (p/t) (The Committee convened in the Town Hall Conference Room initially, then joined the Board of Selectmen in their conference room and finished in that conference, room after the BOS had adjourned) RG started by going over the upcoming meeting schedule. It was decided to tentatively schedule SBC meetings for September 4t", October 1St, 16t", and 30t", beginning at 7:30pm of locations to be determined. [The Committee then joined the Board of Selectmen for a joint meeting. Refer to the BOS minutes of August 21, 2002 for a record of those combined deliberations. These minutes resume after the joint meeting was dissolved.] RG said that completed drafts of the design team's Existing Conditions Report had been distributed to Committee members the previous evening. He acknowledged that there had not been enough time for the members to review it. He then called on Robert Peirce of FAI to give a synopsis of the report. Mr. Peirce began with the site assessment, specifically parking. He said the parking areas around the school were not interconnected, forcing traffic to use a public way (Oakland Road) as a connector. The lower parking areas had overlapping uses and lacks organization. The major site issue identified as problematic was accessibility, since the varying grades around the school offered no clear means of access from one part of the school to another. - Site utilities could be documented from available existing drawings and Town agency information. Rea&7 g School Building Committee Meeting Minutes fr,on7 August 21. 2002 Wetlands had been seen to be on site and should be documented. A perennial river was present running through the site. - Mr. Peirce then described the building section of the report. - The organization of the school was presented first. He noted that the only level that has connections to all parts of the building was the first floor. At other levels, parts were isolated from other parts, such as the upper levels of the science wing. The exterior envelope (walls, windows, roofs) were presented next, with the low insulating values of the walls being a noticeable feature. FAI plans to recommend replacement of the glass block windows. The roofs have been replaced in pieces (with some original pieces needing to be replaced). The insulation value of the roofs (including the replaced portions) was regarded as poor and some of the replaced roof details were not seen to be adequate, requiring some remediation. - The interior of the school was discussed next in the report. While the finishes were noted to have been well maintained, the floors in several areas were past their usable life spans. The ceilings in general were in tough shape. Lighting was seen to be poor. Acoustics needed to be addressed, particularly in the Auditorium. - Regarding doors and hardware, the doors were not seen to be in too bad a shape, but the hardware was. Most hardware did not meet the requirements for handicap accessibility. - Casework and equipment were discussed in the report, noting where certain areas seemed to be in decent shape (new science labs) and some in poor condition or non-handicap accessible (art rooms). - Handicap accessibility was found to be a major issue, with non- conforming ramps, no ramps or elevators (to the locker rooms, for example), doors, hardware, fixtures, etc. being the range of items to be addressed. - A Building Code review was included in the report, focussing on the requirements of its Chapter 34. It is noted that the Code only really requires bringing an existing building up to the provisions imposed on new construction for matters involving life safety. - A synopsis of the structural condition was included, with some recommendations and conclusions concerning cracking of non-structural items and seismic upgrade requirements being presented. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) concerns were included, as was presented earlier (refer to the minutes of the 8/07/02 meeting). - Technology in RMHS was discussed in the report, assessing the current infrastructure and needs, including video and telephone systems. Reudin School Building Committee itteeting Alirautes f ~oni ,obi iist 2l. 2002 Kitchen requirements were observed and recommendations are made for possible upgrades. - The presence of hazardous materials was discussed, with more possible sites for hazmats being identified than what were included in previous studies. - Existing conditions plans and schedules of finishes and casework were included in the report. - TT asked Mr. Peirce if discreet costs for necessary upgrades, such as those for accessibility issues, Code compliance issues, MEP issues, etc., could be culled out of the overall cost estimate to demonstrate the non-elective aspects of a high school renovation to the community. Mr. Peirce responded that - to a point - they could do that, but he cautioned that FAI typically broke down the scope of renovations into four categories; basic, major, extensive and re-builds. Some areas might receive different scopes of work, which would be dependent on the options chosen by the Committee. The more involved categories might include satisfaction of the non-elective issues (must-do's) as a consequence of their re-working of the space. Hence it would be difficult to pull out the necessary cost items as stand-alone requirements if those items wouldn't even exist without the complete re- working. TT asked if even under those conditions that the non-elective upgrades would at least be identifiable as such, to which Mr. Peirce answered they would be. - RG asked Frank Orlando to go over the draft of the Existing Conditions report with the Director of Maintenance for his comments. - RR and Robert Peirce suggested that Committee members collate their comments on the draft report with one individual for submission to FAI. RR volunteered to be that individual (no objections were raised). RR further suggested that the finished report be placed on the Town's website, which Mr. Peirce indicated would be possible. - JS cautioned the Committee to read the draft report carefully and that the Committee discuss it at a later meeting before accepting it as the final version. AM added that future investigations might require amending the report with updated information, a point to which Mr. Peirce agreed. - RG asked Mr. Peirce if in the next few weeks, FAI would start developing representative cost estimates for some of the needed work identified thusfar. Mr. Peirce said that the next few weeks would be devoted to determining educational program requirements and the development of alternatives to pursue for project options. He said once some alternatives were discussed with the Committee and some direction received from it, representative cost estimates could be made. - Mr. Peirce then asked the Committee to proceed as soon as possible with establishing desired community uses for the high school. RG responded that the non-school (Town) staff desires would be presented at the next SBC meeting (9/4/02). JS asked RG if the list of past RMHS users supplied by Frank Orlando had been gone over for possible interested parties in the high fi'eadh g School Building Committee Afeeting Minutes front .4ug7ist 21. 2002 school's renovation. RG responded that he would be discussing that list with the Town Manager in the next few days. - Observer Jackie Mandell pointed out some areas of the report that had some inconsistent nomenclature and labeling, which apparently were due to word processing errors. It was felt that these items would be cleared up during the editing process. WC passed out some diagrams that showed different types of HVAC systems for reference purposes (copies attached). RG announced that Reading Municipal Light Department had offered to coordinate an energy audit of the high school to help in the planning of the upgraded service. He said he would contact them shortly. Observer Linda Phillips asked if an individual had been designated from the Committee to act as its representative to FAI. RG responded that by virtue of him being authorized to sign the contract, that representative would be the chair of the SBC (which is how he signed it). She also asked if the Town had copies of the consultants' insurance forms. Robert Peirce said he would look into that. She also asked if seismic upgrades to the building, being determined by the value of the renovations as a percentage of the assessed value of it, had been determined as being necessary yet. Mr. Peirce replied that this was a Code issue and that it would be addressed when cost estimates had been done for the various options. RG stated that members of the SBC would be going out to the Open Houses of the various schools to update the attendees of the status of the schematic design project. He also recommended having an open meeting for all interested parties to hear their concerns about the high school near the beginning of October. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 10:20 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee • HOTXHIU.ED WATER PIPED TO AIR HANDLER • ONE AIR HANDLER SERVES MULTIPLE ROOMS TEMPERED AIR (VENTALATION ONLY) SUPPLY AIR j SYSTEM ONE ter-EXHAUST FAN I" VENTILATION AIR AIR FL4NDLER HEAT EXCHANGER (OPTIONAL) "2CLA88ROOM EXHAUST AIR BASEBOARD RADIATION A.- HOT WATER IS PIPED TO BASEBOARD RADIATION ADVANTAGES QUIET ENERGY SAVINGS (EXHAUST} AIR QUALITY {AIR TAKrM F" ROorI LOWER INITAL COST Richard D. Kimball Company, Inc. 200 Bricketone Square 66 Andover, MA 01810-1488 L_ NTAG i JTY . OR A/C HVAC SYSTEM OPTIONS ANDLING SYSTEM SYSTEM TWO EXHAUST FAN EXHAUST AIR '2 CLASSROOM SUPPLY AIR FRESH AIR RETURN AIR HOT WATER ANDIOR CHILLED WATER IS PIPED TO UNIT VDITILATOR ADVANTAGES SIMPLE LOWER INITIAL COST A(C CAPABLE MINIMAL DUCTWORK Richard D. Kimbell Company, inc. 200 Brickstone Square ® y Andover, MA 01810-1488 Di ES I S OY C, ZINGS ii 0 WALL PENETH TIONS POOR AIR OLIAI_ITY V OwF k 1x W -1 g ~ I I EXHAUST FAN • HOT WATER mw o CHILLED WATER 18 PIPED TO FAN COIL UNIT • ONE AIR HANDLER SERVES VENTILATION AIR MULTIFLE ROOMS AIR HANDLER TEMPERED AIR HEAT EXCHANGER (VENTILATION ONLY) (OPTIONAL) SUPPLY AIR i CLASSROOM FAN COIL UNIT I HOT WATER AND/OR CHILLED WATER IS PIPED TO FAN COIL UNIT ADVANTAGES SEPERATE VENTILATION SYSTEM ENERGY SAVINGS (ExI-AVST) SMALLER UNITS (THAN Uwj UNIT LOCATION OPTIONS AIR QUALITY rpiR TAKE" FRom Roof) MODERATE iNITAL COST AX CAPABLE Richard D. Kimball Company, Inc. 200 wastons Square EJGINEERS Andover, FAA 01810-1488 z EXHAUST AIR er - .-.r.rc NT G ES' DISC VOh K Ml CEILING SPACE REQUIRED NOISE F SYSTEM FOUR t EXHAUST FAN VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE r' _ VENTILATION AIR AIR HANDLER TEMPERED AIR (FOR HEATING, GAOLING AND VENTILATION) \ -HEAT EXCHANGER ' iOPTIONAL) HOT WATER COIL VAV RMF94 A1R TO AHU OF NO HEAT EXCHANGER) SUPPLY AIR K EXHAUST AIR CLASSROOM BASEBOARD RADIATION HOT WATER AND/OR CHILLED WATER IS PIPED TO AIR HANDLING UNIT AND HOT WATER TO VAV BOX ADVANTAGES QUIET ENERGY SAVINGS AIR QUALITY A/C CAPABLE 4 8 8 E - - cro NCH LT.AR6Hi owit VC` 1_ L : - REQUIRED y $l 3 'FNACE HIGH INITIAL AIR ClUA6` TITY V C Y .,i OPT".-' Richard D. Kimbell Company, Inc. 200 er a mne Square EVIGINEERS Andover, MA 01810-1488 x IO