HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-10 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee
Minutes of RSBC Meetinq Held on July 10, 2002, 7:30 p.m.
(In the Reading Police Station Community Room)
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Paula Perry (PP)
Warren Cochrane (WC)
Ray Porter (RP)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Rich Radville (RR)
Alex McRae (AM)
Featured Guests:
Robert Peirce (Project Manager - Flansburgh Associates, Inc.)
Rick Shubert (Liaison to Board of Selectmen)
Andrew Grimes (Liaison to Finance Comm.)
Frank Orlando (staff)
va CD
CD r-
0 3rfl M.
U)
Cr
RG welcomed Robert Peirce from FAI who came to update the Committee on the
progress of the RMHS design team.
Before that, however, RG told the Committee that the draft contract with FAI that was
earlier mailed to Committee members was being revised. He expected another draft to
be ready by the next meeting (on July 24, 2002), which he noted would be a joint
meeting with the School Committee to discuss programming issues.
Finally, RG reported that he had received a list of extra-curricular users of RMHS
facilities from past years from the high school staff and would be formalizing a way to
solicit their input for the project.
Mr. Peirce began by passing out a work plan developed by FAI for the upcoming months
(copy attached), which included scheduled tasks to be completed in the course of
developing a schematic design. His first comments concerned schedules:
Mr. Peirce pointed out the Summary Schedule and the Meeting Schedule
first, noting that the times specified for various milestones in the project's
development had been shortened from what had been suggested in the RFQ.
He said that Dr. Harutunian had suggested the acceleration in order to be
able to show some significant progress for an event which was to take place
in late October (neither Mr. Peirce or Mr. Orlando could recall precisely what
that event was). The presentation of options would be moved up to
September 2, 2002 (from September 26th) and the time allotted for deciding
on the final option would be shortened from approximately four weeks to two,
reaching that decision on September 16, 2002 (rather than on October 22nd).
Reading School Building Committee
;V1eeting Minutes from .Iidly .l t7, 2002
In this way, enough time would be available to make progress for the late
October event.
He went over a meeting schedule that was tailored to meet the accelerated
schedule, noting that the July 24th meeting was to discuss programming.
Following that (two weeks later), a review of the existing conditions and
environment of the school would comprise the subject matter of another
meeting. In successive weeks, alternates and their costs would be
presented, followed by selection of the preferred option and thereafter
presentations and reviews of the schematic design.
RR voiced his concern that accelerating the schedule as proposed would not
allow sufficient time for public participation in the review of the options. During
the campaign to approve funding for the schematic design, the community
was told that such participation was going to be sought. During the four
weeks of the option review period, several public meetings were going to be
held to achieve that end. Cutting that time to two weeks and scheduling that
time over the summer did not serve that purpose, in his view. He wondered
what event could justify such a change in plans.
According to Mr. Orlando and Mr. Peirce, the event involved a large
community gathering - possibly involving a veteran's support group - before
which a presentation of information about a proposed schematic design might
be advantageous from the standpoint of educating the public. TT inquired of
Mr. Orlando about various other reasons that might be the reason for Dr.
Harutunian's actions, possibly concerning the staff's schedule. With none
being obvious, he suggested that FAI revise their schedule to include the
longer proposal and review periods for the next meeting (July 24th)
JS felt that accelerating the schedule cut out valuable time to discuss the
school's needs with the (wholly assembled) faculty and to observe the staff
and student body functioning under fully occupied conditions (the senior class
was gone by the time FAI began their work in June). Placing the deadline for
the presentation of options at the end of-September in the RFQ was intended
to allow enough time for these tasks, he said. In the absence of compelling
evidence to justify an accelerated timeframe, he recommended sticking to the
original schedule.
- RR added that staying with the original schedule gave more time for
development of the educational program. He emphasized that the creation of
the options should be done is as thoughtful a manner possible and should not
be rushed. He also recommended sticking with the original time allotted.
- PP concurred with the previous members and reminded FAI that the SBC
should be the entity that oversees the project's schedule. RG agreed and
recommended that Committee members be contacted with any contemplated
schedule changes prior to discussing them in their meetings.
Mr. Peirce then went through the specific tasks his firm had outlined for the project.
- The first task (Task 1) was to assess the work needed to be done and
organize it into a work plan, which was well underway. FAI and their
consultants had been through the building and had gathered the existing
Readh g School Building Committee
;Meeting illinutes front ..lulp .10, 2002
documents (which were being transferred to electronic (CAD) files as
required). Meetings had been held with school staff (science in particular)
and Department Heads, as well as with Mr. Orlando and Dr. Harutunian.
Task 2 identified several specific targets for assessment of existing conditions
(listed in the handout), that was produced from FAI's standard approach to
existing building assessment and by adhering to the requirements of the
RFQ. Mr. Peirce explained that currently, the design team was assessing
various building systems, millwork and equipment. He also said a code
analysis was being done. The product of these assessments would be a
report that not only described what was found in the school but would also
identify what systems, etc. needed to be addressed in any renovation. RR
suggested that FAI produce a list of explorations that would require limited
demolition and repair, noting that the RFQ allowed the expenses incurred for
such explorations were be paid for by the Town directly, not by FAI.
Task 3 would focus on health and safety issues of the current high school,
including an assessment of hazardous materials and the review of indoor air
quality and life safety systems. AM asked if the hazardous material
assessment would be updated from current reports. Mr. Peirce responded
that it would be. AM and WC discussed testing for indoor air quality with Mr.
Peirce, pointing out the need to check it at some point when the students
were back in school.
Task 4 would tackle school program analysis, beginning with understanding
the present use of the school and getting enrollment projections (out twelve
years). The process of assessing future needs would be done via
discussions with the administration and staff. From this information,
tabulations of needed spaces as well as desired performance criteria would
be developed. In answer to a specific request in the RFQ, the existing
capacity of the school would be calculated according to the same criteria.
- Task 5 would develop schematic design options, starting with program
alternatives and forecasting what each would mean in terms of construction.
Plan alternatives could then be developed, folding in building improvements,
as they are needed. The alternatives would generate scopes of work (in
descriptive form), including preliminary costs and phasing requirements.
Task 6 would entail the presentation of the options to the SBC and to various
community groups, with the result of a single option being chosen by the
Committee. This preferred option would then be further refined as a
schematic design (Task 7). WC and JS asked Mr. Peirce to explain the
process of decision-making that this task involved for the Committee's
benefit, which he did. RP asked if there would be phasing options presented
as sub-options for the Committee's review during this task, to which Mr.
Peirce answered affirmatively.
- Task 7 would finish the schematic design, including presentation drawings
and a formal cost estimate. TT asked if the use of a Construction Manager
would be recommended in the schematic design. Mr. Peirce answered yes,
with the CM's involvement being needed near the middle of the production of
construction documents (after the schematic design phase). He pointed out
ReaaitagSchool Building Committee 4
inutes front duly 10, 2002
11leeting A1
the CM's ability to delineate the Town's obligations to the Contractor and how
to plan for them in the document production.
RG initiated a discussion of the expected cost estimates for the sub-options. It was
noted that the degree of accuracy for these preliminary schemes would be less than that
for a formal estimate performed independently on a set of schematic design documents
(as is expected to be done on the fully-developed preferred option). The reason for this
is the lack of development of the sub-options. Nonetheless, the estimates would be
helpful in assessing relative costs.
RG and RR said that they felt the tasks fairly represented the tasks outlined in the RFQ.
RG asked Mr. Peirce to develop an update on program assessment for the July 20 joint
meeting with the School Committee. He also asked the other Committee members to
develop questions for the SC as well.
Rick Shubert (Liaison from the Board of Selectmen) asked how phasing decisions are
made, given the involvement of non-school users of the facilities affected by it (i.e., the
Field House and the fields). A general discussion ensued about phasing in general and
the criteria for acceptable phasing, such as providing adequate safety, maintaining
education standards and cost effectiveness. WC noted that issues driving phasing
decisions might not be obvious, such as maintaining dissimilar heating systems
throughout crucial phases.
RG asked that any Committee member who had comments on the draft of the contract
pending with FAI should submit them to the Chair as soon as possible.
RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the May 21, 2002 RSBC meeting. DL
so moved and was seconded by RR. He called for any additions, deletions or
corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the
results were 8 in favor, none opposed and one abstention (8-0-1). Thus, the motion
passed, accepting the minutes.
RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the May 30, 2002 RSBC meeting. DL
so moved and was seconded by RR. He called for any additions, deletions or
corrections desired by the Committee. AM recommended correcting a typo in the second
paragraph on page 3, changing the word "sold" to "solid". He also corrected the fifth
paragraph on page 6 to reflect the fact that MS was not present to hear TDPC's
presentation (not HMFH's). Finally, AM suggested that the interviewed architects be
listed at the front of the minutes as "Featured Guests". RG and AM further suggested
that school administration personnel be listed as "Staff"when noted as being "Featured
Guests". RG asked if DL and RR had any objections to the amendments; they had
none. With no other amendments appearing, a vote was taken on the amended minutes
and the results were 8 in favor, none opposed and one abstention (8-0-1). Thus, the
motion passed, accepting the amended minutes.
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
8:40 p.m.). _
Minutes prepared and submitted by:
J`e~ffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES
Town of Reading
Reading Memorial High School Study and Schematic Design
FAI No. 2204.00
Work Plan
July 10, 2002
Project Overview
The purpose of the study is to explore the Town of Reading's options for accommodating the future
High School educational program at the existing site.
The study will include a comprehensive review of existing building facility and systems, a review the
High School program, development of the educational program, identification of building opportunities
and deficiencies, and recommendations for improvements. Renovation alternatives will be evaluated,
and a single option developed through schematic design. The specific scope and schedule for the project
is outlined below.
Summary Schedule
Task
Task 1: Project Initiation and Work Plan
Task 2: Existing Conditions Assessment
Task 3: Health, Safety, & Environ Review
Task 4: Program Analysis
Task 5: Options
Task 6: Presentation and Recommendations
Task 7: Schematic Design. of Pref. Options
Task 8: Final Study Report
Meeting Schedule
Date
7/10/02
7/24/02
8/7/02
8/21/02
9/4/02
9/18/02
10/2/02 through December
Term Dates (Week of......)
Weeks
2-9
June 10, 2002 thru July 29, 2002
Weeks
5-9
July 1, 2002 thru July 29, 2002
Week
3-8
June 17, 2002 thru July 22, 2002
Weeks
8-14
July 22, 2002 thru September 2, 2002
Week
14 '
September 2, 2002
Weeks
16-24
Sept. 16, 2002 thru November. 11, 2002
Weeks
25-26
Nov. 18, 2002 thru November 25, 2002
General Agenda
Schedule
Program
Existing Conditions and Environmental Assessment
Preliminary Alternatives
Alternatives and Associated Costs
Selection of Option
Presentation and Reviews of Schematic Design
Task l: Project Initiation & Work Plan
• Visit Site with Consultants
• Establish Project Schedule
• Develop Work Plan (tasks to be performed; products; schedule; fee allocation)
• Initial Meeting with School, Building Committee and Reading School Committee
• Initial Meeting with School Principal and School Superintendent
• Meet with Department Heads
• Gather available existing documentation
Product: Work Plan, Schedule
Task 2: Existing Conditions Assessment Weeks 2-9
Using data from previously competed studies, other written and graphic information as well as
information derived from field investigations, identify the following:
• General Building Data:
a) Convert Existing Building Plans to CAD
b) Develop a Chronology of Construction
c) Chronology of Significant Maintenance Projects
d) Total floor areas (gross and net) Develop Efficiency ratio
e) General Building Description including organization and
levels.
• Building Conditions Analysis: including the age, location, capacity, and
condition of each system for the following building systems:
a) Foundation
b) Substructure
c) Superstructure
d) Exterior Closure (including exterior walls; doors; windows;
e) Roofing
f) Interior Construction (including floors, walls, ceilings, etc.)
g) Casework and Equipment
h) Doors and Hardware
i) Signage
j) Accessibility
k) Food Service
1) Conveying Systems
1) Mechanical (including HVAC, water supply, sanitary, fire
protection, gas), and Electrical (including fire alarm, power,
lighting, security, and telecommunications) Systems.
m) Technology Systems including both infrastructure and
equipment.
n) Miscellaneous Issues: special equipment, chemical and
hazardous material storage and handling
Existing Floor Plans and Elevations:, showing layout of rooms, walls and
infrastructure. Plans of existing Structural, MEP, and Technology
systems.
Site Plan: Utilities (including electrical, steam, water, sewer, gas, and
telephone/cable)
• Building Code Analysis:
Code assessment and identification of current code compliance
violations, based on continuation of occupancy and use,
including egress, handicapped access, seismic, and new energy
code issues. Specific code references to be identified. (780 CMR
Massachusetts State Building Code, Massachusetts "Electrical Code
BOCA National Mechanical Code, National Fire Protection
Association, Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural
Access Board, The Americans with Disabilities Act, others as
required)
Product: Existing building and systems condition report; code and egress assessment; plans of
existing floors and site utility plan. Recommendations for any specialty testing or investigation
to obtain more detailed information (water pressure, soil borings, access to inaccessible areas
etc.). Building assessments will be supported with plans,.finish schedules, equipment schedules,
survey data sheets, photos, and diagrams.
Task 3: Health, Safety, and Environmental Review
• Hazardous Materials: Review the exiting hazardous materials
documentation for thoroughness, accuracy, and conformance with
current standards. Identify areas or issues which may require further
investigation or testing.
• Life Safety Systems: Review the current egress and life safety systems for
the existing school (this task is included in Task 3, Existing Conditions
Assessment, above)
Air Quality Review air quality based on current HVAC components and
their location. Consider air intake locations relative to air quality hazards
such as parking, delivery, or trash. Review maintenance of components
and their condition. Coordinate recommended air quality testing.
Week 5-9
Product: Hazardous Materials Report, Air Quality Review and Recommendations
Task 4: Program Analysis Week 3-8
Using program and scheduling data provided by the school, information
developed from meetings with school personnel, and information from
previous studies to develop a program which meets current and anticipated
educational needs.
• Existing Organization and Use: Identify and document the current
programs, and program locations, within the school. Review proposed or
anticipated educational programs and organizations with school
personnel.
• Enrollment Projections: Review enrollment existing enrollments,
compare those with previous projections. Develop enrollment projections
through 2014 based on available data.
• Future Needs: Meet with Superintendent, Principal, and Department
Heads to outline anticipated organizational and space needs.
• Space Requirements: Develop a tabulated list of spaces including both
quantitative and qualitative descriptions.
• Building Capacity: Establish the capacity of the existing building.
Product: Program analysis; Plans of Existing Uses, Enrollment Projections, Educational
Specifications per SBA standards, Program descriptions and room performance criteria.
Task 5: Schematic Design Options Weeks 8-14
• Program Alternatives: Develop space allocation alternates as appropriate.
Develop expansion options, as appropriate.
• Plan Alternatives: Develop floor plans indicating walls, and department
locations. Identify specific programs and departments through color.
• Site Plan Alternatives: Develop site plans indicating major areas of
parking and activities, indicate major traffic patterns, playing fields, and
major utility infrastructure.
• Building Improvements: Identify the.building improvements necessary
for continued occupancy. Prioritize these improvements based on the
severity of the repair, determine the costs for the improvements, and
develop spending alternatives based on the funding available.
• Scope of Work: Develop scope of work for alternatives, identifying
significant areas of work by building system.
• Preliminary Cost Estimates: Develop cost estimates with an independent
estimator assessing the costs of each alternative. The estimated cost will
include contractor's overhead and profit, design contingency (for details
of scope not identified at this level), escalation, and premiums for phased
construction.
• Phasing Alternatives: Floor Plans and Site plans describing a phasing
plan and the impacts / restrictions imposed on the on-going functions of
the existing facility.
Product: Floor Plans and Site Plans, Preliminary Cost Estimates, Scope of Work Outline,
Phasing Plans indicating site and building access conditions at each proposed phase.
Task 6: Presentation and Recommendations Week 14
• Present the alternatives to the School Committee, and key personnel in the School System to
review conceptual design alternatives, scopes of construction and corresponding phasing /
occupancy considerations.
Provide Recommendations based on providing for Educational Program, Title IX
Considerations, Accessibility, Building Function and Building Performance.
• Determine the preferred option to be developed for inclusion in the final Study Report.
Product: Narrative of Recommended Alternatives, Meeting Notes, Summary of Task 4 Options
Task 7: Schematic Design, Chosen Option Week 16-24
• Floor Plans: Develop Floor Plans indicating walls, doors, windows, stairs, and significant
equipment for chosen alternatives. Indicate each room by color. Tabulate the full program
with actual net square footage.
• Site Plans: Develop site plans indicating areas of parking and quantity, traffic patterns,
pedestrian patterns, individual playing fields, utility infrastructure, and site amenities.
• Elevations: Develop preliminary building elevations for each alternative.
• Perspective Views: Develop perspective views of the proposed schematic design, describing
significant exterior or interior components.
• Building Systems: Develop one line plan diagrams, to scale, of structural, mechanical,
electrical, and technology systems
• Scope of Work / Outline Specification: Develop a construction scope narrative based on a
CSI format, divisions 2 through 16, for the chosen alternative.
• Construction Cost Estimate: Develop an. estimated construction cost, through an independent
professional estimator, for the proposed scheme. The estimate shall be in Uniformat (systems
based) and shall include escalation, premiums for phasing, a 15% Design Contingency, as
well as Contractor Overhead and Profit.
• Preliminary Project Budget: Develop a project budget, to include all anticipated construction
costs, contingencies, fees and other items for the design and construction of the project.
Product: Plans, Sections, and Elevations, Phasing Plans, Perspective Vignettes, Scope Narrative,
Cost Estimate, Project Budget
Task #8 Final Study Report Weeks 25-26
• Prepare draft report and submit it to School Building Committee for
review and comment. This report will include all information developed
through the study
• Incorporate required revisions into the report, prepare and submit the
final Study Report.
Product: Study Report in Paper and Digital Form