Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-27 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesVF Readin_a School Building Committee o r l Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on June 27. 2000, 7:30 p.m.: (in the Superintendent's Conference Room) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Paula Perry (PP) Joe Lupi (JL) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Rich Radville (RR) Tim Twomey (TT) Jeff Struble (JS) Featured Guests: Gene Raymond Jr., AIR (Strekalovsky & Hoit, Inc., Architects) Dr. Harry H. Harutunian, Superintendent (This meeting was recorded for broadcast by RCTV) RG asked for any additions, deletions or changes to the minutes of the May 23, 2000 RSBC meeting. None appearing, DL made a motion for acceptance of them, which was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and the result was unanimous in the affirmative. RR distributed a spreadsheet listing the revised costs of the Stekalovsky & Hoit options for RMHS, having applied the same methodology to the revisions to Options B.1, 8.2, C.1, and C.2 as was done to Option C.3 as well as the new school option by the sub-committee that reviewed the S&H feasibility report (adding in expected costs and up-grading the "soft- cost factor" - see RSBC minutes from June 6, 2000). However, TT pointed out that the spreadsheet was in error, listing some of the added costs as deductions. RR acknowledged the error and said he would revise the spreadsheet for the next meeting. Gene Raymond began by talking about phasing for the Option C.3 option. He distributed a potential phasing handout (copy attached). In general for feasibility studies, phasing plans are developed in as first-pass scenarios only to see if there is a way to proceed with renovating the building. These plans are then firmed up further during the schematic design phase (similar to cost estimates). He used building layouts on presentation boards to describe the present layout of the high school (similar to the plans contained in the S&H feasibility study). In Option C.3, the phasing assumes that in Phase 1, new additions are built first to absorb part of the student population when the work moves into the existing spaces (this was the method employed for the Coolidge and Parker middle school projects). The first additions to be built would be to the field house, adding a two-story locker room and health A. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 classroom side wing and expanded athletic facilities at the north end. This would free up space in the existing building that are presently used for these functions (see handout), with the students using the new areas during renovations. The next addition would be a three-story structure opposite the Library containing a large music suite (two floors) and added classrooms, departmental offices and tutorial rooms. Again, this new space would replace existing building areas that would be renovated. The next addition would address circulation around the existing building by adding two-story links between the front (east) and rear (west)-partianz- of the school where presently connections are only possible at the first story. Also, this addition would add science rooms adjacent to the links. The last addition would be capturing the courtyard space between the cafeteria and the commons area by roofing over it to increase the cafeteria's size. The next phase - Phase 2 - would not strictly be a construction phase. Rather, it would be a re-organization of existing spaces to classrooms to accept classes that will be displaced during renovation activities. The attached handout describes which spaces are to be re-organized (the equivalent of 36 new classroom spaces). Phase 3 would begin the serious renovations to Buildings G and H and science labs, sealing off areas from the students. Phase 4 would continue renovations to isolated areas, primarily at the lower levels. Again, the re-organized spaces would be employed to handle the displaced teaching areas while this work is being done (see handout). Phase 5 would finish work on the science labs and renovate more classrooms, although the number of re-organized classrooms needed falls to near 24 for this phase, which frees up the areas previously employed as 12 make-up CR's for their final renovations (see handout). Phase 6 would find all the new classroom areas occupied and the existing auditorium and music areas would be renovated (the music area becomes drama space). Previous phases had created substitute spaces for these areas, allowing their renovations to proceed without loss of their functions. The time for completing all of the phases was estimated to be on the order of 3 to 3-1/2 years. At this stage (feasibility study), specific timetables could not be produced. PP asked if options that employ additions seem to make the phasing - more practical. Mr. Raymond replied that they would. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 - RR and JL noted that the construction of the three-story link would take more than just one summer's construction period, which Mr. Raymond agreed with RG observed that the effects of a multi-year construction project on the delivery of the education could be enormous and asked Dr. Harutunian to ask Frank Orlando (Principal - RMHS) to discuss the phasing presented at this meeting with Mr. Raymond with the objective of discussing his thoughts on the matter with the Committee at the next meeting. JS asked Mr. Raymond if any work had been done predicting the phasing that might be done for the B-options, which have no permanent additions to re-locate students to during renovations. Mr. Raymond said that he hadn't. JS suggested that B-option phasing might be a subject for discussions with Mr. Orlando and the Committee at the next meeting in order to better assess the benefits or liabilities of B-options. PP commented that the two large music areas in Option C.3 could be used for transition space in place of areas used be RISE. Mr. Raymond saw no obstacle to this happening. Dr. Harutunian voiced his concerns over the prospects of going through a 3-4 year construction program. Not only would he expect the students and parents to be affected by the long period, he wondered if the SBAB would hold such a project on its reimbursement list for such a long time,. He reiterated his comments from previous meetings concerning the need to evaluate cost reimbursements calculated from both the present and yet-to-be-determined future guidelines. This comparison could affect the designed duration of the project as well as the scope of it. Dr. Harutunian also reported that he had gotten an estimate for the amount of money required to obtain architectural services for the development of the Killam renovation project for Town Meeting review. The estimate was between $15k and $18K. RG commented that it would be likely that the Killam project would be presented alongside of the high school project at Town Meeting for inclusion in the capital override attempt. - RR asked Mr. Raymond that in the options that enlarged classroom size by converting groups of (small) existing classrooms to aggregates of larger rooms with one less room in the group (four CR's to three, for example), would the resulting rooms then be oversized by State standards. Mr. Raymond said that on a square footage basis, some rooms might exceed the base amount set by SBAB, but when the technology demands are added in (30 sq. ft. per computer, for example) there should be no oversized classrooms. Dr. Harutunian added that recent technology might make hard-wiring of classrooms obsolete with wireless networks being installed in the renovated/new spaces. The / space standards could change as a result of this. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 RR continued on classroom requirements be noting that all the options except Option C.3 used shared departmental classrooms (classrooms that are shared by departments rather than dedicating individual CR's to individual departments). He recalled prior discussions on RMHS that had argued against the use of individual CR's and he wondered why C.3 had used them. Mr. Raymond said that Frank Orlando would have to answer that question. RR asked Mr. Raymond if he had considered switching the wrestling and gymnastics rooms over the boys lockers in the field house with the existing girls locker rooms in the existing building, thereby creating parity between boys and girls facilities (this would obviate the need for a locker room addition at the field house). Dr. Harutunian and TT explained that doing so would force. the girls to have to cross the parking lot to attend gymnastics classes, just as they do now, and that under such a scenario, the boys would have to do" the same. They explained that compliance with Title IX issues should not be achieved by imposing the same hardship on the boys as is now imposed on the girls and calling it parity. Taking something away from one gender to equalize conditions experienced by the other could also be seen as a potential civil rights violation. The importance of satisfying Title IX issues was emphasized by TT. JS asked Mr. Raymond if the enlargement of classrooms would mean the removal of structural shear walls that resist lateral forces. He said the reason for asking was that fundamentally altering the lateral load resisting system would mean having to retrofit the entire building for compliance with the current seismic provisions of the building code at great expense. Mr. Raymond said that his structural consultants had been appraised of the desired revisions and gave their opinion that retrofitting would not be required, but that the scope of the study was not exhaustive. Checks on the lateral system's integrity would have to be made as any design progressed. JS asked if there was developable unfinished space under the cafeteria on the ground floor in Building F. He recalled seeing doorways in the hallway there on the Committee's tour of the high school and was told there were storage areas there. Mr. Raymond was not certain what that space was. RR surmised that the area was a crawlspace for utilities and was not very high and would therefore not be of much use for development. JS asked if only the options that included additions (the C-options) addressed the problems with circulation patterns within the school. Mr. Raymond replied that this was true. He pointed out that an elevated link between the field house and the main building was considered and thought to be too expensive. JS asked if a tunnel had been considered. It was not. Thoughts of any links were seen to be problematic in dealing with Title IX issues (as well as a large cost item), which led to the idea of the expansion of the girls' facilities in the field house in lieu of a link. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 - RR made the recommendation that the additions needed to improve the circulation patterns should be made an integral part of any solution adopted by the Committee for recommendation to Town Meeting. He said that he saw them as vitally important to improving the use of the high school. JS voiced his agreement with this point. RR asked Mr. Raymond about the conversion of the existing lecture hall below the library into a music room in Options B.1 and B.2. He asked if such a tiered space would work for music instruction. Mr. Raymond replied that the thrust of the B-options was to put more educational program into the existing building without additions and that meant using existing space that was best suited for the program. The tiered lecture hail lent itself to the risers typically used in band and choral spaces, plus its location was well-suited for movement of the band's equipment to and from the school (on the ground floor with direct access to the driveway between Buildings A and 13). JS questioned the location of the music space right under the library for acoustic reasons. He said that the building's concrete and masonry construction would make soundproofing difficult and expensive and the transmission of sound into the library from below could be detrimental to the library's need for quiet space. PP noted that the C-options added a new music space across the hall, which JS and RR pointed out would be easier to isolate acoustically. - RR asked what was to become of the Superintendent's offices under Option C.3 since the plans showed them as classrooms. Mr. Raymond and TT answered that the need for those areas as classrooms would not materialize for at least ten years, based on the enrollment projections. The offices could remain until then, at which time the Town would have to find other space for the Superintendent. The objective would be to reconfigure the areas as classrooms with State reimbursement now and use them as offices until actually needed as classrooms. JS asked why Options CA and C.2 added an auxiliary gym to the field house. Mr. Raymond said that Frank Oriando would be in a better position to answer that from an education standpoint, but the main reason appeared to be replacing the girl's gym area that was renovated in the existing building as music space. JS went on to ask if this were the same reason the existing gym was to be lengthened under Option C.3. Apparently it was, with the added benefit of allowing the installation of a full 200-meter indoor track. JS continued by asking about the effect on parking around the field house if the C.3 additions are made. Mr. Raymond replied that the area between the field house and the Administration offices would be re- configured for more parking. RR added that parking on Oakland Road would become head-in (rather than parallel) which would add many parking spaces. Further, Mr. Raymond stated that there was a desire on the Athletic Dept.'s part to widen the access road to three lanes in order Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 - RR made the recommendation that the additions needed to improve the circulation patterns should be made an integral part of any solution adopted by the Committee for recommendation to Town Meeting. He said that he saw them as vitally important to improving the use of the high school. JS voiced his agreement with this point. RR asked Mr. Raymond about the conversion of the existing lecture hall below the library into a music room in Options B.1 and B.2. He asked if such a tiered space would work for music instruction. Mr. Raymond replied that the thrust of the B-options was to put more educational program into the existing building without additions and that meant using existing space that was best suited for the program. The tiered lecture hall lent itself to the risers typically used in band and choral spaces, plus its location was well-suited for movement of the band's equipment to and from the school (on the ground floor with direct access to the driveway between Buildings A and 13). JS questioned the location of the music space right under the library for acoustic reasons. He said that the building's concrete and masonry construction would make soundproofing difficult and expensive and the transmission of sound into the library from below could be detrimental to the library's need for quiet space. PP noted that the C-options added a new music space across the hall, which JS and RR pointed out would be easier to isolate acoustically. RR asked what was to become of the Superintendent's offices under Option C.3 since the plans showed them as classrooms. Mr. Raymond and TT answered that the need for those areas as classrooms would not materialize for at least ten years, based on the enrollment projections. The offices could remain until then, at which time the Town would have to find other space for the Superintendent. The objective would be to reconfigure the areas as classrooms with State reimbursement now and use them as offices until actually needed as classrooms. JS asked why Options C.1 and C.2 added an auxiliary gym to the field house. Mr. Raymond said that Frank Orlando would be in a better position to answer that from an education standpoint, but the main reason appeared to be replacing the girl's gym area that was renovated in the existing building as music space. JS went on to ask if this were the same reason the existing gym was to be lengthened under Option C.3. Apparently it was, with the added benefit of allowing the installation of a full 200-meter indoor track. JS continued by asking about the effect on parking around the field house if the C.3 additions are made. Mr. Raymond replied that the area between the field house and the Administration offices would be re- configured for more parking. RR added that parking on Oakland Road would become head-in (rather than parallel) which would add many parking spaces. Further, Mr. Raymond stated that there was a desire on the Athletic Dept.'s part to widen the access road to three lanes in order Reading School Building Committee 6 Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 to speed traffic in and out of sporting events. JL noted that the C-options included money for site costs ($900K for C.3). JS asked Mr. Raymond if the square footage costs used in the estimating were developed by "fleshing out' Option C.3's costs on an itemized basis and applying them to the others on an aggregate basis. He answered that the fleshing out" was done on Option C.2 rather than C.3 (at one time, C.2 was the preferred option). JS asked Mr. Raymond to confirm that Options BA through C.3 all addressed music, drama and language lab deficiencies, ADA issues, increased enrollment accommodation, required mechanical / electrical / plumbing replacement, fire protection and asbestos abatement. He replied that they all included these items. RR asked if the Committee..had any misgivings about losing the existing girl's gym as a community resource, being claimed as educational program space in the C-options. The general consensus was that the new gym spaces would serve equally well as a community resource. PP commented that she considered a discussion with Frank Orlando and his staff to be necessary in order to prioritize the programmatic needs for the high school. Her review of the S&H report clearly identified the need for increased music and drama spaces and she also agreed that improving the circulation patterns must be a part of any solution.: However, she pointed out she couldn't see us being able to do everything that has been proposed and prioritizing the Administration's requirements would help put the monies that are approved to the best use. Mr. Raymond said that most of the additions proposed are for core facilities and not a great deal for increased classroom spaces. PP went on to state that the Committee's review of the options must not ignore the true costs of items like relocating the Superintendent's offices and the RISE program and the phasing for each option. TT continued with this premise by saying that some of the cost issues that PP is concerned about would be "flushed out" as design goes beyond the feasibility stage. Phasing would only become more definitive as details such as temporary circulation routes and isolation of the student body from construction were planned to achieve do-able construction schedules. Before leaving, Mr. Raymond remarked that their report was only up to a feasibility level of design and that the Committee might benefit from going to more of a schematic level to answer more "what if' questions, such as costs and phasing. Both RR and RG commented that they were worried that the Committee would not be able to prepare enough information for Town reviews from the feasibility studies alone. Dr. Harutunian said that he was concerned about the State revisions to the SBAB process (still pending) and how they would affect the Committee's approach to a solution. He agreed that the more specificity Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 the SBC could bring to Town Meeting (via schematics, for example), the better. Dr. Hanutunian briefly commented on the site conditions at the Dividence Road and Barrows projects. A general discussion ensued discussing the level of design needed to go to Town Meeting and on to the electorate for a capital override. Spending the money for architect's fees for schematic design ($400K - $600K) would mean that that sum could possibly fall onto the capital plan as serviceable debt if the capital override failed. The reason this is so is that the State will reimburse design fees as part of the project's cost only if the Town shows financial commitment to the project via a Town Meeting or an override vote. Without that commitment (i.e., a failed override attempt), money spent on design fees must be paid by solely by the Town. It was suggested that the SBC might have to make the argument to the Town that it should'provide for such an eventuality. RG wondered if more discussion about how to present any solution to the Town would not be contingent on the actions of the State and the new reimbursement requirements. TT added that even after legislation is passed, establishing the rules under which it is implemented might also take some time (Dr. Harutunian thought this process would flake several weeks at least). TT thought that Frank Orlando should be consulted about any potential problems that phasing would present to the education process so that nothing major would be over-looked when contemplating solutions. Dr. Harutunian suggested that at the earliest possible time a meeting with the SBAB be arranged to discuss the project and the possibilities for State participation (i.e., renovations vs. additions, etc.). He thought the chairs of the SBC, the SC, TT and himself should attend the meeting. TT thought that SBAB's opinion regarding devising a master plan and schedule for the project and the reimbursement for design and construction should be sought out. DL asked if, on the basis of the discussions at this meeting, the Committee was prepared to eliminate the B-options (those with no additions) from consideration. He reasoned that the obvious phasing requirements and the apparent consensus to include circulation links seemed to prelude any options that didn't provide additional space (i.e., Options B.1 and B.2). JS and RG responded that at this time, nothing should be considered "off the table" because the Committee did not have enough information to completely exclude options (particularly information concerning State funding). A modified B-option adding circulation links, for example, might arise as a viable option. JS inquired as to what would be taken to the SBAB meeting suggested by the Superintendent; specifically, would Option C.3 be the demonstrative example of what Reading is planning for the high school? DL also wondered about showing the State phasing options, which at present Reading School Building Committee 8 Meeting Minutes from June 27, 2000 seem to cover only Option C.3. Dr. Harutunian stated that he would like to go to the State with a number of Options, including phasing schemes. He also voiced his preference for investigating options that could be accelerated to cut down the 3 to 3-1/2 year time frame estimated for C.3 in order to lessen the inevitable detriment to the education process (RG concurred with this). The next SBC meeting was tentatively scheduled for the last Tuesday in July (7/25/00). With no other business appearing, RR made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by DL. R vote was taken and the result was unanimous in the affirmative (time 9:45 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee N E N N E O V O 'y U O E U d cLII Qf N (m + N ~ N O • ,G ~ N R O U .y Y N O U } O) E E i O E o E vi O O' O ~ Ol ~ U U ~ ~ (D CL U " O « 2 C1 E •II~ . C RJ ° O N O m V1 < O V C tn D1 ° D Q) ;V N a cc C~ cc ° C • N N N N N N U) (D X M O cc M cu~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a t6 -0 O N N N UNf N N N tti C ~ O . E N 1 1 U CII C6 tII C~ C6 t4 N U U (n V V U U V V N ca - N'- N N co N co d N d L > m M aaa-a ' aaaaaa ~ '~N ° a oaa aaaaaa co v r v m co ca cu co ca cu ca ca cv rs a~ a ° Q E N cm E c'° ~ = O O Q O • N O E N 4) Q O O m m m _ (n N O° N N t E E v > to j 0 O Q~ O = O m t m N N 0 0 0 N cn O O y L O C C O E a 0 O O co ca = N C. L m m a U V E D N 0 r aD U a1 °cc LoE~ E a,CO . C Zi to d O 0 0 C U 0 0 N Q. Q. a OL N E VI O E Q M Q . O. s. O t O aQ m a c N O 0 (D W a) cu _ ° E c6 c6 C U _ O U) 3, a V 76 Uf U > = H p N U U C U U~ a' ~y 0 N C N y N N N N O N N N O j e9 j j > pj N y C C C C d C C C C E 0 d O O O O M U U U U W U U U U w"E W E E w CL IL CL I-- CL d- 0 0 a~ ,L c c o sn oI c o x a~ aD C co O + c W o ~ c co ' IB X O a) m Q + E O O U v cm c E a) O a) CL O ~ a j U U O O O w U U Y3 W C O a) C .U cn O O ~ m n TJ C4 U9 i O n ~~aa~~ X a) Ll ~ ~ U ca CN U L O O N ~ ; O i co O 0 (n II a co cc E a) (D CU U 0 V cm (m ) tB w N O V c cn `n (n m co c y cc T CL E 5, 0 c '0 - E V) U) E cm O Q .L U U U a) cu a) 04 to CQ ~..e > O U O CN c Qa > O > C a) a) aci M > L > to m > caw O O E m O O 1- CaD c c U W 0 ca CL - O> a1 O O a> y c c y U , CB E d E ~ c.) IL Ao M .s. 3 (V O CV Q) CJ9 C$