HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-06 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutes(0/vi'm VU)
Reading School Building Committee
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on June 6, 2000, 7:30 p.m.
(In the Superintendent's Conference Room, RMHS) w = -
Reference: Meeting Agenda (copy attached)
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Alex McRae (AM)
Joe Lupi (JL)
Rich Radville (RR)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Paula Perry (PP)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Joe Finigan (JF)
Featured Guests: Frank Orlando, Principal (RMHS),
Dr. Harry Harutunian, Superintendent
Item (1) Approval of Minutes
RG asked for any additions, deletions or changes to the minutes of the April
13, 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.
RG then asked for any comments on the minutes of the May 16, 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.
Item (5) Other Business (taken out of sequence in order to have TT and Dr.
Harutunian in attendance for Item 2...they had yet to arrive)
RG informed the Committee that Mr. Orlando had put together a tentative list
of high school personnel that will volunteer to work with the SBC on the high
school project (copy attached). They appeared to be representatives from
the different departments in RMHS although Mr. Orlando pointed out that
some of them were to be representatives from the faculty as a group.
- RG asked Mr. Orlando to remind Dr. Harutunian of the need for a teacher to
fill a vacancy on the SBC.
Item (2) Sub-committee Report on the High School Feasibility Study by Strekalovsky
& Hoit
- Sub-committee members RR and JL said they had gone over the report in
great detail and met together to discuss it. RR said that their initial finding
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2000
2
was that overall, it is a competent report with no glaring errors or omissions.
It analyses the existing conditions well and identifies the work that has to be
done. He pointed out that the sub-committee did not take as its charge the
need to analyze the various options presented; rather, they did a professional
overview of the study to determine its competency (and found some issues).
- They found some items that they feel were deficient and they reviewed these
items with Gene Raymond of S&H. Mr. Raymond confirmed that most of the
items could have been covered better in the report. Primarily, these issues
involve the project cost.
The first item mentioned was the absence of any costs to be incurred for
structural seismic upgrades that would be required by the building code. The
report did suggest that significant renovations would trigger the need for such
upgrades, but no cost information was included in any option budget. The
sub-committee then determined an estimate for such upgrades (which was
deemed reasonable by JS, a structural engineer) that was just over $1 M.
They pointed this out on their spreadsheet (copy attached),
The next item involved roof replacement. While it was noted that many of the
roofs of RMHS were on the order of 4-5 years old, many others were closer
to 15 years old. Since any project was likely to take several years to
complete, these older roofs would be reaching the end of their serviceable
lives (20 years) and will need replacement. No provision was made in the
report for such replacement. Estimated at 50K square feet, these roofs would
add another $300K to any project undertaken (see spreadsheet),
The next (bigger) issue was S&H's "soft cost" factor, the multiplier applied to
the summary of all the individual project components which is intended to
produce a realistic project cost. The factor is intended to cover currently
unspecifiable (but expected) costs such as delays due to construction
phasing, difficulty of construction, etc. The 1.25 factor (25%) used by S&H
(used for both renovations and new construction) was seen as too low by the
sub-committee for several reasons:
- any RMHS project would involve very complex phasing and
scheduling, necessitating more costly time for a contractor to plan and
complete the work,
- a professional construction manager should be hired to oversee the
work, due to its large scale and complexity,
- a good design contingency should be included at this preliminary
stage to predict as-yet-unknown design issues that will surely surface
as any project's design advances.
For these reasons, RR and JL felt that a more appropriate soft-cost factor
would be on the order of 1.33 (33%).
- As a demonstration of the effects of these perceived deficiencies, the sub-
committee chose the costs for Option C.3 - the most expensive one proposed
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2000
by S&H - to re-calculate (refer to the attached spreadsheets). All cost
amounts are based on 1999 expected values (dollars).
Keeping to the study's goal of comparing renovation options to the option of
building a completely new school, the sub-committee noted that Option C.3,
while adding on to the field house and renovating the locker rooms there, did
not carry a budget for renovating the rest of the field house. In order to make
a fair comparison with new construction, monies should be added for general
renovations, estimated to be on the order of $2.31 M.
- Totaling the S&H new and renovation costs with the estimates for missing
items made by the sub-committee and multiplying that sum by the 1.33 soft-
cost factor produced a project cost for Option C.3 of slightly more than 551 M
(see spreadsheet).
- RR then explained the sub-committee's treatment of the new school
estimated costs. The $43.3M figure in the report was arrived at by multiplying
the maximum expected number of students (approx. 1580) by the current
allowances dictated by the SBAB (155 sq. ft./student x $177/sq. ft.).
Discussions with Mr. Raymond by the sub-committee revealed that such a
simple calculation ignores the inclusion of other desired and needed spaces
that would also qualify for reimbursement. Such spaces would be special
education areas, community spaces (SBAB would include half of such areas
as reimbursable), technology spaces (computers) and an area for the RISE
collaborative.
When the cost for these other areas was totaled with the base cost for 1600
students (x 155 x $177), a more realistic reimbursable new school project
cost would be approximately $54.1 M (see spreadsheet). Added to this
reimbursable cost would be the cost of the remaining half of the community
spaces and the amount necessary to demolish the existing high school. A
grand total, then, of approximately $63.8M would adequately describe what it
would take to build a new high school, in the sub-committee's view.
Comparisons of costs for Option C.3 with those for a new high school
focussed on the net amount borne by the Town (after State reimbursement).
The sub-committee's spreadsheet showed $17.4M net for the renovation
Option C.3 and $28.1 M for a new school (still a significant difference, which
was the conclusion of the S&H report). To demonstrate the effects of time
going by, the sub-committee projected these net costs four years into the
future, using a yearly inflation factor of 7.5% for the renovation and 4% for the
new construction (deemed reasonable due to current construction market
trends - refer to the spreadsheets).
The sub-committee concluded its presentation noting that in 2000 dollars, the
most-expensive project noted in the report would cost Reading nearly S4M
more than what was quoted therein ($18.7M vs. $14.8M). RR offered to do
the same cost updating/projecting to all the other S&H options if the
Committee so desired.
Reading School Building Comminee
Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2000
Item (3)& Discussion of the Report and Its Use by the Committee
Item (4) Discussion of Tentative Timetable for the High School Proiect
- PP asked if allowable technology costs were separate from the allowable he
dollars per square foot set by the SBAB. RR Y they were, but
pointed out that what was being calculated was the additional area needed
for computers, not the computers themselves. JL added that the actual
technology was covered in the soft cost numbers.
RG asked if JL and RR were comfortable with the report as a possible base
for exploring options for RMHS. They answered that they were.
TT commented that accounting for the cost of a construction manager might
tie in with possible new State guidelines requiring one.
RG asked Dr. Harutunian and Mr. Orlando if they knew of any other options
that did not appear in the S&H study that they felt would work for the high
school. Dr. Harutunian replied that his most recent discussions with our State
representatives indicated that the adoption of new funding guidelines may be
delayed by as much as a year, giving the Town more time to develop a
scheme for RMHS. Further, he mentioned the possibility of another
operational override attempt and the desirability
override 'needed for any high
between that override and the capital exclusion
school project. He suggested discussing the overrides with other Boards and
that setting dates for them would be helpful.
TT added that a year's grace with the SBAB could be utilized by the SBC to
inform the public of any proposed plan and attempt an override, perhaps
having time enough to make two attempts at it (should the first attempt fail).
Dr. Harutunian continued that a wholesale renovation option would be his first
choice with a piecemeal option being a distant second. Mr. Orlando added
that a piecemeal option would cause extended major disruptions to the
education operations of the school, which is not beneficial to the quality of the
education provided. -
- TT said that even though a wholesale option may be deemed the best
solution, other Boards such as FinCom and the Selectmen as well as the
Town's financial administrators may see such a plan as not fitting within the
Town's financial tolerance and would suggest taking "slices" of the plan in
increments that could be (financially) tolerated.
- RG commented that the SBC was not bound
d to use the S&H that even after other Boaas the
rds
sole source of options for the high school an
had their say on the matter, it was still up to the SBC to decide what they
would want to take to Town Meeting,
PP asked that if the project was to be broken into pieces, how would that be
accomplished (building-by-building or what?)?
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2000
5
RR noted that renovating services (mechanical/electrical/plumbing/etc.) wing-
by-wing would not be practical since the same services "feed" all the wings as
they are distributed through the entire complex. Non-service "pieces" might
be practical to renovate separately (such as roof replacements and windows)
but that is due to their isolation from the main body of the complex. These
pieces could be seen as by-products of the project, not the goal of the
project.
JL brought up the subject of phasing for any renovation project, which would
become more complex if separate pieces are chosen without regard to an
overall wholesale scheme. AM questioned how the work would be planned
around the students using the building. RR surmised that a wholesale project
would take three to four years to complete due to the need to phase work
around the on-going use of the building (another reason for the 1.33 soft cost
factor suggested by the sub-committee). DL and TT noted that such a long
construction period would push the costs upward due to inflation (out to
2004).
- Discussion ensued about combing through the various options and reviewing
their differences and how to approach them. The Committee was in general
agreement that they should consider only those options deemed
reimbursable by the SBAB. RG asked for each member's opinion, starting
with TT.
TT said that the S&H report, having been reviewed by the sub-committee and.,
found competent, seemed as good a place to start as any the SBC was likely
to have. He thought that the Committee should seek to maximize the
usefulness of the high school facility to the school and to the community. He
thought that any proposal brought to Town Meeting should emphasize the
advantages of doing a comprehensive renovation with State participation and
let Town Meeting decide if some other guidelines should be followed in
crafting a solution (sending the SBC "back to the drawing board").
AM thought that as the SBC progressed with the high school project that they
remain realistic, primarily in terms of costs and in terms of phasing. Costs
and the Town's reaction to them should not be ignored in the Committee's
selection process. Phasing of a project may, by its very nature, determine
whether it is considered a wholesale or piecemeal enterprise and could have
a large effect on the path chosen by the Committee. Education at RMHS
must continue and the disruption that's caused by the Committee's proposal
must be carefully considered.
JF felt that the S&H report's options should be considered, particularly with
the view that a piecemeal project would not likely equal the results of a
wholesale project.
DL remarked in his agreement with previous members concerning the S&H
report that time considerations (and the added costs for delay) make starting
with the report's options quite practical. He expressed his desire to go
forward rather than backward. He also emphasized the need to present an
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2000
entire plan to Town Meeting all at once rather than present it in several parts
over a long period of time.
RG said that in prior projects, financing had always been done through debt
service reserved in the Ten Year Capital Plan and that the SBC had been
very careful to present solutions that were cognizant of their effect on the
Town's finances. The RMHS project, however, is slated to be a capital
exclusion override with its revenue being specifically approved and supplied
by the electorate. That being the case, he felt that the SBC should strive to
compose a solution that best serves the students' education and the
community's needs, even though that solution may well have a large price to
pay. He felt that the S&H report was a sufficient basis to begin this
composition. The reaction to the final scheme may be negative and require
revamping after being rejected, but as a first attempt, the Committee should
show the Town what proposal would best solve the high school's problems.
PP agreed that the report should be the starting point for the Committee and
she expected that a wholesale solution would be the result of the
Committee's efforts. She also suggested that a natural by-product of the
Committee's efforts would be a second alternative to offer should the first be
rejected. The State's funding re-organization, she surmised, would be a
determinant in the Committee's approach to the wholesale solution.
JS thought that the Committee was "spinning its wheels" and should start
some definitive planning for tackling the project. He said that the S&H report" -
should be used as a basis for starting this process. The Committee should
establish what the high school's needs are in three categories; what must be
done, what should be done and what we'd like to do ("triage") and do this
while waiting for the State to give an indication of what the new funding
guidelines will be, making the best use of this waiting period. He questioned
what the Committee's goal would be at November's Town Meeting, owing to
the short amount of time that will be left after the State makes its wishes
clear. Would more professional help be needed to produce and present the
best plan possible? He encouraged the other members to become familiar
with the needs presented in the S&H report because it may happen that the
Committee would have to cobble together its own option different from those
found therein.
RR felt that the S&H report already established the needs for the building and
he thought the best thing for the Committee to do was to individually analyze
each option in the report and meet to discuss them. He hoped that one of the
options could serve as the model to around which to build a proposal to take
to Town Meeting. He saw little purpose in trying to re-establish the ground
rules of the building's needs.
- JL agreed with RR, but added that the Committee should ask those who
participated in the creation of the S&H options (mentioning TT and Dr.
Harutunian) to discuss their rationale with it in order to agree or disagree with
that rationale.
r'
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes from June 6, 2000
Dr. Harutunian suggested two points. First, he recommended that the
Committee take an evening to go through the options with S&H so that the
Committee's questions could be answered directly. Secondly, he asked that
the Killam project not be forgotten since the current fiscal thinking is to have
Killam proceed on a near-parallel course for Town approval with the high
school. He asked that Killam be put on the SBC's agenda. JS reminded him
that an estimate for professional services to produce a Killam presentation
was to be secured.
RG pointed out to Dr. Harutunian that to his knowledge, the School
Committee had not yet discussed Killam in terms of its need for a capital
exclusion override (other than to approve it with the Ten Year Capital Plan in
full). While Dr. Harutunian suggested that such a discussion could be
undertaken by the authors of the Capital Improvement Plan, RG said he felt
that the School Committee should address it before the authors.
Discussion ensued concerning what an S&H presentation to the SBC should
include. It was generally agreed that the options that would not qualify for
State reimbursement need not be presented (including the option for an
entire new school). It would be helpful, some thought, if the presentation
could give some idea of the scope of the phasing that each option would
require. TT theorized that perhaps the best phasing plan might include the
construction of a portion of a new school which could house students while
renovations were underway (like the Coolidge and Parker projects).
RG questioned Dr. Harutunian about the status of any operational override
coming into conflict with a capital override. Dr. Harutunian answered that the
timing of the high school project depended on the new State guidelines and
that any decisions or discussions prior to their release would be premature.
A tentative date for the architect's presentation was set for June 27 or July 5,
2000.
- With no further discussion appearing, DL made a motion to adjourn, which
was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and the result was unanimous in the
affirmative (time unrecorded).
Minutes prepared and submitted by:
effrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
AGENDA
JUNE 6, 2000
1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2) SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT ON HIGH SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY BY
STREVALOSKY & HOIT
3) DISCUSSION OF REPORT AND ITS USE BY THE COMMITTEE
4) DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE TIMETABLE FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT
5) OTHER BUSINESS
4
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D.
Superintendent
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Administration Offices
82 Oakland Road
Post Office Box 180
Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Tel. 781-944-5800 - Fax 781-942-9149
TO: Reading School Building Committee
FROM: Dr. Harry K. Harutunian
DATE: June 6, 2000
TOPIC: Building Committee
Dennis A. Richards
Associate Superintendent
Please find attached, for your information, a copy of a memorandum from
Principal Orlando regarding the Reading Memorial High School staff members who have
been appointed to serve as a school based building committee during deliberations on the
high school renovation project.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
CC: Reading School Committee
FADING PUBLIC SCHOOLS READING 1VIENIORIAL HIGH SCHOOL `
a 62 Oakland Road
k Reading, Massachusetts 01867-1699
(781) 944-8200
'PJ~'INCOIL
"¢rS
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D. Frank J. Orlando, Principal
Joseph L. Finigan, Assistant Principal
Superintendent Cheryl A. O'Brien, Assistant Principal
To: Reading School Building Committee
From: Frank J. Orlando-4if)
Re: .Schoc=Based Building Committee
Date: June 2000
I have appointed several members of m
building cor-nittee to act as consultants during thecdeli.berations
on the high school renovation project. The
members
appointed based on their teaching assignmentand/orhthoseeareas
that will dr=w special attention during the project. They are:
Phil Vaccaro.... .Athl
Ted epics
LindarR~szon .zi . " " Physical Education
° " " '•••°•Math
Ron Carol G How--and .n . . . .........:English
Kevin Ze:~ewicz . -Life Science
Ba=y .Chemistry a.
Alex ~antyne ................Physical Science
Bill Encslow. ° . . Theater Arts
Dick Gi_iis.• A_ts
Cathy Cc~k . . . ° . . . . .............Business
.............Food Services
Reading School Building Committee
High School Feasibility, subcommittee review June 2000
All based on Option C.3,
starting in 1999 dollars
Option C.3 New building
R
enovation Cost, New Cost Costs
construction, per report,.
1999 dollars:,
$23,813,250_ $10,969,000. $43,304,880
area in square feet*
303,275. 73,800; 352,100
cost per square foot,
average
,-1, $149.. $1,23-11
structural upgrades.
$1,008 825
_
per square foot
$3'
renovate field house
33,000 sf at_$70
$2,310,000
extra roofing at 50,000 sf
$300,000
$6!
subtotal cost in 1999
dollars,
$27,432,075 _ $10,969,000
overall cost per square'
foot, average
$82 $149
Total construction cost,
new and renovation
$38,401,075
1999 Renovation project
r-4 13
VL
using 3
renovation factor**
$51,073,430
$54,131 100-
New building 'State' project
cost. see other sheet***
Balance of community
$4,1659,6010.,
spaces (see other sheet)
$5,000,000
Add for Demolition per report
1999 New building project
cost
State reimbursement at
_66% of proiect cost
$33,708,464
$35,726 526
State reimbursement at 66%,
only on 'State' portion
Net to Town, 1999
$17,364,966
$28,064,1]4
Net to Town, 1999
' Does not include field house area
to include design contingency,_phasin
g, and project management - S&H used 1.25
"Backed into" using 1.25 factor from--'
State' number
Net to town, 2000 dollars. renovation*.
$18,667,339
$29,186,741
Net to town 2000 dollars nemi
Net to town, 2001 dollars renovation*
$20,067,389
$30,354,211
Net to town, 2001 dollars neH
Net to town, 2002 dollars renovation*
$21,572,443.
$31,568 379
Net to town, 2002 dollars new;
_ Net to town, 2003 dollars renovation*
$23,190,376
$32,831,114
Net to town, 2003 dollars new,
i
* uses a 7.5% inflation
factor for renovation
uses a 4% inflation factor
for new proiect
i
i
d-
Aeading School Building Committee
High School Feasibility, subcommittee review
_
June 2000
Background for new school costs
Base area 1,600 pupils x 155 sf/pupit
.
248 000
cost/sf
$177
project cost
$43,896,000
Allowable areas in excess of base area
_
__.,.pecial education spaces
5,600y
$177
$991
200
Rise Collaborative
3,400
$177
,
$609
800
Community spaces (see below
,
$4659,600
600
technology (750 computers at 30 sf each)
22, 500
$177
$3982,500,
total cost, maximum
.
reimbursable
by State•
$54,139,100,
ommunlty Space analysis:
field House Renovation
33 000
$70,
2,310
000
_ Field House addition
9,600;
_
$177
,
1,699,200.
Auditorium
17,000
$177
000_. _
3,009
Mini-Auditorium
13,000;
$177;
,
2,3Q1,000'
total
$9,319,200'
_
ota area, corrtelete faciIity
52,1001
1,/2 total
,
$4,659,600,
.p_...
,