Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-23 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutess OF Mq 5aoe 6w'a~ (SIR 310 Reading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on May 23 2000, 7:30 p.m. (In the Library of Coolidge Middle School) 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) Featured Guests: Gene Raymond Jr., AIA (Strekalovsky & Hoit, Inc., Architects) John Doherty, Principal (Coolidge Middle School), p/t Dr. Harry H. Harutunian, Superintendent The meeting started with a tour of the nearly completed Coolidge Middle School, which began as soon as the meeting was called to order. John Doherty, Principal, conducted the tour, during which time no group discussions took place. At the completion of the tour, RG conveyed the Committee's thanks to Mr. Doherty for his work on the renovation project and offered congratulations to the Coolidge Science Olympiad team which placed ninth in the national tournament. Mr. Doherty then left, reminding the Committee of the dedication and open house of the new facilities scheduled for June 1. Dr. Harutunian asked that the minutes reflect the very positive contributions made by Mr. Doherty to the success of the Coolidge project due to the hard work, time and effort he expended on the design and construction of the new facilities. Like the Parker project (Dr. Jack Delaney, Principal) the contribution of the principals helped significantly to bring the project in on or under budget with excellent results. The Committee was happy to comply with this request. [QED] JL requested of Gene Raymond how the remaining unfinished items for Coolidge were proceeding. Mr. Raymond responded that progress was slow but steady, stating that the 5% retainage was being reduced to 21/2 % in recognition of the contractor's progress. This remainder will be withheld until all punchlist items are addressed. Significant sitework still needs to be done. Dr. Harutunian added that several interior finishes must (of necessity) wait until the students are not in residence in order to be successfully applied, such as re-painted lockers and protective floor coatings. The soccer field may be ready by the fall, but the surface material must dry out sufficiently before it can be finally graded and landscaped. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from May 23, 2000 - Turning to the high school, RG asked Mr. Raymond for a brief overview of the executive summary contained in the latest feasibility report prepared by his firm for the School Committee. - Mr. Raymond began by noting that the physical needs of RMHS are typical of a building that has not had a major renovation in 40+ years. His team noted the poor condition of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and the portions of the heating system that have not been recently replaced. Their recommendation was to replace the worn-out M/E/P systems and heating system components. - Regarding architectural finishes, Mr. Raymond stated that ceiling, and floor and wall surfaces as well as most teaching equipment had out-lived their usefulness and deserved replacement. The budget they are proposing includes this. - Enrollment projections for the high school showed increases from the current 1100 students to between 1500-1600. Therefore, all the development options produced in the S&H study assumed the increased student populations. The preferred option (as well as other options) put forward in the study assumed the removal of non-high school uses from the building in order to recapture space for the increased population (examples of non-high school uses are the RISE and REAP programs and the Superintendent's offices). Further, departmental offices that now occupy classroom-sized spaces would be relocated to smaller areas. The options include individual teachers' stations within the classrooms to make up for the reduced departmental space. An additional programmatic need identified in the study was to equalize physical education facilities (locker rooms and access to gymnasia) for boys and girls (Title IX issues). One idea that was later dropped was to have an enclosed link to the field house from the girls' locker room in Building H across the roadway between the high school and the field house (the $21/2M cost was thought to be better used elsewhere programmatically). Music and drama space were also major considerations in the study. The preferred option has the present girls' gym being converted to a small theater/drama workshop that could be used to stage productions. Also, an addition next to the present Library would house the music department. The current (inadequate) music space behind the stage would become drama space. - The preferred option also envisions remaking the current lecture hall on the Ground floor of Building B into a multi-media/computer/instructional technology lab. - Cafeteria renovation in the preferred option would capture the space in the adjacent courtyard via an addition that would allow two lunch seatings instead of three. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from May 23, 2000 - Improving internal circulation within the building would be a major objective of the preferred option. Building A (1969 addition with Math and Science departments) would be connected to the original building through the Library wing with a multi-story link in the vicinity now occupied by the "orange lockers". The Library wing itself would have a multi-story link to the adjacent (original) building (Bldg. B). The links would allow lower passing time (time spent moving between classes), better departmental organization/flexibility and less congestion during class changes. The cost data contained within the S&H report was based on dollars per square foot rather than on itemized prices for each component of each option (which would require a level of design beyond the scope of the feasibility study). These unit prices were current to 1999. Mr. Raymond recommended that whatever option is pursued further, money for more accurate cost estimating should be part of the design budget. Dr. Harutunian then offered an update on his understanding of the pending revisions to the State SBA program. Projects submitted to the SBAB under the present guidelines would be processed and accepted through the 2000- 2001 school year (in effect, those projects whose designs are submitted to the State by June 1, 2000). What may follow this is a new funding program based on designs submitted by June 1, 2001. It is anticipated that renovations and/or new buildings will come under closer scrutiny by the State. The State will give communities more latitude in scheduling partial renovations and replacements with State participation rather than having to wait until wholesale renovations are needed (in essence, when an entire school building needs retrofitting or re-building). The rationale behind this (it appears) is to allow school buildings to last longer by replacing individual systems (roofs, M/E/P, etc.) when they need to be replaced rather than wait for multiple systems to break down. Having said this, Dr.Harutunian voiced his concern that RMHS still finds itself in the latter category, namely that too many systems need replacement right away. He feared that having a new (partial renovation/piecemeal) option made available by the State would invite calls from within the community to make use of it in order to reduce the large cost that would accompany a wholesale renovation. Having had to follow the SBAB's "all-or-nothing" guidelines of the past, this would be a new consideration for the SBC. TT asked if Dr. Harutunian knew if any additional State funds were being earmarked for this (new) funding program. He responded that perhaps the State legislators were considering amounts on the order of $34M for this purpose, but it was not clear how this money would be apportioned (just for partial renovations or added to the overall pool of funds for school buildings?). Of obvious concern to the State is having sufficient control over this apportionment to ensure that partial renovations are not overwhelmed by Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from May 23, 2000 large wholesale renovations (Waltham's recent plans to apply for $190M in wholesale renovations was offered as an example of a cause for this concern). RG asked when the SBC would know when the new funding initiatives being debated by the legislators were accepted by all affected agencies of State government. Dr. Harutunian answered that it would become clear most likely in July of this year when the state budget was agreed upon by both houses of the legislature and the executive branch. He commented that both the House and Senate proposals ignore the Executive recommendation of placing school building funding under the direction of the Department of Administration and Finance and keep it within the Department of Education, which he saw as advantageous. - RG put forward the need for the SBC to become aware of the new funding guidelines in order to proceed with RMHS, citing past projects that were molded by the Committee to conform to SBAB requirements as precedents. Dr. Harutunian suggested contact with the SBAB soon after the new funding scheme is adopted. - RG mentioned the fact that increasing enrollments will most likely be a factor in the RMHS project and wondered how such a criterion would be handled under the new funding scheme. Dr. Harutunian responded that it was his understanding that even minimal additions/renovations to accommodate increased enrollments would be considered under the new plan, which in itself indicated a "paradigm shift" in policy for the SBAB. F RG contrasted this multi-option approach to identifying what a school building project could be to the previous identification process, which was to find out which single project would be acceptable to the SBAB and develop it for Town Meeting's review. The ability to revamp any project and still be assured of State funding could cause confusion and disinterest. Dr. Harutunian added that it could split the community among rival options. JS asked for clarification of the dates of applicability of the current guidelines, citing concern for the Killam project and which funding scheme it would fall under. Dr. Harutunian answered that June 1, 2000 would be the last opportunity for projects to make use of the current funding formulae. Hence, both Killam and RMHS will come under the new guidelines. TT spoke about the changes in the guidelines affecting the Committee's approach to presenting the RMHS project to Town Meeting, speculating that a whole-building solution could be questioned in light of the possibility that fundable partial-building solutions could exist. He advised that the Committee must stay on top of this changing State funding system, possibly through our legislators. Dr. Harutunian cautioned that the creation of an administrative system to implement whatever is legislated must also occur and will itself take some time. Continuing on the subject of the new State funding, TT surmised that by the time the Committee puts together a whole-building scenario and puts it before Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from May 23, 2000 the Town, wholly new (piecemeal) options may be declared as acceptable. To this point, Dr. Harutunian added that feasibility studies that had previously been directed towards whole-building solutions may now have to be revised to include menu-driven schemes, describing what various budgets will buy (and still be reimbursable). JS posed the suggestion of meeting with our State legislators directly in order to get the most up-to-date information concerning revised funding. He expressed concern over having no clearly understood financial framework around which to build a recommendation to Town Meeting in November. Dr. Harutunian countered that such a meeting would be premature if held before any actual legislation was signed and reiterated his suggestion to meet with SBAB officials after adoption of the new scheme. JS expressed frustration nonetheless at the dependence of Committee action on the action of the State legislature on the budget, citing last year's performance as an example of how expected timing (like finishing in July) can go wrong. Both TT and Dr. Harutunian pointed out that last year was an exception to normal legislative procedures. RG asked Dr. Harutunian if the School Administration or School Committee was planning any further enrollment projections. He answered that the Administration would be updating the projections internally, but not until all relevant data was available (like 1999 birth records from the State DPH). RG questioned how the State was going to handle enrollment problems under the new funding scheme, particularly those that need attention quickly. TT went further, wondering how communities would accept new additions with up-to-date facilities placed alongside old existing buildings with unimproved facilities. RG questioned if such a project would make economic sense. TT posed the possibility of economic analyses of various options as becoming standard procedure for school building committees. PP asked Gene Raymond if the high school could be renovated in a piecemeal fashion architecturally. Mr. Raymond responded that he would not recommend it due to the volume of systems that would have to be addressed and the impracticality of constructing one system at a time and trying to make it work with outdated ones. TT wondered if the new SBAB guidelines might force a community such as Reading to adopt a piecemeal strategy even though the community had the desire to adopt a wholesale one. Dr. Harutunian said that in his view, the SBAB would not do so. The revisions to the funding plans are intended to encourage reasonable piecemeal projects that avoid demolition of sound buildings simply to qualify for State reimbursement. RMHS seemed to him to qualify for wholesale renovation. TT envisioned a political problem without State mandates for a single solution. He could see various factions in the Town endorsing what they feel is the proper piecemeal amount to spend on the high school (that amount being reimbursable) and promoting it in opposition to the Committee's recommendations. Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from May 23, 2000 6 AM made the comment that his reading of the Executive proposals for revised funding indicated a desire at the State level to cut costs in order to lessen the long-term financial burden. He asked if any limit to the (reimbursable) dollars per square foot for renovations was being put forward as a "cap". Both Dr. Harutunian and Mr. Raymond answered that the yearly cost figures (for both new construction and renovations) are set by analyzing feedback from architects who submit cost data on their current projects. They saw no indications that this procedure would change. - RG likened the attempt to control education costs with the attempt to control medical costs. Needs could be addressed by accountants and if one wants quality education, one must be resigned to paying for it. Mr. Raymond offered his opinion that the State would not deny projects with multiple needs such as those at RMHS. He said that the main change for a wholesale project would be justifying the needs more than had been required heretofore. In his opinion, doing so for RMHS would not be difficult. The political aspect of a "menu" approach was discussed further. Dr. Harutunian said that he believed that if multiple reimbursable options had been available for past school building projects, supporters for counter-SBC proposals would have organized and pushed their separate agendas. TT wondered if the SBC might go to Town Meeting in November with not only a preferred option but also additional (less-preferred) options for Town Meeting's consideration. PP said that the needs of RMHS should be generally understood by the Town by then, but TT questioned that point, stating his belief that some people will always believe that only minimal cosmetic work needs to be done. Dr. Harutunian mentioned upcoming accreditation reviews for the high school as possibly providing additional needs. RG made the point that after the S&H feasibility study sub-committee makes its report, a tally of renovation items that absolutely must be done be made by the Administration to help guide the SBC in its on-going work (not only for RMHS but also for Killam). JS added that making the schools ADA-compliant was an item that must be done (Dr. Harutunian agreed). Title IX issues were also briefly discussed. - With no other business appearing, AM made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded by RR. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time not recorded). 09 Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee