HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-25 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesREADING SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
~ AUGUST 25, 1998
iv 5
A MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE WAS HELD ON
AUGUST 25,1998 AT THE SUPERINTENDENTS CONFERENCE ROOM.
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 700 PM. PRESENT WERE
BOB GRASSO, JOE FINNEGAN, RICH RADVILLE, TIM TWOMEY, ROGER SANSTED, JOE LUPI,
JEFF STRUBLE AND RUSS GRAHAM. ALSO PRESENT WERE DR. HARUTUNIAN, SUPT. OF
SCHOOLS AND THE PRINCIPALS OF THE FOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.'
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO IXTERVIEW TWO
ARCHITECTS FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECTS.
THE FIRST INTERVIEW WAS WITH EARL FLANSBURGH AND ASSOCIATES.
PRINCIPALS OF THE FIRM WERE PRESENT TO OUTLINE THEIR CREDENTIALS AND
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.
SID BOWEN OUTLINED THE STRATEGY OF THE COMPANY TOWARDS
SCHOOLS AND THEIE PROBLEMS PARTICULIARY STRESSING THE NEED TO REACH OUT TO
THE PUBLIC AND BUILD CONSENSUS ON ANY MAJOR PROJECT SUCH AS THE ONE UNDER
CONSIDERATION IN READING. -
THEY STRESSED THE NEED FOR A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE
ARCHITECT, THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE AND ALL OTHER INVOLVED PARTIESB
ESPECIALLY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TOWARDS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF SUCCESS AT
TOWN MEETING. THEY BELIEVE IN FULL COMMITMENT TO A PROJECT WITH A
PROJECT MANAGER SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO ALL PROJECTS.. THEY HAVE 14
PROJECTS ON THE 1999 SBAB PRIOTITY LIST. THEY REALIZE THE NEED FOR FINANCIAL
REALITY BEING A PRIME CONCERN OF THE TOWN.
IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE, THEY ANSWERED
THAT THEY HAD REVIEWED THE NESDEC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND WERE IN
l BASIC AGREEMENT WITH THE RESULTS. THEY HAD TALKED TO SOME PRINCIPALS AND
FELT THE PRINCIPALS ROLE ON THE SCHOOL SIZE AND ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE
WOULD PROVE TO BE VERY HELPFUL. THE CONSTRAINTS OF TIME NECCESSITATED BY
THE ENROLLMENT CRUNCH WAS, T HEY SAID, FEASIBLE TO THEIR COMPANY. THEY
DID NOT FEEL OVER EXTENDED AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND COULD EASILY ASSUME
THIS PROJECT. THEY HAD RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ADRESS THE CRITICAL AREAS
OF TECHNOLOGY, ENVIOREMENT AND EDUCATION.
IN ANSWER TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION RELATIVE TO THE PROBLEM IN
ANDOVER, THEY FELT THAT MUCH OF THE PROBLEM WITH THAT PROJECT WAS NOT
RELATED TO THE ARCHITECT, AND URGED THAT WE CALL ANDOVER TO SEE IF THAT
COMMUNITY EAS HAPPY WITH FLANSBURGHS RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEMS AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE FINAL RESULTS..
THE SECOND INTERVIEW WAS WITH THE FIRM OF SYMMES,
MANNI & MCKEE ASSOCIATES OF CAMBRIDGE MA, THREE MEMBERS OF THAT FIRM
WERE PRESENT. THEY OUTLINED THE ROLES OF EACH MEMBER TO THE PROJECT AND
PRESENTED A SERIES OF RECENT EXPERIENCES IN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION,
RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS..
THEY SUMMARIZED THE APPROACH AND COMMITMENT OF THEIR FIRM
TO ANY PROJECT AND OUTLINED THEIR HISTORICAL APPROACH TO BUILDING
CONSENSUS WITH ALL INVOLVED PARTIES AND WITH THE COMMUNITY.
IN SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE THE FELT
THEY HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO GIVE TO THE PROJECT. THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY
SPECIFIC ANSWERS AS TO THE RESOURCES THEY HAD AVAILABLE FOR TECHNOLOGY, EN
VIOREMENT AND EDUCATION.
THE REVISED AND CONSTRICTED TIME FRAME WAS NOT A PROBLEM TO THEM.
ON MOTION OF ROGER SANSTED SECONDED BY RICH RADVILLE,
THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO ADJOURN AT 9:36PM