Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-08 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesSCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 8 1996 A MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE WAS HELD ON FEB 8 1996 IN THE TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 PM. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE PRESENT WERE RUSSELL T. GRAHAM, ROGER SANSTED RICH RADVILLE JOE LUPI, ROBIN D,ANTONA MARGARET COWELL AND DAVID WILLIAMS. ALSO PRESENT WERE DR HARRY HARATUNIAN, RENA MIRKIN, AND MEMBERS OF READING 2000; TOM MEGHARD, STAN NISSAN AND JOE CAIN. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING WAS TO INTERVIEW THE REMAINING ARCHITECTS CHOSEN AS FINALISTS FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE T~ADING MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL. THE FIRST PRESENTATION WAS BY STREVALOSKY & HOIT WHO PRESENTED THEIR PROPOSAL. IN ANSWER TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY COULD PERSUADE THE MASS. DEPT. OF EDUCATION THAT THIS PROJECT WAS A CATEGORY 2 PROJECT RATHER THAN A PROJECT 3 THUS MAKING IT POTENTIALLY MORE ABLE TO BE FUNDED BY STATE REIMBURSMENT. THEY AT PRESENT DO NOT USE A CONSULTANT FOR TECHNOLOGY ISSUES AND RELY HEAVILY ON THEIR SUB CONTRACTORS TO ADRESS THOSE ISSUES. THE SECOND PROPOSAL PRESENTED WAS BY THE OFFICE OF MICHAEL ROSENTHAL WHO REVIEWED THEIR WORK AND THE METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS THEY WOULD USE IN ADRESSING THE STUDY. IN ANSWER TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THEY USE OUR PRESENT TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS AS THEIR RESOURCE AND THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT COULD BE A CATEGORY 2 RATHER THAN A 3. AT THE END OF THEIR PRESENTATION GENERAL DISCUSSION ENSUED ON ALL FOUR OF THE PROPOSALS PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. THE GENERAL CONCENSUS WAS THAT HMFH IN THEIR PRESENTATION THE PREVIOUS TUESDAY HAD MADE THE LEAST ACCEPTABLE PRESENTATION ANS DISCUSSION CENTERED ON THE THREE OTHER ARCHITECTS. STRAVALOSKY & HOIT IT WAS GENERALLY FELT HAD MADE AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION ON THE NUTS AND BOLTS ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT BUT IN THE AREA OF TECHNOLOGY HAD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED OR GIVE IT THE HIGH PRIORITY THAT THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMM. AND ADMINISTRATION FEEL STRONGLY IT MUST HAVE. DISCUSSION THEREFORE CENTERED AROUND DRUMMEY ROSANE ANDERSON AND THE OFFICE OF MICHAEL ROSENFELD. SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT THE OFFICE OF MICHAEL ROSENFELD HAD MADE THE FAR SUPERIOR PRESENTATION PARTICUTARLY AS TO THE EDUCATIONAL PLAN AND A CONCEPTUAL OR VISIONARY APPROACH. THESE MEMBERS FELT THAT THIS KIND OF APPROACH WAS NEEDED AND WOULD BEST SERVE THE MISSION OF THE FEASIBILTY STUDY. EMPHASIS WAS MADE THAT WE MIGHT NEVER HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADRESS THE HIGH SCHOOL AGAIN AND WE OUGHT TO APPROACH IT WITH A VISION FOR THE FUTURE. OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT SUCH AN APPROACH WHILE EXCELLENT IN CONCEPT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO TURN INTO REALITY GIVEN THE ANTICIPATED COST AND THE HARD REALITIES OF OUR FISCAL CONDITION. THESE MEMBERS FELT THAT THE PRESENTATION BY THE OFF OF MR WAS MUCH MORE ARTISTIC IN NATURE AND TENDED TO IGNORE THE NUTS AND BOLTS ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT SUCH ASPECTS MORE LIKELY TO BE VIEWED BY TOWN MEETING AND TOWN CITIZENS AS THE KIND OF ACTION THAT MUST BE ADRESSED AND THUS MUST BE FUNDED. THESE MEMBERS FELT THAT DRA DID A BETTER JOB OF ADRESSING THESE ISSUES WHILE NOT IN ANY WAY IGNORING THE IMPORTANT EDUCATIONAL ISSUES OF THE PROJECT. THEY ALSO FELT THEIR GENERAL LOW KEY APPROACH WAS THE KIND GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN READING. IN ANSWER TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION, AS TO THEIR CHOICE, MRS. MIRKIN SAID SHE WAS TORN BETWEEN THE TWO BUT WOULD LEAN TOWARDS THE OFFICE OF MR AND DR HARATUNIAN BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE LIKED THE OFFICE OF MICHAEL ROSENFELD. MORE DISCUSSION ON THE TWO ALTERNATIVES ENSUED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUES. A GENERAL CONCENSUS WAS FORMED THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME, ALL WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT READING WOULD BE WELL SERVED NO MATTER WHICH OF THE TWO WAS CHOSEN DESPITE THE STRONF FEELINGS FELT FOR ONE OR THE OTHER. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROGER SANSTED SECONDED BY MARGARET COWELL TO PLACE IN NOMINATION AS THE CHOSEN ARCHITECT THE NAMES OF DRUMMEY ROSANE ANDERSON AND THE OFFICE OF MICHAEL ROSENFELD. FOUR MEMBERS VOTED FOR DRUMMEY ROSANE ANDERSON. THREE MEMBERS VOTED FOR THE OFFICE OF MICHAEL ROSENFELD. THE CHOSEN ARCHITECT FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE READING MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL IS DRUMMEY ROSANE ANDERSON. ON MOTION OF ROBIN DANTONA SECONDED BY MARGARET COWELL THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO ADJOURN. ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M.