Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-23 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on December 23, 2002, 8:45 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) Alex McRae, (AM) Warren Cochrane (WC) Bill Carroll (BC) Rich Radville (RR) ' Dennis LaCroix (DL) NJ `TMj Featured Guests: u tr3 Frank Orlando (Staff) Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) [Author's Note: This meeting began as a joint meeting with the Finance Committee held in the Conference Room of Town Hall at 7.00 p.m. to discuss the RMHS project and the debt exclusion it required. Refer to the FinCom minutes of 12123102 for a record of those proceedings. After the FinCom recommended passage of the RMHS article on the warrant for the Special Town Meeting on Jan. 13, 2003, a recess was called and the SBC members and guests traveled and regrouped in the RMHS Guidance Career Center at 8:45 p.m., which is where these minutes begin.] RG began by discussing the likely presentation that the SBC will make at the Jan. 13th Special Town Meeting. The need to explain the problems of the high school was seen as repetitious due to the previous presentations by the full Committee (last year), the update presented by the Chair at November's Subsequent Town Meeting and the background material that was prepared to accompany the warrant. WC stressed the need to point out the costs involved should Option 3 not pass (the cost of doing nothing). Sid Bowen said his firm would prepare a summary of items that would unquestionably require repair or replacement, but he cautioned that an obvious omission would be the cost of updating the educational program for the school. This update was fundamental to their charge in preparing the schematic design. He also noted that some infrastructure updating would not be reimbursable, such as fire sprinklers (since they would be an addition rather than an upgrade). Mr. Bowen presented the results of the test borings made in the existing parking lot and the courtyard to probe the sub-surface areas that would be supporting new foundations in Option 3 (copy attached). Reading a School.Building, Committee Meeting A.Iifzutes5 fi~oiir .December 23, 2002 Only one boring was made in the parking lot due to uncertainty on the Town's part on where existing underground utilities might lay. This boring showed competent bearing material at a reasonable depth and did not encounter peat or other deleterious strata. Mr. Bowen pointed out that this one boring did not prove the non-existence of peat in the area, but it was sufficient to make a reasonable prediction of foundation types to use on the project. The courtyard boring encountered refusal at relatively shallow depths on three separate attempts. This indicated to the directing engineer the presence of ledge in the area. This, too, allowed a prediction of the foundation type to be expected for the new auditorium structure. Messrs. Bowen and Peirce passed out the State's form 645-1, which was a checklist of required submittals for a formal SBA submission (copy attached). FAI presented updated plans and elevations, including a site plan. He said that discussions with the Town engineer and Town Manager about the site plan, and they made it clear that they needed one-way traffic around the Field House during elections. They also had concerns with access from Imagination Station and the number of parking spaces around the school. Mr. Bowen said his team was still working on incorporating their concerns into the site plan and would likely not have a complete solution by the time of Town Meeting (Jan. 13th). He did say they would show a complete vehicle loop around the Field House. He went over the updated (CAD-drawn) plans (copies attached), showing rearrangements with the layouts for the administrative areas and the firewalls. The main entrances were updated to show common construction (glazing and brick). He explained various program-improving changes that embellished ideas shown on previous plans. Members of the Committee discussed the pros and cons of the two- story gallery along the main "street" with FAI. The discussion continued about other pieces of the overall design. A discussion took place concerning the presentation of the graphic displays as accurate representations of the finished school. - FAI argued that the schematic design is likely to change in subsequent design phases and what is shown now may not be what is built later. - RG expressed concern that the elevations show what the school would look like and it was reasonable for people to assume that when they went to vote for it. Changes to it might be seen as being misleading. - On the other hand, others argued, avoiding the elevations could be seen as not being true to the assurances given during the schematic design campaign that going to such a design level would produce a clear idea of what voters would be voting for in a debt exclusion election. Some type of visual display of the "look" of the high school (or possibly multiple looks) seemed warranted. While some members suggested being very clear about the preliminary nature of the elevations (i.e., being subject to change), others countered that such explanations might be possible with Town Meeting, but not likely with the general electorate. The experience with the preliminary "diagrams" for Reading School Building Committee Meeting Minutes fivnt December 23, 2002 the Dividence Road elementary school project being taken as final layouts by many in the community was raised in support of this last point. - The graphics shown were sufficient to explain to the cost estimators what the construction would be, Mr. Bowen explained, and subsequent changes would not materially affect the estimate. - It was thought that a dialogue with the School Committee (who would have the final determination of the final design and "look") would be prudent in order to decide how much of the elevations to show to the public. RR suggested that FAI look into the addition of more rows of seats in the new auditorium to boost the capacity to close to 900. FAI said they would do so. Observer Jackie Mandell asked if the contract between the SBC and FAI would end with the approval of Town Meeting even if the SBA were to reject Option 3 for some reason. She was answered that the contract required that FAI produce a reimbursable schematic design and even if Town Meeting approved going to the next design phase for Option 3 (under the direction of the School Committee), if that schematic design was ruled not reimbursable, the SBC would still hold FAI to the contract requirement to produce one that was. The contract did not necessarily end with approval of the warrant. RG reported that he had discussed the present high school with members of the Historical Commission and was told that they saw no historical significance to the existing school other than the fact that it was one of the last projects designed by a firm headed by two Reading residents (who had done a number of other public buildings in the Town). Observer Kendra Cooper asked for information regarding the synthetic athletic field surface proposed for the stadium and practice fields. Mr. Bowen reiterated the details given to the FinCom earlier in the evening and various members presented anecdotes about other communities who had installed such surfaces and apparently benefited from them. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and was seconded by BC. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 10:30 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES December 23, 2002 Reading School Building Committee C/o Mr. Russ Graham, Chairman Architecture 18 Jade Hill Road Master Planning Auburn, MA 01501 Programming Interior Design Dear Mr. Graham: As requested, we have reviewed the SBA Capital Grant Application process for the Reading Principals Memorial High School. Based on that review we have developed the following overview of the David S. Soleau, AIA scope of the application. This overview is intended to aid the School Building Committee, the Alan S. Ross, AIA Town of Reading, the School Committee, and the School Department in planning the project. Duncan P. McClelland, ALA Sidney R. Bowen, III The SBA Capital Grant Application for 2003 All applications are to be submitted prior to June 30, 2003. SBA requests that the application be Chairman submitted by June 1, 2003, with the remaining month available for comment and correction. The Earl R. Flansburgh, FAIR, NA components of the application are listed in the attached SBA 645-1 checklist. Senior Associates The application may take one of two forms, and the Town should inform the SBA of it's Samuel Bird, AIA Jorge M. Cruz, AIA intention as soon as possible. The typical `full' application includes drawings and specifications Rose M. Fiore, Assoc. AIA from the architect and consultants, as well as their certifications. It also includes approvals from local building, fire, and other inspectors. Recognizing that there is often a significant delay before Associates communities receive a grant, and that this often results in a delayed construction, the SBA is Valerie M. Curtis accepting `Deferred Construction' applications. The requirements of this application are David R. DeFilippo, AIA marginally less rigorous. Full construction plans and specifications are not required, nor are Vincent E.J. Dub4, AIA certain local approvals and architect's certifications. SBA has made it clear however, that approval James A. m , AIA of the local conservation Cormnission and local Historical Commission are required. Drawings a bers W. Lambert are still required and the SBA will require that they be fairly advanced. With the Deferred Thomas Thomas J. Mueller, AIA Construction application, the full documentation of the project is not required until several Dominic I. Pedulla, Assoc. AIA months before commencement of construction. We have attached the SBA Administrative Robert E. Peirce, AIA James B. Williams, Jr., AIA Advisory 02-2., which explains the two types of application. Scope: The attached form 645-1, from SBA, outlines the elements of a full application. We have checked off those items which are already complete. Of the items listed, the most difficult to achieve are; 1) Item 10: Schematic Drawings, due to the required review and approval process; 2) Item 13, due to the depth of site design and study required before the Conservation Commission can consider approval; 3) Item 15, due to the process required by Massachusetts Historical, 4) Item 17, MEPA; due to the process of obtaining signed certification from the Secretary of Environmental Affairs; 5) Item 29, Whether the full documents or the schematics, this requires a design process involving the committees, the administration, the faculty, the architect and all consultants. The other items listed require effort, but can typically be obtained fairly easily. Sincerely, FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert Peirce, AIA Flansburgh Associates, Inc: 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114-1910 T 617-367-3970 F 617-720-7873 www.faiarchitects.com 12/20/02 645 - 1 Date: Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION School Building Assistance School District/Code School Building/Code LEA Contact/Title Address Comprehensive Capital School Construction Grant Application/Checklist MA Zi Telephone Architect Project Information Type of School: ` -fiype of Project Elementary Middle Secondary New Addition/Renovation Conversion Vocational Grades . Renovation. Acquisition- Alternatives to Construction This Checklist is to be used in conjunction with School Construction Regulations (603 CMR 38.00) and the application forms package attached. ,All items must be filed with the Department of Education. If previously _ submitted, please put date of submission to the Department. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LEA and ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS (Please check all documentation submitted to DOE) 1. Long Range Facilities Plan with VOTE of the School Committee 2. Rationale for Capital Construction (645-3) 3. _ Inventories of Existing School Space (645-4) 4. X Enrollment Projections (10 years) 5. _ VOTE to Appoint School Building Committee 6. Certified VOTE for design or construction 7 : Educational Specifications, as approved by the School Committee (VOTE) (645-5) 8. _ Scope of Work, including description of renovation or demolition, site work and equipment 9. _ Description of planned community and educational collaborative spaces (with Director sign-off), as applicable' 10. _ Preliminary Schematic Drawings and site plan as approved by the School Committee (VOTE) 11. _ School Committee VOTE to approve proposed site 2. _ Proof of site ownership (Deed) or eminent domain proceedings 13 Approval of Local Conservation Commission 14. Approval of Local Historical Commission 12/20/02 Checklist: Page 2 5 16 17 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. '7. Each site must be reviewed and approved by the MA Historical Commission and a copy of such approval submitted to the Department. (MHC form must be signed and submitted to SBA) Request for School. Plan Review submitted to the Architectural Access Board. Copy of the form and Certification by the Architect to be submitted to SBA All building proposals must file a completed MEPA Review Thresholds. If any question in the checklist is answered "yes", a MEPA Review is required. Applicant must enclose a certificate with this application from the Secretary of Environmental Affairs that the MEPA Review has been completed. Copy of signed form to be submitted to SBA Construction/Project Manager Plan (645-6) Reimbursement Incentive Points for Capital Projects (645-7) Priority Ranking Checklist (645-8) Form F (645-9) - Financial Plan Certified VOTE of authorization of total project funds with copy of warrant of the vote. Certified VOTE of Prop. 2 - Debt Exclusion and evidence of the expiration of any referendum period if applicable Copies of Required Local Approvals: Submit local water service and sewage disposal approval along with Public Health approval; Submit public safety approval from an authorized public official; Certification by local Building Inspector that final plans meet all current state and local building codes. (645-10) Preventive Maintenance Plan (645-12) Contractor Certification Evaluation Questionnaire submitted to DCAM Architect Certifications: Architectural Access Board Submittal (645-11) ❖ Certification of no unapproved space changes from approved preliminary plans and education specifications (645-11) ❖ Certification of compliance with Chapter 70B Regulations (645=11) ❖ Certification from architect that the bid specifications include the correct minority hiring language per any local agreements with MCAD (645-I1) ❖ Certification that containment procedures consistent with SMACNA Guidelines have been included in the planning and cost estimates (645-11) Certification of Cost Effective Design (645-13) 28 29. The town counsel or legal representative for the school district shall provide the Department a letter as, to whether the city/town has/has not any issues or complaints pending with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination per Executive Order 237. Final working construction documents and bid specifications in CD format Final Application submission: Hard Copies of Original Certified Signed Vote of Authorization of Total Project Funding and Prop 2_ override/debt referendum, including Warrants; and Original Signed Form F. All other documents can be scanned onto the CD. CD Format: Please submit copies of.all application documents on a CD. The preferred format is PDF including the final drawings. Other acceptable formats: JPG, TIFF, DOC (word files). For Drawing formats: PLT, DWG (R14); PDF (preferred). S`cHOGL BUILDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMADMINISTRATIVE ADVISORY 02-2 12/23/02 1120 AM a,S get things done . agencies . elected officials ;.i`J.r.e.. ;c Kf.S _Y)tt't'tJp7&' 1.` a i~ f1t.,ia Ifk?2 --select Program Area-- News District/School Administration Educator Services Assessment/Accountability Family & Community L =r Finance/Grants School Finance: School Building Assistance Recent Updates Accounting & Auditing Administrative Advisory 02-2 Chapter 70 Program (Foundation Budget) > Charter Schools May 31, 2002 ;s. DOE Budget Federal Renovation Program Vote to Proceed with Construction . Grants. Information As previously reported, most projects on the waiting list can expect Nutrition Programs " (School Lunch) significant delays before receiving a grant. As part of the application r. Per Pupil Expenditure Reports process, districts must indicate whether they plan to begin construction ,a School Building Assistance in advance of receiving their grant. Districts which plan to start School Choice construction in advance of receiving their grant must submit a School Finance Regulations resolution voted by any one of the following: town meeting, city council, or school committee. The resolution town council board'of selectmen M Special Education , , should state: Statistical Comparisons a Transportation • the name of the project; Vocational Education • that the municipality [or regional school district] intends to start Key contacts construction on the project prior to receiving its state grant; u Links that the municipality [or regional school district] has been advised by the Commissioner of Education that it may not receive the state grant within the time period allowed by statute for temporary borrowing; and • that the municipality [or regional school district] is legally authorized to issue long-term bonds for this project prior to receipt of the state grant. The copy of the resolution submitted to the Department should be certified by the secretary, cleric, or other appropriate official, and should indicate the date of vote. Projects placed on the waiting list will not receive an authorization to proceed with construction without this submission. Deferred Construction Applicants who will be deferring the start of construction until at least the end of the next fiscal year may delay the submission of their final working construction documents and bid specifications (item 29 on the SBA application checklist) by requesting deferred final design status. The following procedures will apply: litti)://fiiiatice].doe.mass.edit/sbtiildixig/adiniii_adVO2_2.htinl Page I oft Si'I-IOOL BUILDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMADMINISTRATIVE ADVISORY 02-2 12/23/02 11:20 AM 1. Applicants must submit a letter with their application materials requesting deferred final design status. For current (FY02) applicants, this means that you will not be starting construction until FY04 at the earliest. 2. Applicants requesting deferred final design status need not submit final working construction documents and bid specifications at this time. In addition, any required local approvals under item 24 and architect certifications under item 27 which require final plans and specifications also maybe deferred. 3. Educational specifications, site plans, and building schematics will still be required. In addition, it is expected that sufficient design work will be completed to provide accurate project cost estimates. 4. Applications for deferred final design status which meet all other program requirements and are approved by the Commissioner will be placed on the waiting list. However, authorization to proceed with construction will be withheld. 5. All deferred items must be submitted to the. Department no later than 12o days prior to the solicitation of bids for the general contract. Construction may not begin until such items have been approved by the Department and the applicant has been authorized to proceed with construction. 6. It is expected that the final plans and specifications will conform substantially to the preliminary plans, and that the architects will so certify. Any significant deviations in scope, size, or cost of the project will require additional review, and may result in the project being removed from the waiting list and treated as a new application. Initial grant payment amounts will not be adjusted to reflect increases in project costs due to the delay in construction. Any such adjustments allowable under program regulations will be made following completion of construction and submission and review of audit material. Sic, +t. t.vct r N47wrxt~x~: rr7:X` ~a1 u"`'1t~c7t 1t3n Search . Site Map . Privacy . Site Info . Contact DOE hItI)://financeLdoc.mass.edu/sbit iIding/admin_adv02_2.IitmI Page 2 of 2 0S yl y S - J c~ t W W z ~0 ? p o / o o~ f. ,lam \ W ~UW p ~ t t, a ck D< CD 0 0 m m 3 M 00 Z Q. N O ~ 3 w m M r t V M m 0 w O oa O w d f t- 1A C n 1=< 1 LZ i 4 L L/ a i 9 ~ 9 December 19, 2002 Mr. Robert Peirce Flansbutgh Associates 77 North Washington St. Boston, MA 02114 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Explorations Reading Memorial High School Reading, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Peirce: The purpose of this letter is to summarize the findings of the preliminary explorations conducted at the referenced site. This work was authorized and conducted in accordance with the scope of services and terms stated in our proposal to you dated December 3, 2002. Background We understand that the Town of Reading is considering constructing an addition between the field house and the school administrative offices as well as an addition in an open courtyard area. Concern was raised regarding the potential presence of peat lying within the area located between the field house and the administrative offices where there are many underground utilities. Although the original preliminary exploration program outlined by FAI consisted of 1 boring in the courtyard and 4 borings within the lower parking area, only 2 borings were completed because of the numerous and uncertain location of underground utilities. As a result 1 boring was taken in the courtyard and 1 boring was taken within the lower parking area. The location of the explorations is shown on the attached Exploration Location Plan. Soil test boring logs were prepared by Weber Engineering Associates, LLC and are also attached to this letter for reference. The findings are discussed herein. Courtyard Area Boring B-1 was conducted within the courtyard area at the approximate location shown on the Exploration Location Plan. Three attempts were made with the hollow flight augers to drill beyond a depth of 4.5-ft. The first attempt was terminated at a depth of 4.5-ft below ground surface when the auger encountered refusal. In this case, refusal is the inability to advance the borehole further without using rock coring methods. Otis) .29- I.a ti Sz.s J fit) - 93 C3rir,rcl~ M. A ! 6 11a °e During the second and third attempt, the borehole was first moved a distance of 5-ft and then 10-ft. In each subsequent attempt, auger refusal was encountered at a depth of approximately Oft and 3-ft below ground surface. In most cases, if a boulder caused refusal, when the location was moved, the borehole could be advanced further. However, since each of these three attempts encountered refusal at relatively the same depth, it is our opinion that the nature of the refusal material is probably bedrock rather than boulders. Coring was not attempted to verify the nature of the material. Based on the limited explorations undertaken, it appears that construction within the courtyard area might encounter bedrock at a relatively shallow depth. You should be aware however that the bedrock surface is probably uneven and the depth to bedrock will vary. Lower Parking Area Because of the numerous underground utilities and their uncertain location within this area, one boring rather than 4 borings was undertakers. Dig Safe and Town representatives declared the location of boring B-2 free of utilities. Similar to the courtyard area, the first borehole attempt encountered auger refusal at a depth of Sft below ground surface. The material at this location consists of approximately 2-ft of fill underlain by glacial till to the depth explored (5-ft). The borehole was moved approximately 5-ft and continued to a depth of 16.5-ft below ground surface. The nature of the refusal material within this area is probably a boulder. The material lying below the surface fill consists of very dense glacial till and we found no visual evidence of peat at this location. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 5-ft below ground surface. As explained previously these explorations were not widespread within this area because of the utilities. The fact that we did not encounter peat at boring B.2 does not preclude the possibility that peat could be present closer b the field house. If peat was encountered and it was to be removed from within the building footprint, the presence of a high groundwater level will require a dewatering effort. Dewatering might also be required during construction even if peat is not present depending upon the building grades. We are pleased to have this opportunity to assist. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, WEBER ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC Richard P. Weber, P.E., Manager Attachments: Exploration Location Plan Test Boring Logs (51 08) 8 S +i ~ 4 92 B1' . i t 1 . 1' `1 k. , l , ion . M. B-1B B-IA B-1 (Three attempts) School Administration Building B-2, B-2A (Two attempts) 40 4D Notes: 1. Drilling conducted by Soil Exploration Corp. on December 19, 2002. 2. Locations of explorations based on tape measurement and are approximate. Weber Engineering Associates, LLC No Scale Exploration Location Plan Geotechnical Engineers December 2002 Reading Memorial High School Holliston, Massachusetts I I Reading, Massachusetts t TEST BORING LOG Sheet 1 Weber Engineerin Associates LLC , g GeotechnicaI Engineers Reading High School BORING NO. B-i Holliston, Massachusetts Reading, Massachusetts DATE: 12/19/02 Groundwater Observations Ground Elev ti a on: Date Started: 12/19/02 Date Depth Casing Stabilization Time Date Finished 12/19/02 (ft) : Driller: Soil Exploration Corp 12/19 Dry At completion Depth S Sample (ft) No. Pen Depth Blows 6" Type Strata Visual Description Note Rec. 0 1 1 24/18 0-2 11-7-12-18 Ss Fill 6" topsoil to brown fine to medium SAND little Silt 2 little Gravel 3 4 3' to 4.5'_ Auger grinding at 4' depth. Auger refusal at 4.5'. 5 Move 5' and continue 6 7 B-1 A Grinding at 3' depth. Auger refusal at 4'. 8 Angular gravel in spoils. Move 10' and continue 9 10 B-1B Grinding at 2' depth. Auger refusal at 3'. 11 12 Possible bedrock or boulders. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Notes: Sample Type/ Field Test Proportioned Used ss = split spoon Trace 0 - 10% Casing Sampler Core A = Auger Little 10 - 20 % Type HSA s s U = Undisturbed Some 20 - 35% Tv = Pocket Torvane And 35-50% ID 4 1-3/8" Pp = Pocket Penetrometer Hammer 140 Ibs. TEST BORING LOG Sheet 1 Weber Engineering Associates, LLC G h i l E Reading High School BORING NO. B-2 eotec n ca ngineers Holliston, b'lassachusetts Reading, Massachusetts DATE: 12/19/02 Groundwater Observations Ground Elevation: Date Started: 12/19/02 Date Depth (ft) Casing Stabilization Time Date Finished: 12/19/02 12/19 5 5' During sampling Driller: Soil Exploration Corp Depth Sample (ft) Pen / " Type Strata Visual Description Note No. Depth Blows / 6 R Rec. 0 1 1 24/18 0-2 7-16-21-26 Ss Fill 4" topsoil to tan fine to medium SAND some Silt, 2" 2 -2'-. topsoil 3 4 Glacial Till 5 2. 4/2 5-5.3 1004" SS _5'_ Wet brown / gray fine SAND and SILT trace Gravel 6 7 Auger refusal at 5'. Possible boulder 8 9 10 Moved boring 5' and continued 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Notes: Sample Type / Field Test = li Proportioned Used 0 T 101/ Casing Sampler Core ss sp t spoon race - o A = Auger Little 10- 20 % Type HSA ss U = Undisturbed Some 20 - 35% ID 4 1-3/8" Tv = Pocket Torvane And 35-50% Pp = Pocket Penetrometer Hammer 140 lbs. TEST BORING LOG Sheet i Weber Engineering Associates, LLC Reading High School BORING NO. B-2A Geotechnical Engineers Reading, Massachusetts DATE: 12/19/02 Holliston, Massachusetts Groundwater Observations Ground Elevation: Date Depth Casing Stabilization Time Date Started: 12/19/02 (ft) Date Finished: 12/19/02 r ti C S il E l ill D 12/19 5 In During sampling p ora on o o xp er: r Depth Sample ti i l D Note Type Strata on escr p Visua (ft) No. Pen / Depth Blows / 611 . Rec 0 I Auger to 5' 2 3 4 5 6 1 18/6 5-6.5 24-48-43 Ss Wet brown fine SAND little Silt some angular Gravel 7 8 9 Glacial Till 10 11 2 18/0 10-11.5 20-30-38 Ss No recovery 12 13 14 15 16 3 18/18 15-16.5 39-39-30 Ss -16.5'_ Brown fine SAND some Silt little angular Gravel 17 18 Bottom of boring 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Notes: Sample Type / Field Test Proportioned Used Casing Sampler Core ss = split spoon Trace 0- I0% A = Auger Little 10 - 20 % Type HSA ss U = Undisturbed Some 20 - 35% 0 1D 4 1-3/8" Tv = Pocket Torvane And 35-50 1. Pp = Pocket. Penetrometer Hammer 140 lbs. Lr' Il^` , r, V .-t 3i S 6 R Hl g lU 0 0 Q Q- 71 0 0 Q ~i 5 a Hi F,L., r. , Lz,` r' f:° F , F' I!si:' 5.;. ~ ~ Q 0 0 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ O C O O O ~ g ~ 4 S Proposed - Article: Complete renovation of the 1970 Areas of RMHS (Science Wing, Library Wing and Field House) and replacement of the 1953 areas with new facilities to include reorganization of interior space to meet all educational program requirements This proposal is the result of an extensive evaluation of existing physical conditions at RMHS as well as a thorough assessment of educational program space needs. This evaluation, undertaken with the assistance of Flansburgh Associates, Inc. was one of the charges to the School Building Committee (SBC) by Town Meeting on April 25, 2002. The SBC has made this proposal after extensive review of and public comment on three alternative approaches to address the physical and educational deficiencies identified in this assessment. Alternative approaches included: 1. Complete renovation of the existing facilities, reorganization of interior space to meet all educational program requirements. This option provided that no new space would be constructed. 2. Complete renovation of all existing facilities with the exception of the original arts/industrial arts wing that would be demolished. A new cafeteria would be constructed to connect the 1953 portion of the building with the 1970 library addition. Interior space would be reorganized to meet all educational program requirements. 3. Complete renovation of the 1970 Areas of RMHS (Science Wing, Library Wing and Field House) and replacement of the 1953 areas with new facilities to include reorganization of interior space to meet all educational program requirements. (The Proposal) When the project is completed, RMHS will provide the needed facilities for the current and anticipated educational program for a projected student population of as many as 1480 students. This includes the projected high school population (grades 9-12) as well as the RISE pre- school program. The 275,000 square foot completed facility will be approximately 55% renovated space and 45% new space. Included in the proposal is the substantial upgrading of athletic facilities to include replacement of the football stadium with a new state-of-the-art multi-purpose stadium to support football, soccer and other field sports. Off-street parking will be increased to accommodate 600 cars (there are 270 spaces today). Renovations within existing facilities will include replacement of virtually all mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Windows will be replaced with insulating glass; roofs and walls will be repaired to increase thermal efficiency to current codes and standards. 40 Primary attributes of the Proposal The Proposal, Option 3, was determined to be the best alternative among the three principally due to the fact that while each option requires extensive construction, the Proposal will result in the least disruption of the ongoing educational program, will not require extensive relocation of students and teachers and will, when completed, provide a more easily managed, lower operating cost facility with spaces designed to match the educational and community needs of the Town of Reading. The following is an outline of the key attributes of the Proposal: • Completed facility: 273,000 SF • 56% Renovated Space, 44% New Construction • 31-33 Months Construction • $54 million total cost, $24.5 million Town of Reading cost • All elements of the educational program are included and in the proper relationship to other programs (Math is next to Science; Administration is adjacent to the main entry; etc.) • All spaces meet MAAB/ADA requirements for accessibility. • All classroom spaces meet program space goals. • Science Labs, Music, Art and Drama programs will be supported through new and or better facilities, furniture and equipment. • Media Center consolidates on one floor, improving control and use. • Cafeteria (new construction) creates new school "Commons". • Access issues of older facilities are eliminated by consolidation in new space and connection to Field House. • Auditorium is replaced with design to serve music and drama use as well as community uses. • New separate entry for Auditorium will be created with new adjacent off-street parking. Access control will be improved. • Incorporation of structured artificial turf on multipurpose field and one practice field will substantially improve field capacity. • Automobile access will be improved by relocating curb cuts onto Oakland Road. Substantial additional parking will be created on site. • Demolition and replacement of "1950's building" will increase first cost while reducing long-term maintenance costs. • Educational program will not occupy space under construction. Single relocation to new space will be completed after new construction. • Administrative Offices will maintain control of primary entrance locations during all phases of construction. • Inconvenience/distraction for teachers and students is lower during construction -ala Parker Middle School project. • Opportunities for Contractor to fail in meeting schedule are lower due to two simpler construction phases. Failure to complete a phase would have no impact on users. Budget: Gross SF 273,000 Construction Cost $38,500,000 Contingencies $ 6,600,000 Professional Fees $ 3,500,000 Furniture & Equipment $ 1,500,000 Technology $ 2,300,000 Other Project Costs $ 1,600,000 TOTAL $54,000,000 11~~ SBA Reimbursement $29,500,000 Reading Cost $24.500,000 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9070 TOWN MANAGER Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM TO: School Committee School Building Committee Bylaw Committee FROM: Peter 1. Hechenbleikner DATE: December 20, 2002 RE: Warrant - Special Town Meeting Attached is the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting on January 13, 2003. Please get all background material to me by noon on December 24, 2002. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote on Town affairs, to meet at the place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant in the following public places within the Town of Reading: Precinct 1 Precinct 2 Precinct 3 Precinct 4 Precinct 5 Precinct 6 Precinct 7 Precinct 8 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street Registry of Motor Vehicles, 275 Salem Street Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street Alice M. Barrows School, 16 Edgemont Avenue Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue Charles Mobil on the Run, 1330 Main Street The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days prior to January 13. 2003, the date set for the Special Town Meeting in this Warrant. I also caused an attested copy of this Warrant to be published in the Reading Chronicle in the issue of Daniel W. Halloran Jr., Constable A true copy. Attest: Cheryl A. Johnson, Town Clerk 1 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING (Seal) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings: In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and Town affairs, to meet at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland Road in said Reading, on Monday, January 13, 2003, at seven-thirty o'clock in the evening, at which time and place the following articles are to be acted upon and determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of the Reading Home Rule Charter. ARTICLE 1 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, Town Accountant, Treasurer-Collector, Board of Assessors, Director of Public Works, Town Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement Board, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Cemetery Trustees, Community Planning & Development Commission, Conservation Commission, Town Manager and any other Board or Special Committee. Board of Selectmen Background: This Article appears on the warrant of every Town Meeting. There are no known reports to be given under this article. Finance Committee Report: No report. Bylaw Committee Report: No report. ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Special Committees, and to see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of funding Town Officers and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Background: This article is included on the warrant for all Town Meetings. One instruction may be given, which would to be to extend the deadline for passing papers for the sale of the former landfill. At this time it is expected that the passing of papers will be on or about January 15, 2003 Finance Committee Report: No report. Bylaw Committee Report: No report. 2 ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2003 - FY 2012, Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule Charter and as previously amended, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Background: This article appears on the warrant for every Town Meeting. At this Town Meeting, an amendment to the adopted Capital Improvements Program will be needed by adding project "BL-S-19 NEW ELEM. SCHOOL ADDITIONAL FUNDING 2500 CO", which indicates an increase in debt authorization in the amount of $2,500,000, subject to a debt exclusion vote. This is the subject matter of Article 6 on this Warrant. The Capital Improvements Program attached to this report shows the change that would be required. No change is needed for the RMHS project, which is already in the Capital Improvement Program (B-S-011) in two line items for a total of $59.5 million. This amount is greater that that proposed in Article 5. Finance Committee Resort: Bylaw Committee Report: No report. ARTICLE 4 To see if the Town will vote to raise by borrowing, whether in anticipation of reimbursement from the State under Chapter 44, Section 6, - Massachusetts General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority, the sum of one million eight hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000) for the improvement to Walkers Brook Drive and related areas pursuant to the approved PWED grant for this purpose, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Background: The Town is the successful recipient of a Public Works Economic Development grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (PWED) in the amount of $1,800,000 for the improvements to Walkers Brook Drive as part of the development of the landfill site. We have received the grant announcement, and have executed all documents related to the grant. The grant is given as a reimbursement to the Town, and we therefore need to set up the project exactly like a Chapter 90 project. We do not expect to sell any debt for the project, but need the authorization in the event that reimbursements are not made in a schedule that we need. Finance Committee Report: Bylaw Committee Report: No report. ARTICLE 5 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing, or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of making extraordinary repairs and/or additions to the Reading Memorial High School at 62 Oakland Road, including the costs of engineering and architectural fees, plans, documents, cost estimates, and related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to be expended by and under the direction of the School Committee; and to see if the Town will vote to authorize the School Building Committee, 3 the School Committee, or any other agency of the Town to file applications for a grant or grants to be used to defray the cost of all or any part of the cost of the project; and to see if the Town will vote to authorize the School Committee to enter into all contracts and agreements as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article; provided however that any borrowing authorized by this Article and any appropriation subject to this Article shall be contingent upon the passage of a debt exclusion referendum question under General Laws Chapter 59 s 21c within 90 days of the close of this Special Town Meeting; or take any other action with respect thereto. School Building Committee Background: Finance Committee Report: Bylaw Committee Report: No report. School Building Committee Report: ARTICLE 6 To see what additional sum the Town will raise by borrowing, or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of constructing a new school and associated recreational facilities: On land off Dividence Road shown on Reading Board of Assessor's Rev. January 1, 1981 Map 207 as Lot 3 consisting of 2.0 acres and Lot 4 consisting of 9.6 acres, which land was acquired by the Town for school and recreation purposes by order of taking dated April 13, 1970, recorded in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 11831, Page 432, including the costs of original furnishings and equipment, landscaping, paving and other site improvements, engineering and architectural fees, plans and specifications, inspection fees, relocation costs, contingencies and related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to be expended by and under the direction of the School Committee, as an addition to, and in conjunction with, the sum authorized by vote under Article 4 of the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting of December 7, 1998; and to see if the Town will vote to authorize the School Committee or any other agency of the Town to file applications for a grant or grants to be used to defray all or any part of the cost of construction and related matters of said new school and associated recreational facilities, and to see if the Town will vote to authorize the School Committee to enter into all contracts and agreements as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article; provided however that any borrowing authorized by this Article and any appropriation subject to this Article shall be contingent upon the passage of a debt exclusion referendum question under General Laws Chapter 59 s 21 c within 90 days of the close of this Special Town Meeting; or take any other action with respect thereto. School Committee Background: Finance Committee Report: 4 Bylaw Committee Report: No report. School Committee Report: ARTICLE 7 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more of the votes taken under Article 12 of the Warrant of the Annual Town Meeting of April 22, 2002, relating to the Fiscal Year 2003 Municipal Budget, and see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate as the result of any such amended votes for the operation of the Town and its government, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen Background: In the event that either or both of Articles 5 and 6 are approved by Town Meeting, the Board of Selectmen has voted to hold a Special Election in February for the voters to determine whether or not to approve the debt exclusions for either or both of these two projects. The Town has approved a budget for the current fiscal year for elections and registration based on the 3 scheduled elections. There is no money in the budget for a Special Election. Therefore, an amendment to the existing Elections and Registration budget in the amount of $13,500 will be needed to fund the cost of a special election. The funding of the Election would be from Free Cash, which has a current balance of over $1,200,000. Finance Committee Report: Bylaw Committee Report: No report. and you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an attested copy thereof in at least one (1) public place in each precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to January 13, 2003, the date set for the meeting in said Warrant, and to publish this Warrant in a newspaper published in the Town, or by mailing an attested copy of said Warrant to each Town Meeting Member at least fourteen (14) days prior to the time of holding said meeting. Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with your doings thereon to the Town Clerk at or before the time appointed for said meeting. Given under our hands this 17th day of December, 2002. Camille W. Anthony, Chairman Matthew Cummings, Vice Chairman Richard W. Schubert, Secretary George V. Hines Gail F. Wood SELECTMEN OF READING Daniel W. Halloran Jr., Constable 6