HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-03 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesV
Reading School Building Committee
Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on December 3 2002, 7:30 p.m.
(In the RMHS Guidance Career Center)
Committee Members Attending:
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Bill Carroll (BC)
Tim Twomey (TT)
Warren Cochrane (WC)
Paula Perry (PP)
Jeff Struble (JS)
Alex McRae (AM)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
Featured Guests:
Frank Orlando (Staff)
Dr. Harry Harutunian (Staff)
Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.)
Robert Peirce (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.)
WC introduced two scouts attending the meeting from Troop 728 working on their
Citizenship in the Community merit badges, Ted Coleman and Robert Cochrane.
~n
E
a <
> _rrnrn
0-
RG announced that the BOS had requested a joint meeting with the SBC on the
following Tuesday (12/10/02) to discuss the need for a special Town Meeting and a
special election for the high school project so that they (the BOS) might be able to
schedule such events. The purpose of this SBC meeting, RG said, was to go over a
probable timetable for the remainder of the schematic design project in order to be
prepared for the BOS joint meeting. He asked that FAI begin this discussion.
Prior to beginning, Robert Peirce asked that the subject of authorizing payment for test
borings into the sub-surface layers underlying the area for the new addition portion of
Option 3 be taken up. He passed out a memorandum containing a proposal from Weber
Associates (geotechnical consultant) that itemized the procedures to be done (four
borings plus analysis and the costs associated with them (copy attached). The
consultant's fee was already covered by the contract between FAI and the SBC, but the
drilling/patching costs of $1,825 were not. RG called for a motion to authorize this
amount and it was so moved by DL and seconded by PP. Calling for discussion, JS
asked if borings were not needed under the proposed area for the new auditorium. Mr.
Peirce said FAI would ask the consultant if additional borings would be required there
and if they were, then another cost proposal/authorization would be requested. After
more general discussion regarding the need for borings, a vote was taken and the result
was unanimous in the affirmative.
Mr. Pierce then began his discussion of the schedule for the next few months.
Reading School Building Committee
lw"' ting Uinutes from .Deceinber 3, 2002
- He said his office had come up with two timetables based on two different
dates for the debt exclusion election which would result from acceptance of
the schematic design by Town Meeting (at a January 13, 2003 Special Town
Meeting). He presented both in a handout to the Committee (copy attached).
He pointed out that the tasks to follow up until the Special Town Meeting
were the same for both timetables, namely finishing the schematic design of
Option 3 while coordinating that design with the SBC and other Town boards.
One timetable took February 25, 2003 as a tentative election date, a Special
Election. This would allow the maximum time to solicit/select the
(completing) architect and prepare the project for a formal SBA submission
on June 1, 2003. The other timetable took the regularly scheduled election
on April 8, 2003 as the debt exclusion vote and compressed the post-vote
tasks of architect selection and project preparation for a June 1St submission
into eight weeks instead of fourteen (for the Special Election timetable). He
noted that although the official submission date for projects is June 27th, the
SBA strongly recommends submitting project proposals on June 1St so that
they can be reviewed for compliance with submission guidelines. If
amendments were necessary to make a proposal compliant, there would then
be time to file one before June 27th
- Mr. Pierce noted that both scenarios employed advance preparation and
release of the RFQ for the final architect prior to the debt exclusion election.
This would allow the receipt of responses to the RFQ on or about the date of
the election, requiring only three more weeks to select the architect. In this
- way, the non-design time between the election and the June 1St submission
would be minimized. Several Committee members discussed the effect of
soliciting architects for proposals before knowing if the project were to be
funded. It was acknowledged that if the RFQ were clear on the
circumstances surrounding the funding, then the architects would know the
risk involved with committing their time and effort to get the commission.
A general discussion took place concerning the logistics of the development
of the RFQ. Advance preparation (before the election) by which board (the
School Committee or the SBC) appeared to be confusing, but the article to be
put before Town Meeting was clear that all procurement of professional
services for the final design of the project was to be overseen by the School
Committee. Also discussed was the suitability of calling for responses to the
RFQ before, after or on the same date as the election. Such decisions were
thought to be in the purview of the SC if Town Meeting approved the high
school article. Dr. Harutunian sought and received permission from the
Committee to begin work on the RFQ by the Administration before the
Special Town Meeting (by consensus).
Messrs. Peirce and Bowen argued that the disadvantages placed on the
project by an April 8th election were considerable, primarily due to the short
time allowed after architect selection (about one month). The amount of
document production, multiple board approvals and familiarization (for a new
design team) would tax the design professionals responsible for them and
risk producing an unacceptable SBA submission. The economic
disadvantages of having to wait another year for state participation could be
on the order of $6M if the State reduced reimbursement rates by at least 10%
Readhi q School Building; Committee
t 9eetint; Minutes front .Deceinber 3, 2002
in that year (which is now proposed by the DOE) when added to ongoing
inflation costs. The Committee asked that FAI summarize these cost
penalties for joint meeting with the Selectmen.
Observer Linda Phillips asked if the SBA might ask for a different option in
February after reviewing the initial submission from December 1 and also
wondered if making the June 1St deadline might not be of value if the SBA
was going to evaluate projects until the Fall of 2003 (which is in FY04). Sid
Bowen answered that the SBA had already responded that Option 3 was
acceptable for submission. He also said that his discussions with the
financial officer for the SBA indicated that June 2003 submission were
unlikely to be affected by later revisions (including the proposed 10%
reimbursement reduction). He reiterated his understanding that the exact
course for any project submitted to the SBA this year could not be known in
advance owing to the uncertainties in the State's financial situation.
- JS asked if FAI had enough time in their pre-Town Meeting schedule to
assemble the schematic design, including an independent cost estimate. Mr.
Bowen said that if the SBC could meet with them at the times indicated and if
no substantial roadblocks were encountered in the design's progress, they
had enough time.
- More discussion on the logistics of calling both the Special Town Meeting and
the Special Election occurred, including the desire to put the subject matter
before the Finance Committee well before the Town Meeting.
Observer Jackie Mandell asked FAI for a list of the items submitted to the
SBA in the December 1 st package. Robert Peirce responded that the
submission contained a draft of a long range educational plan, a rationale for
the project, the existing conditions report, a summary of the three Options
developed, a description of the preferred Option (Opt. 3) and an inventory of
the existing high school space.
RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the October 16, 2002 RSBC meeting.
DL so moved and was seconded by PP. He called for any additions, deletions or
corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the
result was 7 in favor, none opposed and one abstention (7-0-1); hence the motion
passed.
With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT so moved and
was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
unrecorded).
Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES
Memorandum
Date: December 3, 2002
To: Reading School Building Committee
From: Robert Peirce
Re: Reading Memorial High School
We recommend borings to investigate the sub surface conditions of the proposed area of addition. The
Borings can be scheduled for December 19, 2002. We are requesting that the Committee provide the
borings per Attachment I, A.(1) of the contract.
The attached proposal details the costs for this work. It includes (4) borings in the area between the
Science / Math wing and the Field House.. The results will be evaluated, in writing, by the
Geo-Technical Engineer The Geo-Technical Engineers fees are a part of the Architects fees for
Schematic Design. We recommend that this work would be coordinetd through Weber Engineering
Associates, LLC.
Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114-19 10 T 617-367-3970 F 617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com
een"hgAssociatos-
December 3, 2002
Mr. Robert Peirce
Flansburgh Associates, Inc.
77 North Washington St.
Boston, MA 02114
Re: Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical Services
Reading Memorial High School Addition
Reading, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Peirce:
We are pleased to submit this proposal in the form of a Letter Agreement between Weber
Engineering Associates, LLC (Consultant) and Flansburgh Associates, Inc. (Client) for the
Consultant to provide the preliminary scope of services outlined below. These services are not
sufficient for final design purposes.
We have arranged for a driller to undertake the work on December 19, 2002 (earlier if schedules
.F permit) pending your authorization. Our report will be delivered electronically within 3 days of
completing the exploration program.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
We propose the following scope of services:
1. Coordinate the services of a drilling contractor to undertake one day of explorations at the
approximate locations determined by FAI. The objective of the work is to assess the
potential presence of peat and render an opinion on how this material will affect foundation
costs.
2. Provide a representative to observe the exploration program. The drillers will stake out the
explorations. Although the drillers will notify dig safe, a representative of the school must be
available to verify that the borehole locations will not affect private utilities that might not be
cleared by Dig Safe.
3. Conduct preliminary engineering studies leading to an assessment of the site conditions and
in particular whether peat is present and how it might affect foundations.
('h~?n~: { i)51 ,7?~.)„$_ ..t Fax l$2~S) 808-" J 8 4 9'~ Bri~irc.1i.Ff Lana. ,I 1I ( t ' s 4 c n . l'. 1 ;i i ' ,ti
~
,
4. Prepare a letter surnmarizing this assessment and provide an electronic copy of this report.
We expect that our report will be delivered within 3 days of completing the exploration
program.
The fee for geotechnical engineering services as described above will be billed at a hunp sum of
$1,100, which includes observations and the preliminary engineering assessment. In addition, we
recommend that the School Department budget $1,825 for drilling services.
Our invoice will be submitted upon completion of our report. Payment is due within 30 days receipt
of invoice.
CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT
The attached Conditions of Engagement form an integral part of the Agreement.
ACCEPTANCE
The proposal and Conditions of Engagement can be accepted by signing below and returning a copy
to us or issuing a purchase order making reference to this proposal.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to assist. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours,
WEBER ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC
Richard P. Weber, P.E.
Manager
ACCEPTED
Name (Duly authorized representative)
Title
Date
0 Q - 7
1 =I C r3 i~a x (6RSj :i)c "sSa 9~ i.3ri^rcli'1' i.anC; i1c,i,isti,r: 'r1 t;~..!o
Lc ter :'grccrnelnt -itC.,a(Iin NI c;n~c~z~ial. ili:;1,1 5~h,ooI
CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT
Services provided under this Agreement by Weber Engineering Associates, LLC (Consultant) are subject to the following Conditions
of Engagement. Acceptance and use of any material provided is conditioned on the Client's acceptance of these terms.
RIGHTS OF ENTRY
The Client will provide the right of entry for Consultant, its subcontractors and all necessary equipment in order to complete the work.
Consultant and its subcontractors will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the property. However, the Client
understands that in the normal course of work some damage, such as netting, settling or uneven surfaces may occur. The subcontractor
will make a reasonable effort to avoid damage but the correction or restoration shall not become the obligation of Consultant or its
subcontractor. The Client agrees herein not to make any claim against Consultant arising out of such damages.
UTILITIES
In the prosecution of its work, Consultant will take reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean structures or
utilities. The Client shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant and his agents for any damage or claim arising from, or
relating to subterranean structures which are not specifically brought to Consultant's attention, and accurately shown on plans and
drawings furnished to Consultant
SAMPLES
Consultant will not retain or take custody of soil or rock samples retrieved from the exploration program. Non-hazardots samples will
be disposed at the completion of the exploration program. If the Client wishes to retain soil or rock samples he/she must advise the
Consultant en writing prior to undertaking the exploration program and provide the contact and address below where the samples
should be delivered. In the event that samples collected by Consultant or provided by Client or wastes generated as a result of
activities hereunder contain or potentially contain substances or constituents which are or may be hazardous or detrimental to health,
safety, or the environment as defined by federal, state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances ("Hazardous Materials"), said
Hazardous Materials shall remain the property of Client and Client shall have responsibility for them as generator. Hazardous
Materials discovered by Consultant which have been removed by Consultant from the Project Site shall be prepared by Client for
lawful transportation and returned to Client at the Project Site within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) days, or such lesser
time in which the legal obligation exists to remove such Hazardous Material from its then location after notice has been communicated
to Client.
Contact and Company Name:
Delivery Address:
t
City, State, Zip:
ENGAGEMENT OF LABORATORIES AND OTHERS
If so requested or agreed by the Client, the Consultant will recommend the Client's engaging the services of laboratories, testing
services, subconsultants, or third-parties to perform suitable aspects of the required Services. Invoices for such third-parties will be
reviewed by the Consultant, and the Consultant will make recommendations to the Client regarding payment. Unless otherwise
agreed by the parties, payment to these third-parties will be made directly by the Client. The Consultant will recommend the use of
such third-parties with reasonable care but does not guarantee their services and will not be liable for their errors or omissions.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
A. Drawings, diagrams, plans, specifications, calculations, reports, processes, computer processes and software,
operational and design data, and all other documents and information produced in connection with the project as instruments of
service, regardless of form, shall be confidential and the proprietary information of Consultant, and shall remain the sole and exclusive
property of Consultant whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Client shall not have or acquire any title to
or ownership rights in any of the documents or information prepared by Consultant. The Client shall be permitted to retain printed
copies of such documents or information for information and Reference only in connection with the Client's use and occupancy of the
project. The documents and/or information shall not be used or reused by the Client on other projects, for additions to this project, or
for completion of this project by others, provided Consultant is not in default under this Agreement, except with the express written
consent of Consultant and with appropriate compensation to Consultant. The Client shall inform each of its officers and employees
who receive such documents or information of the above-mentioned restrictions, and shall endeavor to assure conformity to such
restrictions.
B. Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory requirements or for other purposes in connection with the
project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of Consultant rights under this section.
STANDARD OF CARE
The standard of care and responsibility for performance of Consultant services shall be exclusively the negligence standard for
professional services, which standard shall be defined and measured as of the time that Consultant performs these services under this
Agreement, and not according to any standards that may subsequently be developed, accepted, or otherwise recognized in the
profession. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
encountered at the location where the borings, surveys, or explorations are made by Consultant, and that the data, interpretations and
'imoit 0's hax S) 805-1 42 Briar cIifT lane, 1-1 o11isCon N1 A 01740
letter A.gre.eIII ent. .beading !A ,orin[ Ri;_im e!,roo.l
I';:ao 3
recommendations of the Consultant are based solely on the information available to it. Consultant will be responsible for those data,
- interpretations, and recommendations made by it, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation made by others of the information
developed.
CONSTRUCTION MEANS AND METHODS
The Consultant shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequencing or procedures, or jobsite safety
precautions or programs, as they are solely the responsibility of any contractor(s) performing the work on the site. Consultant shall
not be responsible for defects discovered in the contractor's work.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
It is agreed between the parties that the liability of Consultant to the Client, the owner, all construction contractors and subcontractors
on the project for any cause of action whatsoever including, but not limited to, those arising from the professional acts, errors or
omissions of Consultant shall be limited to the total amount available from insurance, or the total fee billed by Consultant for the
services rendered on the project, whichever is greater. Notwithstanding any possible reference to the contrary, Consultant shall not be
liable for any consequential, special or indirect damages for any allegation of error, act, or omission, nor for any other cause arising
from or relating to this contract. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Client shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
Consultant, from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from claims against the Consultant
arising out of or resulting from the work of others, except subcontractors to Consultant. Such indemnification shall not apply to
claims, damages, losses or expenses that are finally detennined to result from the willful or reckless disregard by Consultant of its
obligations under this Agreement. In the case of joint liability, the liability of Consultant shall be limited to the portion or degree of its
actual negligence, and recovery against the Consultant shall be limited to the percentage share of the joint negligence of the total
amount recoverable.
INSURANCE
Consultant represents and warrants that he maintains professional liability insurance on a claims made basis. Certificates for such
policies of insurance shall be provided to the Client upon request. Within the limits and conditions of such insurance, Consultant
agrees to indemnify and save the Client harmless from and against any loss, damage, or liability arising from the negligent acts of
Consultant within the limits of its liability coverage, and as further limited by other limitations stated herein, Consultant shall not be
responsible for any loss, damage or liability beyond the amounts, limits and conditions of insurance. Consultant shall not be
responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from acts by errors or omissions by Client, its agents, staff or other consultants
employed by the Client..
MEDIATION
Prior to the initiation of any legal proceedings, the parties agree to submit all claims, disputes, or controversies arising out of, or in
relation to, the interpretation, application, or enforcement of this Agreement to mediation. Mediation shall be conducted under the
auspices of the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its then existing terms and procedures. The cost of mediation
shall be bome equally by the parties. The party seeking to initiate mediation shall do so by submitting a formal written request to the
other party to this Agreement and the American Arbitration Association. This Article shall survive completion or termination of this
Agreement, but under no circumstances shall either party call for mediation of any claim or dispute arising out of this Agreement after
such period of time as would normally bar the initiation of legal proceedings to litigate such a claim or dispute under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
SEPARATE AND SEVERABLE
Each provision of this agreement is separate and severable from the others and if any one or more of them is deemed void or
unenforceable, the other obligations shall remain in effect, except as they may affect the actual performance of the work hereunder.
LAWS VENUE AND JURISDICTION
This contract shall be deemed a Massachusetts contract, governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts jurisdiction and venue. Any action brought against the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement for work performed
hereunder shall be brought in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exclusively unless otherwise agreed in writing.
TERMINATION
If this agreement has not been executed within 90 days from the date shown on this agreement, then this agreement is terminated. The
Consultant may extend this agreement although it retains the right to adjust fees if necessary. Either party may terminate an executed
agreement after not less than seven calendar day's written notice for any reason or for no reason at all. If any party terminates this
agreement, Consultant shall be entitled to all fees and expenses accrued through the date of termination.
1111 o11 e f`tiS) 5?3 F' ax (8;2S1 803..?3Sa 9? 1.3riarc!ial' bane, 114 o(li.s11o11 N1. A. t~l'=: ii
L.-cuter A,greeineni ].reading, JIeinoria1 1-1 ig lm Scltaul
p .,S e 4
~
Page 1 of 1
Subj: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Date: 12/2/02 10:57:00 AM Eastern Standard Time a
From: phechenbleikner@ci.reading_ma,us
To: langsam~n@aol_com, harread,@aoi.com
File: 2003.IanSpec.TownMeetingwarrant.doc (44544 bytes) DL Time (46666 bps): < 1 minute
Sent from the Internet (Details).
For your review. Richard Foley had some changes - to eliminate the
reference of the RMHS project to schematics, and to make it a School
Committee project, rather that School Building Committee - items I had
inadvertently left in when I cut and pasted.
Also i moved the budget amendment article to the end - it isn't needed
unless the school articles are approved.
The RMHS project does not require action under Article 3 - the CIP - but
the Elementary project would to add money.
Pete
Tuesday, December 03, 2002 America Online: Harread
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETT R A F T
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
J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street
Precinct 2
Registry of Motor Vehicles, 275 Salem Street
Precinct 3
Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street
Precinct 4
Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue
Precinct 5
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street
Precinct 6
Alice M. Barrows School, 16 Edgemont Avenue
Precinct 7
Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue
Precinct 8
Arthur W. Coolidge Middle School, 89 Birch Meadow Drive
The date of posting being not less than fourteen (14) days prior to ,
the date set for the SSpecial 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
A true copy. Attest:
Cheryl A. Johnson, Town Clerk
Daniel W. Halloran Jr., Constable
1
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
(Seal)s
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 , 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 Commiftee.
Board of Selectmen
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
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
ARTICLE 4 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 rand/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,
the School Committee, or any other agency of the Town to file application 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
2
i
+ Y ~J 4C
this Article shall be contingent upon the passage of a debt exclusion referendum
question under General Laws Chapter 59 s 21c no later than December 31, 2003; or
take any other action with respect thereto.
School Building Committee
ARTICLE 5 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 no later than
December 31, 2003; or take any other action with respect thereto.
School Committee
ARTICLE 6 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
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
, 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.
3
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
1
Daniel W. Halloran Jr., Constable
Richard W. Schubert, Secretary
George V. Hines
Gail F. Wood
SELECTMEN OF READING
4
N
O
of
O '
N
c
0
a
c
ro
o
o
A v
= M
0) W
c. -ro
~ ro U
E <n
N 0 `
s ~ m
a
N
LL
c
O
N
N
75
~
I
T
G
~
I
I
~
C
~
T
ro
T
ro
M
O
+1
O
Q
¢
N
`m
♦
`
0
0
ro
LL
2
~
N
LL
C
ro
ro
7
~
N
E
p
®
N
o
O
O
N
O
Z
Z
C N
N
O
O
O
O
to
o
M
V'
O
O
ch
O
It
0
_ x
'
~ to
a~
3
p
N d
N
N
M
O
co
O
co
O
m
O
M
O
m
O
c
m
O
co
O
m
O
MO
co
O
ro
p
O
N
tb
M
(O
ui
N
to
N
N
N
N
N
ti')
N
It`
r
r
a
r
N
LL
N
N
`
~
a
N
~
N
~
C7
CJ
O
Y
Q
N
O
N
O
N
O
~
co
M
O
M
O
M
O
MO
co
O
MO
co
O
co
O
co
O
'
co
O
OM
co
O
r
N
w
m
n
n
N
co
N
0
N
LO
N
ro
r
w
r
m
n
(V
~
N
N
a
a
M
M
O
[D
c
o
3
d
O
N
U
N
N
E
(
7
U1
C
C
tq
Z
N I
i
I
0
o
m
O)
c
co
p
U.
CL
d
a
•
m
0
r
ca
I
i
I
L
O
to
V
c
a
U)
¢
N
'o
c n
O
3
CL
m
m
CL
a
E
I
I
I
o
o
c
o
a
o
E
¢
U
n
E
o
0
m
0
c
m
m
o f
c
o
co
a
C7
'D
5
.O
a
0
to
m LL
p
¢
¢
U
Q
m
I
m
O
F
(D
LL
0-
~
o.
d
0
O
U) o
o
m
~
~
C C
~
W
O
Oa
N
[2
~
C
C 0
' N
U
a O ro
'C
C
N
N 0
m
m I
m
ro
3
>
o
c
v
"0 o
~
0
> a
-a
fl
.
00!
q ;
U) I
U)
CL
i
a
a
CL
H
4
U
Q
Z
Q
'a
Q
CL
Q
N
r
M et
to
co
n
co
Oa
O
r
N
M
'e
Ul
to
n
l i
I I
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
p
m
0
Q
r
rn
c
LL
c
m
U
a
a
Q
c
ro
o 0
s m
m
o~ U c
~ o
~ ro
0 0, w
aE r ,a
CC U
O
7
L
(o
ca
M
o
¢
a
Q
N
a
LL
l
>o
Z
z
C
n
O
O
O
O
N
O
M
V'
O
O
M
O
h
o
O y
~
M
N
O
N
O
M
p
p
M
O
O
~
O
M
O
O Cl)
I
O
O
_
-B
T
N
a0
ch
`D
O
$22
°
W
O
m
O
N
O
N
W
N
N
N
'C
N
N
V
'V'
M
V
M
V'
~
d'
c0
t0
ii
N
O
M
O
M
M
M
T
to
N
V'
a
M
M
d'
V
V'
O
c0
3
c
°
m
o
v
i
ro
0
c
aa)
c
R
N
j
Q
O
0
a
Q
°
a
C
C7
. N
Z
I
L
C
N
b
N
U
~
Q1
41,
U
ro
O
~
o
c
w
m
v
Q
a
m
C
2
ro
3
Q
a
n.
ro o. E
E
o
o
c
o
~B
°
E
t5 E
U a o
=
rn
rn
m
c
c
3
m
O
o
o
a) .1
Nti
_
o
m ¢
U
ac~i
•a
m
°
E
F
~
v'
n'
tr
n-
U)
o
°
too m o
CL
0
N
a
°
m
w
a
R
a)
m N
m
m
° a -0
0
q) C:,
Pm
m a
~ m
co
co
e
aro
o
m
°
aC
a°
m .°c
o
a> a a
I
o O
l to
w
to
CL u.
¢
a
H
D
CL
U
cc
no
z
Q a
o Q
O r
N t7 et to
i w
r`
N
I
M
d'
to
tD
f~
O
O
r r
r r r
r
r
0
C
N
.ca
0
N
N
Q
m
lL
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D
Superintendent
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
82 Oakland Road, Post Office Box 180
Reading, Massachusetts 01867-0280
Telephone 781-944-5800
Fax 781-942-9149
Dennis A. Richards
Associate Superintendent
TO: Reading School Committee
FROM: Dr. Harry K. Harutunian
DATE: December 3, 2002
TOPIC: Handout
l
Please find attached, for your information, a document being distributed by Gary Phillips
regarding the high school renovation. project.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
CC: School Building Committee
Motivation and motives of those questioning the process on the high school -
Protect the best interest of the Town in area of school building projects. We believe
that the School Department has followed a consistent pattern that repeatedly favors the
best interests of the architect Flansburgh Associates over the best interests of our town.
1. The School Department violated the Designer Selection Statue in illegally hiring the
architect, Flansburgh Associates to design the new elementary school and Barrows'
renovation.
2. The School Department lied to the Attorney General in the 5/4/00 Bid Protest by
representing the existence of an elementary school feasibility study (commissioned by
the School Building Committee in Aug. 1998) but never done.
With no feasibility study (and no contract for the $50,000 we paid) the School
Department manufactured information to justify the need for a new school (inflated
enrollment numbers, delayed conservation approval and traffic study, disregarding
site conditions of ledge, wetlands and parking, etc.)
4. Misleading the voters by providing false or inaccurate information;
a. School Department undermined our democratic process, by taking away our right
to make an informed decision about the need for a new school.
b. School Department diminished our ability to prioritize our capital projects by
insisting the new school need was a higher priority than the long awaited high
school renovation.
c. School Department delayed Barrows renovation (approved 1/99) unnecessarily
for nearly 4 years- that project was never opposed by us.
5. Waste of public funds
a. Litigation costs over $225,000 as of September 1, 2002
b. Town paid $50,000 for non-existent feasibility study
c. Town had to pay $6,000 additional for traffic study that was negotiated out of the
Feasibility study "contract" by the Superintendent in an agreement he made with
the architect (hired by the School Bldg. Committee but deferred the Feasibility
Study negotiations to the Superintendent).
d. Cost the Town $1,800 for architect to attend Bid Protest 5/4/00
e. Loss of the $2.2 million in upgrades on new boilers and new HVAC system in
high school since 1997 if we use Option 3 - 60% demolition and new school
approach. The ability to salvage this investment was never addressed.
6. Delayed High School Renovation Equals loss of millions in State Aid
Over 13% decrease in reimbursement percentages presently.
Reimbursement rates were 66% (until 6/00) now at 53%, until end of FY'03, then
down to 43% if legislature votes on Dept. of Education recommendation to reduce
SBA reimbursement rates by an additional 10%. Gross reduction of
reimbursement anticipated at more than 20% or, loss of over $10 million dollars.
The responsibility for this decision lies at the doorstep of the school department
and superintendent.
7. School Building Committee presently allowing architect. to design his own job
a. Town Meeting voted for schematics for high school renovation.
b. Town voters voted for schematics for high school renovation.
c. RFP crafted by School Bldg. Committee specifies 3 renovation options. However
voters were denied any choice for cost options.
d. Ignored the valuable data compiled in the 2 feasibility studies costing us $75K
which could have addressed the high school renovation with a composite of over
8 options presented.
However - we ended up paying for a third feasibility study (at a cost of $219K) to
justify 60% demolition and only 40% renovation and new addition, truly more than
we can afford at 54 million dollars, but beneficial for the architect.
8. Recommendations
a. Information provided to the public should be complete, accurate and reliable.
b. Superintendent should not have responsibility as business project manager on any
school building projects. He should focus on educational issues.
c. All School Building Committee members should disclose personal and family
business associations.
d. Established voting dates should be adhered to accommodate the largest number of
voters. The Selectmen should not succumb to the anticipated pressure for an early
election on any ballot question, particularly in these times of economic crisis.
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D
Superintendent
READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
82 Oakland Road, Post Office Box 180
Reading, Massachusetts 01867-0280
Telephone 781-944-5800
Fax 781-942-9149
Dennis A. Richards
Associate Superintendent
TO: Reading School Committee
FROM: Dr. Harry K. Harutunian
DATE: December 3, 2002
TOPIC: Birch Meadow Playground Area
Please find attached a copy of a letter from Town Counsel John Gannon to Town
Engineer Joe Delaney in which he requests property title ownership information for additional
property in the Birch Meadow playground area.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
CC: School Building Committee
GARY S. BRACKETT
ELAINE M. LUCAS
JOAN E. LANGSAM
JOHN G. GANNON
M. YVONNE GONZA LEZ*
JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS
STEVEN C. FLETCHER**
ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE
*Also Admitted in CT
**Also Admitted in ME and CO
BRACKETT & LUCAS
COUNSELORS AT LAW
19 CEDAR STREET
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609
508-799=9739
Fax 508-799-9799
E-Mail: band]@pcplusol.net
WINCHESTER OFFICE
166 WASHINGTON STREET
WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890
781-729-1500 Fax 781-729-5444
E-ib :
Please respond to the Winchester office
November 22, 2002
Mr. Joseph Delaney
Town Engineer
Reading Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
RE: Birch Meadow Playground Area
Dear Mr. Delaney:
I am writing to request information from you concerning the
land on which the Reading Memorial High School is located. The
map that I received on November 12, 2002, that was presented to me
as part of Article 10 for the Town Meeting warrant, contains
information that I had heretofore never seen. I have highlighted
on the attached map the portions of land encompassing the Birch.
Meadow Playground Area that is larger than the earlier map that I
was provided, for which I had researched all the property title
ownership. I have recently been asked to research the property
title ownership for the highlighted portion of the map.
I would respectfully request from you any property
information that you have concerning the highlighted area. The
map that you had previously provided contained the latest deed
information that allowed me to research at the Middlesex Registry
of Deeds the history of the Town's acquisition of the property-
Do you have a similar map that would similarly provide a useful
starting point for the expanded property research? Any
information that you can provide so that I may expedite the
property research for the expanded area would be greatly
appreciated. As the special town meeting that will decide on the
school issue is rising upon us, I would also appreciate your
response as soon as humanly possible.
Mr. Joseph Delaney
November 22, 2002
Page 2
Thank you again for your continuing assistance in this
matter. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions,
Very truly yours,
John G. Gannon
u'GGj
Cc: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D.
Joan E. Langsam, Esquire
Cj~
4 trtt~ d° /
v
o~~ a o d
o ~ <
Q~
cz:l
30