Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-19 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutestole- r A',N CLERIK iJING, ,MASS. Reading School Building Committee 2U23 JAI I P 4. 2 Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on November 19, 2002, 7:30 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Tim Twomey (TT) Rich Radville (RR) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Bill Carroll (BC) Warren Cochrane (WC) Paula Perry (PP) Jeff Struble (JS) Alex McRae (AM) Ray Porter (RP) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Staff) Dr. Harry Harutunian (Staff) Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) Robert Peirce (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) Andrew Grimes (Finance Committee liaison) RG began by saying that the purpose of this meeting was to continue the process of making a decision as to which of the three options for the RMHS renovation should be developed into a schematic design. He suggested that the compiled list of negative aspects for each option be addressed to see if they could be mitigated in any way. Starting with Option 1: The most obvious drawback to this option was the long phasing schedule. RG asked if FAI saw any means to shorten this schedule. Sid Bowen replied that they had looked at trying to provide additional swing space in and around RMHS. They looked at the area under the Auditorium (the Civil Defense shelter), but found that the foundations for the (closely spaced) columns were not at a uniform elevation. The footings rose with the grade of the underlying ledge and intruded into the space that was to be used, making the area unusable for creating swing space. Importing modular classrooms was considered, but the cost for the 20 portables needed would add about $2M to the cost. Hence, that approach was abandoned. He said that conceivably, the only way to lessen the phasing burden was by spending money for temporary swing space, which was undesirable. Readhi g School Building- Committee Xketing Alinutes frwnn Alovember 19, 2002 AM asked if by temporarily relocating the Superintendent's offices and the RISE program offsite, could the phasing be shortened (by using their present spaces). Mr. Bowen replied that the Supt.'s office was not suitable for uses other than administration (not classroom swing space) and as far as he knew, there was no alternate location available for RISE. - Disruption to students and teachers would not be able to be reduced without more swing space that could be built to accommodate the classes that would use it (such as laboratories). - At this point, high school student Nick Smith presented a petition with 261 signatures from high school students that supported Option 3, noting that he thought the decreased community space in that option could be made up by utilizing other space in other schools (such as Coolidge Middle School). - The high risk of contingency funds being needed was directly tied to the amount of renovation; hence Opt. 1's large amount of renovation could not be mitigated without changing the plan materially. The same applied to the cost of phasing relative any long term benefits resulting from the phasing; Option 1 had the highest cost of phasing with very little benefit and couldn't be changed. - Regarding quality of space, Mr. Bowen pointed out that the auditorium space could be increased in quality if desired, but it would be at an additional cost. No improvement in supervision plans was possible in Option's 1 (or 2). Only Option 3 presented opportunities in this area. - Costs to maintain Option 1 were the most, due to its largest square footage. No avenues of improvement were evident in this area. - The cafeteria location in Option 1 was the result of considering several locations in the design phase and finding that any other location detracted from the programmatic organization for the building as well as from the phasing plan, so no improvement seemed possible. - Traffic flow could not be improved without programmatic reorganization or additions of expensive corridor additions, which were not seen as improvements to the project. Regarding Option 2, Mr. Bowen remarked that mitigation of its negatives would be more or less the same as for the negatives of Option 1. Regarding the negatives of Option 3: The loss of the girl's gym and the Lecture Hall were seen as the most obvious negatives of Option 3, according to Mr. Bowen. There was no recovery of the girl's gym possible in Option 3 (Option 2 was seen as the best scheme for retention of that space), although the new gyms at the new elementary school and at a renovated Barrows School could take the place of the girl's gym for community use. The Lecture Hall's function could be replicated with an additional 4,000 sq. ft. of space but he thought that function could be provided in other ways in other areas of the building. Reading, School Building Committee 1 fi<eting A. inutes fr-ono .November 19, '002 - WC noted that the auditorium and art/music/drama spaces were not as good in Option 3 as in Options 1 and 2. He asked if there was any way to improve Opt. 3's fine arts layout. Mr. Bowen said that in the normal progression of the area's design, the spaces could be improved and rearranged to better them. A basic problem in Opt. 3, however (not present in Opt.'s 1 and 2), was the fact that the programs were on two floors rather than one. - The highest cost of Opt. 3 was due to the high amount of new construction and could not be mitigated without cutting the program which made use of the new facilities. - Regarding the disposition of the SBA on the reimbursability of Opt. 3, RG passed out a letter from that agency (copy attached) that confirmed their verbal assurances that Opt. 3 would be considered for review as a reimbursable project. He read the letter aloud. - Negatives such as possible soils difficulties and less "green" construction were endemic to the need for new construction and could not be mitigated. - Storage in Option 3 could be improved not by adding square footage, Mr. Bowen conjectured, but by tightening the spaces within the current target area and planning efficiently for adequate storage. He reasoned, also, that the space needs for things like media storage will decrease in time due to technology usage. - BC led a discussion about space needs from a teacher's perspective. He described the benefits of dedicated classrooms for each teacher yet understood that the economics and programmatic formulae used to determine actual classroom numbers would not make such a thing possible. He still had concerns about the apparent reduction of teachers' space in Option 3. A general discussion followed on the topic of Reading's culture of funding school projects (reducing the scope of projects appears to be a historical trend). RG then asked if anyone on the Committee felt that Option 1 should considered as the chosen option. No one did, so Option 1 was removed from further consideration by consensus. With the choice then being between Options 2 or 3, RG asked for each member's opinion: - BC preferred Option 3 due to its short schedule and its least disruption to the education process for the students and staff. - DL chose Option 3, citing his belief that it offered the best betterment to high school education between the two choices. - TT chose Option 3 saying that his reasons were similar to those given by previous members. He also thought Opt. 3 would produce the best visual improvement to the school, creating an attractive building that the community would embrace. Reading School Building Committee Meeting; AIitrutes fr-oni .i1•bvernber LG, 2002 RR chose Option 3 after previously favoring Opt. 2, saying that the desirable aspects of Opt. 2 that would be lost (Lecture Hall, the girl's gym, etc.) could be corrected, according to FAI's suggestions for improving negatives such as those. He also liked the fact that the school would never be without a usable auditorium under Opt. 3. - WC also wanted Opt. 3 for many of the same reasons mentioned by RR. He thought that his concerns with Opt. 3's negatives would be addressed through the continuing design process. - PP had.favored Option 3 from the beginning, she said, and had heard from many people in the community about the desirability of Opt. 3. She felt it had the least surprises (in terms of the impact to students and on costs). - JS favored Opt. 2 for several reasons. He said that he thought Opt. 3 had less contingency space and that plans to add space in Opt. 3 to replicate functions provided in Opt. 2 would force concessions in the overall program to meet a budget. He felt that creating a smaller high school from a larger one would make the possibility of adding on space in the future politically impossible. He felt the degree of explanation necessary to justify Opt. 3 would be too much for enough voters to absorb prior to a debt exclusion election. In general, he thought Opt. 2 was more conservative than Opt. 3. AM chose Opt. 2 over Opt. 3 because he felt Opt. 2 was more like what the community was expecting. He felt that losing the girl's gym under Opt. 3 would be detrimental to non-school programs and had doubts that the field house alone would be adequate for the community. With only one chance to do this project (owing to deteriorating State funding in the future), he thought Opt. 2 had the best chance of being accepted. RP expressed disappointment with the options developed by FAI, noting that the more or less equivalent costs of all three were not what he was expecting. He thought that a basic repair of the present school's infrastructure could have been a beginning point for building options on, using an incremental approach. He said he was not comfortable with voting for any of the options. If he were to vote, he said, he would lean towards Opt. 2. RG then asked for opinions from RMHS Principal Frank Orlando and Superintendent Harry Harutunian. Mr. Orlando first thanked FAI for their efforts in developing the options and the SBC for their work on the project. He compared the various facets of both Options 2 and 3 and explained his decision to support Option 3. He felt that Option 3 would make it possible for Reading high school students to achieve the greatness that they have always had the potential for achieving (but have been hampered in doing so by outmoded facilities). Dr. Harutunian agreed with Mr. Orlando's comments. He also added that the reduction in size of the school would be beneficial to his budgeting for maintenance of the facility. He thought that the phasing advantages of Option 3 were educationally desirable and that the increased parking would be a plus. He said he had gotten feedback at his many community Reading School Budding Corr mittee Meeting, M Mutes ft'om Nbvelnber 19, 2002 appearances that indicated the popularity of Option 3. Hence, he favored that option. RG added his opinion, saying that he favored Option 3 because he felt it was the best educational solution over the long term. He believed that the space reductions realized by that option could be made up elsewhere in the Town. He thought that the only real opposition to Option 3 from the voters would be on the basis of cost alone, not the plan itself (whichever that was). TT then entered a motion to approve Option 3 as the recommendation to Town Meeting for the renovation of RMHS. DL seconded the motion. RG called for any more discussion. JS took issue with statements that the cost differences between Options 2 and 3 were negligible. He pointed out that the difference in cost to Reading (after reimbursement of the maximum amount or "cap" of around $50M) was about $2.8M, which represented a 12.7% increase in the cost to Reading over Opt. 2. He thought that would be a hurdle to get over with Town Meting and the voters. - JS also added that while he intended to vote for Option 2, should Option 3 be the rest of the Committee's choice, he would endorse it. With no further discussion appearing, a vote was taken and the results were eight in favor, one opposed and one abstention (8-1-1); thus the motion passed. Dr. Harutunian added that he agreed with JS's calculations regarding the cost differentials between Opt.'s 2 and 3, but he felt that the (operational) savings afforded by Option 3 would make up that difference. Sid Bowen asked that he be allowed to develop ,a work schedule for the development of Option 3 for the Committee's review at the next scheduled meeting, tentatively scheduled for December 11, 2002. In addition, Dr. Harutunian asked permission to work directly with FAI in assembling the required December 1st preliminary submission to SBA (now for Option 3). Permission was granted. RG thanked the school personnel and the other Committee members for their work to date on the project. RR described his recent efforts to reply to an editorial in the Reading Advocate newspaper that had purported to question why Reading couldn't renovate its high school for what it cost other schools in other states to renovate theirs (at lower amounts). The editorial cited evidence from a web-site that awarded exemplary school project designs; specifically schools in Maine, North Carolina and Colorado. RR contacted the project architects for the North Carolina and Colorado to discuss the costs for those projects. He found that the costs listed on the web-site for the schools were not project costs, but construction costs. These costs did not include furnishing, finishes, fees or equipment and in the case of the North Carolina job, excluded site costs as well. They also were projects - completed several years ago. Reading School Building (.:'onanaittee ,tlectin}, Alinute.s front r' weinber 19, 2002 6 RR then produced a spread sheet (copy attached) that attempted to upgrade those costs to account for things like inflation (2.66% per year), use of union sub-contractors (required in MA; a 10% increase), local cost differentials (45% increase), size differences (RMHS is larger), site costs, demolition costs, hazardous material removal, architect's fees, "soft" costs, etc. The per square foot costs for the adjusted out-of-state schools was around $225/s.f. for NC and @212/s.f for CO while Opt. 3 was estimated at $198/s.f. This contradicted the editorial's entire premise. - He said he had. contacted the Advocate's publisher to point out this contradiction and ask why the editor had not done similar research before writing the editorial. Andrew Grimes (FinCom liaison) said he had also contacted the web-site owners and found that the costs listed were not the real focus of the web-site (innovative design was). Discussions with the web-site owners revealed that they were not surprised by the project costs attributed to Opt. 3 and that some areas of the country experience costs on the order of $400/s.f. He noted that the owners recognized FAl for their exemplary design work in MA. JS asked Sid Bowen about the likelihood of the success of the DOE recommendation to the legislature to make school construction projects exempt from the State's Chap. 149- mandated requirement for filed sub-bids (made in the same advisory as the recommendation to reduce reimbursement rates 10% across the board). Mr. Bowen said his discussions with SBA indicated that there might be a chance that such an exemption would be passed, but he had no more information than that. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. DL so moved and was seconded by PP. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time 10:05 p.m.). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee NOV-13-41.11J4 da:oiam F(om-SCMUUL FINANCE AND BUSINESS SERVICES 7813386530 T-438 P 002/003 F-331 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 November 14, 2002 Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools 82 Oakland Road Post Office Box 180 Reading, MA 01867 Dear Superintendent Harutunian: Tclephene• (781) 338-3000 1 am writing as a follow-up to our recent meeting to discuss construction and renovation options at Reading Memorial High School. You have submitted feasibility studies dated in 1997, 2000 and 2002 to document the educational and structural inefficiencies at the school. Each of these studies,. provide recommendations for construction and renovation based on the information available at the time. The most recent study proposes one of three options: 1) renovation of the complete building 2) substantial renovation of the building with the demolition of the maintenance area (former Industrial Arts and 3) replacement of the 1953 academic wing and substantial renovation of the remainder of the building. Based on enrollment projections, the existing square footage of the building exceeds the square footage allowed under the School Building Assistance (SBA) regulations. The building has many structural and educational inefficiencies, has poor circulation patterns and is in need of major repair to meet code and educational standards. There appears to be little use of the total square footage of the area now used for maintenance. Demolition of this wing would not impact the space requirements of the SBA regulations and would appear to improve traffic flow and parking. Demolition and replacement of the academic wing would allow for more efficient phasing of the construction plan, would correct educational and structural deficiencies and would improve safety, traffic patterns and the efficiency and circulation of the building. All of your feasibility studies have outlined in greater detail the benefits of each of these proposed plans. The cost for each of the three options has been estimated within a range of two million dollars. You have asked whether any of these three proposals could be submitted under the SBA Program. As you know and as we have discussed, the SBA program encourages maintaining existing school buildings through renovation projects. Based on the information before us, we ..J , - J. - J r- JJI November 14, 2002 Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D. Page Two believe that each of these options might constitute a viable, renovation plan. Although each proposal that is submitted to meet the December 1 deadline will be evaluated based on the criteria, process and fiscal limitations of the program, we would be willing to entertain any of the options presented above with the appropriate local approvals. I wish you good luck with your, construction planning and would be happy to discuss this issue or any other issue related to the SBA application process with you at any time. Cordially, Christine M. Lynch Administrator School Building Assistance c: Sid Bowen, Flansburgh Associates Application File Reading High Cost review re Silver Creek, CO -1 prepared by Richard Radville 11.19.02 Project cost Reading High area Project Cost /sf Option 1 334,424 $53,059,248 $159 Option 2 324,351 $51,997,745 $160 Option 3 272,552 $53,917,745 $198 Silver Creek High School 180,000 cost Base construction cost $20,160,000 (includes site costs, fields, etc., but no fees or soft costs, no equip or furnish., this is constr. dollars for the building & site.) running total Add 6% inflation 1,209,600 21,369,600 Add 10% for union 2,136,960 23,506,560 Add regional costs at 17% * 3,996,115 27,502,675 Factor to same size, scheme 3 1.51 41,643,940 Add for demolition 1,998,000 43,641,940 Add for Hazmat removal 100,000 43,741,940 Add contingency at 10% 4,374,194 48,116,134 Architect Fees at 8.75% 4,210,162 52,326,295 Furnishishings at $1000/student + fees 1,452,000 53,778,295 Computers at $1200/student + fees 2,287,504 56,065,799 Other "soft" costs, actual RMHS 1,662,000 57,727,799 * source: RS Means Building Construction Cost Data, 2002 Project cost / sf, Silver Creek in Reading $212 Reading High Cost review re Weddington High, NC prepared by Richard Radville 11.18.02 Project cost Reading High area Project Cost /sf Option 1 334,424 $53,059,248 $159 Option 2 324,351 $51,997,745 $160 Option 3 272,552 $53,917,745 $198 Weddington High 224,100 Base construction cost (no site costs, no fields, no fees or soft costs, no equip or furnishings, this is ''raw' construction dollars for the building only.) Add 8% inflation Add 10% for union Add regional costs at 45% * Factor to same size, scheme 3 Add site costs, RMHS actual Add for demolition Add for Hazmat removal Add contingency at 10% Architect Fees at 8.75% Furnishishings at $1000/student + fees Computers at $1200/student + fees Other "soft" costs, actual RMHS cost $18,448,610 running total 1,475,889 19,924,499 1,992,450 21,916,949 9,862,627 31,779,576 1.22 38,650,544 5,900,000 44,550,544 1,998,000 46,548,544 100,000 46,648,544 4,664,854 51,313,398 4,489,922 55,803,321 1,452,000 57,255,321 2,287,504 59,542,825 1,662,000 61,204,825 Project cost / sf, Weddington in Reading $225 * source: RS Means Building Construction Cost Data, 2002