Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-06 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesyI ED CLERK '"'~E ih I ASS. Reading School Building Committee j00 AN Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on November 6 2002, 7:30 p.m, (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Ray Porter (RP) Paula Perry (PP) Alex McRae (AM) Rich Radville (RR) Warren Cochrane (WC) Tim Twomey (TT) Jeff Struble (JS) Bill Carroll (BC) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Staff) 4- 1 Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) Robert Peirce (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) RG began by saying that the purpose of this meeting was to begin 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 said that after four public meetings soliciting input from the community, he would open this meeting up for any further public comment before the Committee members began deliberating among themselves with no further public comments being taken. He asked if that approach was acceptable to the Committee and received no.objections. Hence, he asked for any public comments. With no further comments being offered from the observers, RG then asked if FAI had any more comments to make to the Committee. Sid Bowen said that he and Robert Peirce had no comments, but were there to answer any questions Committee members may have. RG then proposed going through the various tasks requested in the RFQ to see if all its requirements had been met (referencing page 5 of Attachment 1 of the SBC's contract with FAI, which was a transcription of the RFQ's scope of work). - Task 1 a from the attachment required that the renovation be consistent with the DOE `s requirements for funding of school projects. RG noted that he was expecting a letter from the SBA that would explain if the approaches taken by all three of the Options under consideration would be acceptable to Reading School Building Committee 2 iWeeting .i4:linutes fro i November 6, 2002 them. He recommended that until that letter was received, a vote for any single option should be delayed in order to see if that option met the criteria of this task (no objections were raised to this recomedation). Sid Bowen said that all the options were designed to be consistent with previously approved projects that his firm had been involved with. Task 1 b dictated that the preferred option offer a solution to Title IX inequities in the present athletic facilities. Mr. Bowen said that all three options did solve those problems. - Tack 1 c addressed inadequate science laboratories, requiring that the renovation upgrade and/or add to the present labs. Again, Mr. Bowen indicated compliance of all the options with these criteria. - Task 1d addressed updating existing finishes and building systems. All options fulfilled this task, according to FAI. - Task 1 e addressed updating building systems as required to meet current seismic codes. All options complied with this requirement, Mr. Bowen said. - Task 1f addressed handicap accessibility upgrades as required by State and Federal regulations. This reg's were complied with in all the options, said Mr. Bowen. - Task 1g requested review and recommendations for correction of the circulation patterns now recognized to be problematic in the existing school. Mr. Bowen said his form had addressed those concerns as best they could with regards to Options 1 and 2, but acknowledged that the configurations arrived at in those schemes could not completely eradicate the problems. This was due to the non-central location of the cafeteria and the continued separation of classroom areas from one another. Frank Orlando commented that all of the options' circulation patterns were acceptable to his administration and that none were seen to be unsafe. - Task 1 h required the creation of dedicated music and drama spaces, which was accomplished in all of the options, according to FAI. Task 1 i called for the creation of a dedicated language lab. Such a lab was included in all of the options, Mr. Bowen said. - Task 1i called for a complete upgrade to educational technology systems in the building. FAI noted that each option included this upgrade. Before beginning the deliberations, Sid Bowen asked that he be allowed to answer a question that had come up at an earlier meeting concerning the capacity of the options. He passed out copies of a data sheet listing the number of classrooms and the class sizes for each department, which summarized the maximum usage of the spaces to be provided in all three options (copy attached). He noted that since the programmatic space in each option was the same, a single analysis would suffice. - Calculation of capacity entailed two approaches, according to Robert Peirce. The first involved totaling up the number of classrooms and multiplying them by the maximum target class sizes. This aggregate total was then multiplied Reading, School Building Committee keting N(inutes ftont November 61 2002 by a utilization factor (85% being the maximum factor that could be deemed realistic). This produced a maximum operational capacity of 1,421 students, but did not include RISE students (60 additional, if included). - The second approach was a check on the first, using expected core facility capacities to determine maximum enrollments. Checking the Cafeteria, Gymnasium and Media Center this way, the capacities all exceeded the amounts produced in the first approach, assuming that steps could be taken to maximize core facility usage (such as having 3 lunch periods instead of 2). - PP asked if the 85% utilization factor was do-able at RMHS. Frank Orlando said that it was a high goal to shoot for in scheduling usage of the classrooms. The typical factor would probably fall into the 70-80% range. Sid Bowen said that the 85% factor was a common factor used in SBA submissions. To begin deliberations, RG recommended that each option be reviewed by listing their pros and cons for evaluation and record these attributes. As a way to proceed, JS suggested focusing on the differences between Options 1 and 2, which were very similar as renovation schemes. He thought a choice could be made between 1 and 2, which would then be compared with Option 3, the renovation/addition scheme. AM suggested focusing on Option 3 first and working backward to Option 1. RG still thought that teach option should be given its due individually. He received consensus from the Committee to proceed thus, beginning with Option 1. [Author's note: the majority of the remainder of the meeting was spent itemizing pro's V and con's for each option. Mr. Orlando wrote down these items as "positive" or "negative" on a large tablet, which were subsequently transferred to letter-sized sheets. These sheets are attached with these minutes, labeled "Option 1"; "Option 2', and "Option 3". Topics that fell outside of this itemization are described below.] JS pointed out that the layout of Option 1 did not really take advantage of the added space offered by the retention of the Industrial Arts wing. He said that by developing that wing as specialized core space (cafeteria, facilities and mechanical usage), Option offered no more expandable square footage than Option 2. Educational program space was virtually the same in both options (with the exception of two more RISE classrooms in Option 1), which would be the space that would be rearranged in any future adaptation to programmatic needs. A general discussion took place concerning the value of renovation work as opposed to new construction. It was thought that if done properly, the finished product of a renovation would be as acceptable as new construction. The disadvantages to a renovation would be the need to explore and discover the as-built conditions that need repair or replacement, plus the economic imperatives that force acceptance of undesirable space in a renovation. On the other hand, it was noted that new construction forces the abandonment of space that the community was well aquainted with. Comments on phasing led to the assessment from FAI that the 32-34 month schedule expected with Option 2 was what should be expected for a renovation of the size of RMHS. Option 1's phasing was seen as being long, while Option 3's phasing was viewed as rapid (comparatively). Reading Sehool Building Committee 4 Afeetink Minutes fr-oni .November 6, 2002 Expandability of Options 1 and 2 in the future, should it be deemed necessary, would most likely be across from the Media Center as an addition, FAI said. Option 3 would have several options, due to its more compressed footprint. Sid Bowen expounded on the details necessary to upgrade the existing Auditorium to meet Code and acoustic requirements. Apparently the balcony and the area under it were poor spaces to begin with both in terms of bad sound and difficult accessibility. He recommended that any upgrade to better the space should do away with the balcony and install entry vestibules and a control room that extended into the rear of the hall (where the space under the balcony is presently). The existing floor slope was too steep for handicap use, he said, and would require some form of remediation. Some form of handicap access from the floor to the stage would be required. Catwalks over the ceiling of the main space would be recommended. He stressed that even after complying with these requirements, the presentation space would still have some compromises over ideal auditorium space. Building new auditorium space (as in Option 3) would involve fewer compromises, he said. Options 1 and 2 offered more storage space, however. Auditorium capacities under Options 1 and 2 would be 600-650 students where the Option 3 auditorium would hold 750-800 students. RG noted that too many Committee members could not make the scheduled November 13th meeting and thought that since the decision to be made was so important, another time should chosen to allow maximum attendance. The date of November 19th was scheduled for the next SBC meeting. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the September 18, 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 10 in favor, none opposed and one abstention (10-0-1); hence the motion passed. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the October 1, 2002 RSBC meeting. RR so moved and was seconded by DL. He called for any additions, deletions or corrections desired by the Committee. AM had some corrections he thought should be made regarding the extent of the retention of the 1969 building in Option 3. He also added his request (made at that meeting) for clarification of the enrollment figures between the NESDEC and MISER forecasts. The motioners accepted these amendments. With no further corrections appearing, a vote was taken and the result was 10 in favor, none opposed and one abstention (10-0-1); hence the motion passed. RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the October 8, 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 10 in favor, none opposed and one abstention (10-0-1); hence the motion passed. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. RR so moved and was seconded by DL. 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 Enrollment Capacity A. By Academic Space Room Number Class Size Total Academic Rooms English 10 24 240 Social Studies 8 24 192 World Language 8 24 192 Math 9 24 216 .Academic Labs English Lab 1 22 22 Language Lab 1 22 22 Math Lab 1 22 22 Science Lecture / Labs 12 22 264 Classrooms 2 22 44 Project Room 1 18 18 Business Classrooms 2 24 48 Labs 4 18 72 Art Studios 4 18 72 Performing Arts Band Room 1 22 22 Chorus 1 22 22 Ensemble 1 22 22 Electronic Music 1 12 12 Drama 2 22 44 Physical Education Health Classroom 2 24 48 Gymnasium 2 24 48, Media Center Library Resource Room Technical Education Computer Aided Drafting 1 18 18 TV Studio 1 12 12 Capacity 1,672 Utilization Factor 85% Operational Capacity 1,421 Other Available Classroom. RISE 60 Operational Capacity w/ RISE 1,481 Capacity if High School were to occupy RISE spaces 1,533 BUILDING COMMITTEE OPTION 1 Positive Ne ative Square Footage for Pro rammin Len th Schedule SBAB Disruption to Students Girl's Gym Highest Risk of Contingencies Lecture Hall Cost of Phasing vs. Benefit Location of S ecialized Space Quality of Space Community Use Su ervision Arts Space Cost to Maintain Storage Space Cafeteria Location , Traffic Flow Heatin Costs BUILDING COMMITTEE OPTION 2 Positive Negative Storage Loss of Square Footage Less Len th Schedule Traffic Flow Girl's Gym Risk > Conran ericies Lecture Hall Phasing Vs. Benefit Community Use Supervision Arts Space Maintenance Costs SBAB Quality of Space Cafeteria Heating Costs Cost Of Project Disruption Ad'acenc /Proximit > Lecture/Cafeteria BUILDING COMMITTEE OPTION 3 POSITIVE NEGATIVE Least Disruptive to Students Less Community Space Quality of Space Most Costly . Auditorium Storage Maintenance Costs U'.~irs Supervision Arts Space??? Adjacency > Program SBAB ? Minimal Movement of Classes Less Green Traffic Connection to Feildhouse Least Risk > Contingencies Shortest Construction Period Visual Presentation Physical Education Lockers ~ No Loss of Facility Usage