Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-30 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesL Reading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on October 30, 2002, 7:30 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Alex McRae (AM) Paula Perry (PP) C-0 Bill Carroll (BC) Tim Twomey (TT) C- `r? Jeff Struble (JS) 1 Dennis LaCroix (DL) w Ray Porter (RP) Rich Radville (RR) >:U CD Michael Scarpitto (MS) p/t co c.rr Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Staff) Dr. Harry Harutunian, (Staff) p/t Gary Hart (Staff) Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) RG gave a synopsis of a meeting held with the SBA the previous day. He said they did not dissuade Reading from any of the three options, although they were less comfortable with Option 3 due to the amount of new construction and they felt they would have to see it fleshed out more and reasons given for its desirability before moving forward with it. They understood the problems associated with Option 1 and did not seem troubled with Option 2's small addition. They acknowledged that they are concerned with the state budget and the effect on it that might result from the November elections. They felt that they would have a handle on the budget situation better by July. - Sid Bowen, who also attended the meeting with the SBA, noted that their answers to questions seemed contradictory at times (to similar questions asked earlier or on other FAI projects). He felt that their variability reflected their uncertainty of just where the SBA program stood at the moment. AM brought up an amendment to Chapter 70B just voted by the Department of Education that recommended to the legislature a 10% rollback in reimbursement rates. He wondered if the SBA had said anything about it at the meeting. RG commented that the DOE's action was a recommendation, not a de facto policy change, and that it was one of the factors that the SBA noted would be sorted out after the next election. Reading School Building "onunittee Weeting A inuta ftom October 30. 2002 RG reported that he had looked at the notes taken by SBA officials during meetings with Reading officials which were distributed to the Committee by Mrs. Linda Phillips at the last meeting (10/16/02). - He said he had found no contradictions between their content and what he and others had reported to the full Committee about those meetings and asked if any Committee members had found any contradictions. None had. Concerning the reimbursability of the Field House (which was a specific concern of Mrs. Phillips), RG said he and Sid Bowen and Dr Harutunian had contacted the SBA officials cited by Mrs. Phillips and had obtained a letter from those officials (Jeff Wulfson, Associate Commisioner, DOE and Christine Lynch, Administrator, SBA) which clarified their position, which he distributed and read aloud (copy attached). They said that the Field House would be reimbursable if it was part of an overall project that resolved the educational and structural issues at the high school and if the land it was on was under the control of the School Committee. RG asked if any Committee members had gotten any impressions of the public's concerns at the public meetings that were held in the preceding weeks. TT said that while he had only attended the public session at Parker Middle School and had come away with the impression that if all the options were - similar in cost, people seemed to be concerned with the affect of the construction process on the students. He thought that Option 3 seemed to satisfy those people's concerns the best due to its shorter, less disruptive phasing schedule. - RG said that he did not feel a "groundswell" of support for any particular option. - PP said she had gotten questions concerning the options from many people, many of whom favored Option 3. She felt that the high school was generating a lot of discussion throughout the Town, which was desirable. - JS said that he noticed many people at the public forums focussing on the site plans and their treatments of the grounds around the high school. He thought the Committee should pay close attention to the pros and cons of the site development in each option. AM concurred, saying that some thought should be given to the "outdoor" phasing required for the site. - DL noted that one constituency not yet approached by the Committee was the present RMHS student body. He noted that the school newspaper had sent a reporter to the Coolidge presentation. Frank Orlando said that meetings were being set up at RMHS to present the options to student groups and the staff. Sid Bowen then discussed FAI's approach to programming that was used in the Option development. - He explained that a quantitative analysis is done to satisfy the State's requirements concerning the academic program's ability to meet educational goals. What is also done is to identify separate academic groups such as Reading School Building Committee 3 rt9eeting, Alinutes ftom October 30. 2002 social studies, math, etc. He passed out a bubble diagram listing the different academic groups identified (copy attached). - The groups are then organized within the school to foster useful interaction between them, creating "adjacencies" to place departments next to each other that share common educational themes, such as Math next to Science and Social Studies next to English. Mr. Bowen passed out an adjacency diagram to the Committee (copy attached). - One adjacency that is prevalent in RMHS, he said, was the large number of groups that require direct access to the outside (such as RISE and athletics). This presents difficulties in trying to integrate those groups into the main body of the school. In addition, creating an understandable circulation pattern among the groups would also be a vital goal in setting up the RMHS program. - It was acknowledged that the administration needed to have a presence at the main building entrance and the Media Center needed to be in a prominent place. Similar prominence was needed for the Auditorium. - Discussing the Media Center, Mr. Bowen noted that emerging technology would diminish the need for its prominence and it should be thought of (for planning purposes) as being flexible to adapt to other (future) uses. When looking at programming for the existing building, it became apparent that many of the existing spaces had little programming value due to their locations and make-up. Examples were the Civil Defense area under the Auditorium (unfinished space) and the lower levels of the Industrial Arts wing ("Echo Corridor"). - Regarding the quantitative planning, Mr. Bowen said that space needs were conservatively calculated for an enrollment of around 1,320 students, rounding classroom numbers up when fractional amounts were found. This allowed for assimilation of extra students if the enrollments proved to be low. - BC asked if the number of classrooms for Social Studies and English increased or diminished. Frank Orlando answered that the actual number decreased, but with the present number of classrooms, many of them were underutilized. - RG asked AM if he was comfortable with the quantitative analyses presented by Mr. Bowen. AM expressed curiosity at the different conclusions arrived at by Mr. Bowen and Mr. Zimmerman, who did the analysis for the Strekalovsky & Hoit feasibility study. In the previous analysis, it was reported that the scheduling of classes was already challenging for 1,100 students (calculated without additions) while FAI's options could house 1,320. Mr. Bowen explained that the previous study had assigned each teacher a classroom, thus curtailing the ability to use the total amount of classrooms as efficiently as possible for scheduling purposes. He expressed confidence in the 1,320 number, noting that an increase of 100 or so students could be accommodated in any option designed for that number. - AM said that he wasn't comfortable with the 1,320 number being used as a target because he felt that future populations (beyond the 10-12 year Reading School Building ("onnnittee Z iWeeting . 4inuter fi«m October 30, 20112 projections) might exceed the high range of MISER's projections. He felt that a renovation or new building intended to last for 20-30 years should be able to accommodate such excess. TT asked if the data on actual classrooms used for specific subjects matched the mathematical averaging used to calculate the number of required classrooms. Frank Orlando replied that actual scheduling of classroom use and class size was a complex combination of available space and available staff, with the staffing limitations being more of a determinant than the space limitations. A general discussion ensued discussing the space desires of faculty, the efficient layout of classrooms and new teaching methods that use technology to cut down space requirements. PP asked Mr. Orlando how many students opt for private school each year, noting that a change in that amount might affect the target enrollment. He replied that typically 8%-9% of the eighth graders are lost as they move up to ninth grade. He noted that that amount has been as low a 4%-4'/Z% and that in some years students have returned to public school from private school in significant numbers. A general discussion took place concerning the maximum number of students to be accommodated, focussing on expandability, reimbursement and what spaces are to be included/excluded in calculating this number. FAI offered to come back to the Committee with a more definitive summary of how many students the three options could handle. RG asked Sid Bowen if FAI needed any more information from the Committee (other than a choice of an option) in order to send a needs assessment to the SBA by December 1, 2002. Mr. Bowen replied that they were prepared for that submission and required only a choice and an enrollment figure (which was discussed at this meeting). RG reminded the Committee that after the next public input session (on Nov. 2nd at RMHS), the SBC must deliberate on what the choice should be. He said that although he must make a report of progress to the Subsequent Town Meeting on Nov. 12th, he did not want Committee members to feel pressured to make a decision before then, noting that he thought it might take more than one more meeting to come to a decision. Observer Jackie Mandell asked if the SBA would restrict the amount of square footage that could be renovated by their formulae that calculate maximum square footage. She was answered that the formulae use allowable square footage to calculate the maximum cost that they would reimburse and that cost is what is restricted (for State participation), not specific square feet. Observer Linda Phillips asked if the costs of the upgrades to the athletic fields were included in the cost estimates for the options. Mr. Bowen answered that they were and that they could be removed from the budget if the Committee or Town Meeting chose to do so. Observer Jackie Mandell presented a letter addressed to the Committee containing her recommendations for reconsideration of demolition of the Industrial Arts wing of the high school (copy attached). She read her letter aloud for the SBC. RG tentatively scheduled an SBC meeting for Nov. 13th in the RMHS Guidance Center. Reading School Building Committee ,11c eting Alinutes ftoni October 30. 2002 Observer Linda Phillips reiterated an earlier concern of hers that the architect and the SBC were pursuing a feasibility study for RMHS and not a schematic design. She presented copies of documents in which the words "feasibility" and "study" were used in reference to the high school project (copies attached), which she put forward as evidence supporting her claim. RG responded that the use of those terms reflected descriptions of the initial processes undertaken in the production of the schematic design and not an ulterior contract for a feasibility study. Arguments to the contrary were semantic in nature, he said, and did not change the Committee's and the architect's agreement to produce a schematic design for RMHS, as charged. With no other business appearing, RG called for a motion to adjourn. TT 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 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 October 21, 2002 Harry 14arutunian, Superintendent Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 Dear Superintendent Harutunian: Tcicphone (781) 338-3000 You have asked whether the existing field house at Reading High School might be considered as pan of a capital school construction project subject to reimbursement under the state's School Building Assistance Program. You have requested written clarification of this issue in order to resolve an apparent misunderstanding arising from a telephone conversation between a local citizen and Jeff Wulfson, Associate Commissioner of School Finance. Over a period of time, we have discussed various options for renovating and modernizing Reading High School. We have also emphasized that construction or renovation of a school is eligible for state reimbursement only if it is on land owned by the applicant community and under the control of the school committee. Although the SBA office has not completed its review of the various options offered by Reading officials, it is important to note that we have not objected to the renovation of the field house if the land is owned by the town of Reading, under the control of the school committee and part of an overall project acceptable to the Department of Education to resolve educational and structural issues at Reading High School. We would like to continue our discussions with you on your plan to renovate the high school in order to ensure that the project plan will be in keeping with the state school building assistance law and regulation and will meet the needs of Reading High School students for years to come. Please be assured that any decisions made by the Deparunent will always be communicated directly to the responsible local officials. Although we make a good faith effort to respond to questions from the public and the media, we would never use those conversations to convey approval or disapproval of proposed plans. Please contact us at anytime to discuss your project. Sincerely, Jeff Wulfson Associate Commissioner Christine M. Lynch, Administrator School Building Assistance c: Project File c `u J 0 N ~ O v r J z i M I u ' {d O ~ (n v O V1 ~ O J L L Cl) v z Of R. ~ c, u .C ~ Cil n ~ O O W ` r L v ~ J a S E 0 0 v a o L ~ a i v a= ~ m m C a r o ~ L T N L. O V N L E V ~ a c_ v U ~ C O ~ C W O U lit 77 ,p V c G J a C 75 M G] d J W cm C y u O O O 'a 3 a J Cl o v a O v N r C r, V v T v a 0 CL T a` vi L c°•. v 0 O ~ O V m 5 Y C L a c, 0 0 L a d a O L L Q _C T.i v+ t U y LL V V J V J a N d LL C L I CL 3 N u L O ~ ~ Na 'c N m c ~ L ~ am f~ V G r o Y J O o ~ y Vt V C C G - v L II _ W , d W ~ Q N V a v 7 a Cp L u O C o V1 V1 01 v in L to Ln z = o W E_' ~ m a I G . Q a = o - T a L C ~ V J Q J V d L _ ~ C _ L o d1 CO L Y a L = Q N ~ ~ L m a ~c o ~ a + VN _ T u n u c v L LA 3 a READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION OFFICES Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D. Superintendent TO: FROM; DATE: TOPIC: 82 Oakland Road, Post Office Box 180 Reading, Massachusetts 01867-0280 Telephone 781-944-5800 Fax 781-942-9149 Reading School Building Committee Dr. Harry K. Harutunian October 31, 2002 Letter to School Building Committee - J. Mandell Dennis A. Richards Associate Superintendent Please find attached, for your information, a copy of a letter from J. Mandell to the School Building Committee regarding the RMHS building project. If you have any questions, please contact me. CC: School Committee Dr. Robert L. Mandell and Jacquelyn A. Mandell 441 Lowell St, Reading, MA 01867 October 30, 2002 Reading School Building Committee Dear Committee: Telephone 781-942-0190 I would urge the committee to direct the architects to re-evaluate their proposal to demolish the Industrial Arts Wing of Reading High School. The Industrial Arts Wing is a sound structure and contains 47,575 to 47,950 square feet of space which could be utilized according to a presentation made by Drummey, Rosanne, and Anderson (DRA) to the building committee in 1996, but excluded from the final DRA 1997 high school feasibility study due to lack of SBC interest at that time. DRA presented two plans (see attachment) which accommodated from 300-400 students depending on the design of the renovated space. The.plan for 300 students (115 sq. ft. per student) renovated 47,575 square feet of space and included 17 core classrooms (1200 sq. ft. each), 2 Art and Music rooms (1200 and 1100 sq. ft), 2 classrooms for Science and Computers ( each 1200 sq. ft.), a library, a gym, 8 remedial ed rooms, 1 guidance room, parent and community space, a cafeteria and kitchen, 2 restrooms, nurses space, administrative office suite including a separate principal's and vice principal's office and the list continues. The space could be renovated as a self contained school within the Industrial Arts Wing. The second plan for 400 students utilized 47,950 square feet of space and used a slightly different layout to accommodate the added students. The projected cost in 1997 to renovate this space was $6.0 million dollars. Allowing for a 5% yearly increase, the cost would be approximately $ 7.5 million dollars or $158.00 per square foot for renovating the space. This should be verified by the current architect. In closing I would urge the committee to examine the attached DRA proposal for utilizing the Industrial Arts Wing of Reading Memorial High School. This space could be used not only as swing space during phasing of the high school renovation, but could also be used during the Barrows renovation as swing space allowing Barrows to be emptied during its renovation. In addition, this excess high school space rather than being destroyed could be used as a Care/Child Development Center as Flansburgh did in Lawrence, MA or as and early childhood learning laboratory as Flansburgh did in Ipswich, MA. Rather than destroying this building further possibilities should be explored. Sipcerely, ~cqu yn A. Mandell Reading Memorial High School Feasibility Study Y Executive Summary Reading Memorial High School Year Built: 1952 Additions and Renovations: 1969 Program Summary: Every classroom needs new finishes, heating, ventilation, and computer network. Most classrooms need to be enlarged up to 25%. Gross Building Area: 340,000 s.f. Current Enrollment: 1,031 Current Capacity: 1,680 Grades: 9-12 Renovation/Addition: $24M Schedule: Complete work by 2001 A) Educational Analysis This school does not comply with state standards for classroom size, except in the Science Building, Building "C". The school is currently underpopulated, and extra space has been haphazardly assigned and occupied by faculty offices, storage, or sits under-utilized. Enrollment projections show an approximate 20% increase for the next five years to 1,280 students, then dropping slightly before leveling off at about. I;175. Because this population number is somewhat steady, it makes it easier to envision a long-term plan with a more efficient room layout that meets state classroom size standards and improves circulation. It is possible that the Industrial Arts wing of the 1952 building may not be needed for program spaces, and will be available to rent out to a community group or for early childhood care/classes. B) Building Conditions 1. Site - The steep topography immediately surrounding the school creates difficult vehicle and pedestrian circulation. Parking areas are somewhat isolated and remote, considering the sprawl of the school campus. Generally, sporting fields need rejuvenation and adequate night lighting. 2. Architectural/Structural - The building is structurally sound. Ninety percent of the roofs are fairly new, and none exhibit leaking. There is some serious cracking of the concrete casing around the steel columns of the Science Wing. Building "C". The structure is not compromised, only the weather protection of the columns and wall intersection. The interior finishes and window systems of the whole school need replacing. D •R•A Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc. Page 7 N 0 c~ V N Q W H W W z 0 a W a w 0 W QgO o N a 8 ~ Nom e N r 8 $ C, 0 pp 8 r r- N r N 0 r r N N 8 8 47 g N 8 R7 !0 8 °o$ N co r N ap tW J Z 00 W [L N ? ' W Z U. z 8 c~ 8 8m 8 A 2 a ~ ~8 WX 4n 'Q Y M rv~w Z N.a3Wv ?.SrZS Q0 to W W Q r_ r:, M 4. U Z, r r m 8 g a. 2 Y U Q 1' Mj Q N N 0. R N § r-(14MQ 5 6 (O d r r.. r co r r r r r r r r N N r cr) v r- t(? V- 'd h 0 a ° h Co G rC+ u O V C d L ~ C t121 RSA dR N C C ~ 'C C C ~ ~ C c+ ~e a v~ ja " iC rx 3 L ca co L C w ~ .Q to 'C7 ~ oa = R L vv~p ~ ti" L. L a a _o r H W Q a a w z W W N O N 0 ~BN~SgSBS g N z g S O S N r r N 00 Q8 8~8s N ONiA r N r M Q O to a In N O ~co I-cc N 40 t0 t'0 ~ M ~ ~f' ,Q;, O O O to pp O O pp pp O O O O pp O O U to (OA tOC N N N S O 00 Nom- 07 M M M E tOD W O O M O ~ o N N r r N Q N .N X S r Q r CI .r z z `n U o i w Y ?Uw~0z cn z Ea z w aC a~ a ~N z -j z Lo Q 0 r p w Q o~?$r`SZ QZ J5QZwp§oz u~ J Cc a U ~1C7~C7~ U) ~ 083 wo`gr~'Y~ Z`~ta-adct-n la- UVm=~ 8 . ~ g 8 N U N d N N f!1 N N N m N o Q f!~ r (n cl1 r N Q CD V N r 4 0. W 0 z W x h h z w Q N O M 0 W E" o 'n LIJI N b If) N N ti r N J +vi w 88~ c+irivuicct~N N ~ N O W ~ r a0; o~ IM 3 0 Q LL Z W cc W 0 888§888 0 CQ N N Q N N W W o n. z Oy N h- w W U Wwzuj ac~in~ ~~wt~Q Wa~B~Y0(j) c vi6rl: ooF- J N z O H U N 4 Q Y CD CL CL ~ W - - - - - W d CO c~ z 8 N N rte. S ~ $ ti 8$ N N § U§§J~02) Q R R g N 40 - M W z to wOFFN- ¢ cn ~ H. z z, tY W ~ a W CC U-1 WW w W q Z~~1~~8Q 0 0= L G CC u - CO U H W W Yrf- i,. Y ~ ~ Z U , ( Q§Uj8i z i8'8!$4X}N§..U8W21 t~O r W cn -j Q Z . cn j.-"W ~.~~r-gr-DMia88"m Cc U) ~j tQ~ QQ ~98 $9$2T s t'7 1'f" CO r tV H Cf of r r" d a CO f~~ to Q P. CC Of r r r 00 Another Important use of space could be for a collaborative among school district, which could greatly reduce the cost of separate operating programs in a single school district. This would require an additional 10,200 net square feel. S S S 8 N t H 79 01 Z' S o0 N O to 0(1 O 088 00 O $ ~ r a N r Q r S g p in p p S p p S N M N ' N N a S g N ~ 8 p p Q p R O N O in 0 Uf O (7) O tD t0 M o0 C 4 ~t t0 cC O qp 4 S D O Q ►1) 00 ~7 Op p Q O (D to N N S N O S M S N M M M (pD ,D M w - O r- r r M r- r r N N r r r r N Q N - N U) O r x Q Q Z W z U lL cr v. w < a W w a 00 41 C W Z ~ Y W U U C. W 4 X z W Q WC9 ZEN ZoEa u-Z W cc cc ~N ~N a w ~ co .1 Z E Z O F J J O V ~ J C~ a Z Z C! LL 8HNa:o~-j W 0!O"'zZ WUw Q x ~W ~ m8~°YW$ o N0t ~ 95 a0 a' C~rcnni C7 ari a:uicpSr:O 'a"~f" JI- N a Ili U f'') N r N d m d 7 N d C.I N U) a N N N E- ~ w~ y 0 Q to 3 W Q a 0 W ~o W N 0 [V N t0 8 m d 3 ©pOp o O~ o.. O SSS$v$ v °v N W W U) LO W N h- tU~ 0 n. Z ~cc V Z~ ~J Z N Z LU ~ WW S2 W66 055 UU RIO' a3 tMW LL~WQJ1d- N~o:UC70~yv~ li W aMOC7Ypcnf-"O r N tO qW (6O 1- o c r fV fM Q 0 6 Each of these options should be considered by the committees in Reading and officials of the Town and the State for the improvements in educational opportunities -and the long-range economies In future operating school budgets; not only in Reading, but also in neighboring towns and . State reimbursements. r Q In 00 Q M r O N M O O tJf O N N to 00 N 0 in N r ~7 N 0 Q Q (c O 00 O M M M M Q t% O M C) Q O O O r r CO N N N N N M M M M M N N M M M M r N M M M r r ~T A 0 S a p c~ Q QI' C) N' M Cl) 04 M v n 0 Qs n N N Q O N N N N M M M M M N N c O M M M co t7f M c co co M M M N r Q O O R co Q M N N to 00 N O 0) M M Cl) M Q n O to 0) in N Q O N ao a c0 n n v co M M 00 O co N r- N N N N M M M M M N N M M M M 0) M M N M- r 'Q ON , t17 IV W) N p d 0 c0 G O ,N N to co N ^ M M M M M to I- C M A N M C. N to a,. Q NN O p to N N N N M M M M M N N M M M M Q1 M M M M r r Q M M N N N N N (n M M M N r M M M M M Q O Ot N N 0> N (v N M ttio~ 00 M N M M N CM r W N r- Q , 0 M M M (+M') a0 co In M N N co 00 - O ) ( 7 ( 7 f 7 M r r N U7 U) M N O 0) N N O N N O M M O N M M N Q n M M C\j M M N QM M ~qj t0 tV c0 M N N N M M N N t t M r r r M Rr N 0 ~U OQ1 OfNtoWmcr) M qw Oto N 0to Nwr 4 9 r ±Q Z U7 OQO N N OQONIn(aP%0 N M M M M M N N NLn Q O M M M M r- NOngw40 M M N N r Q to W V) _ O W Q O ~ to M 0) r to P% p ~ r) co (D NNN (D 'M- p M M M N O N MM ~ 7 O N O) '4 . Z N t`7 f`~ c`~ N C ( t7 M N N I- r Q V W to M N f` O) (0 r- N c0 to N N n cp N n N W (D N N f. N M M M CO O) N P- In N M NN O ppN~~ ~tNp~ Of Of V) M co O ' C N M M M M r N N N N e1 N 40 CV M M M M co N N M M D 1*- N O O N N O M M C A M W) Ln M O O M f` O~ r O tD M P.. r to N N N Q n O M M 00 n co t0 N O n e0 n 0 t M 00 C f~ 0 M M M (7 IN N M M N M tT1 N 12 N qp M r- n N 0 W ) Q I*- - 0 r- N qr W M N e+~ O o NMMM N 1T- t MMNN Me vNMto NN~r N M Q O 1- Q U M 'Q O r r r 00 o O o O~ to t0 tT Of 00 to (0 Of O) C1 L q- r r r r O V- C O A O O flit V N y~ ~ N ^ t r c a ~ o a~W E w O 00 O N C N ~ G ~ r L r! t* CU O ~ C u ce G~ r L ZI•L t00 G .c 12 V y G ~ G c a ayi O 2 to N , a to L k M G H 3 i h G N U S c/~ N ~a ,mm z~ d 9 r' ` °i o. co 00 0 o r ~ C►. r r M M Go ~ r r oo ~ °O ~ yt ~ ~ O o M e o o N M F N N F ~ M r i M M N w C M :figg 40. 4 M M O pr N1 M c~ N ~O ~s W y W a oq 6d. 'O .5 O d O P" VA M tn N W W W y Harry K. Harutunian, Ph.D. Superintendent ' TO: FROM: DATE: READING PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION OFFICES 82 Oakland Road, Post Office Box 180 Reading, Massachusetts 01867-0280 Telephone 781-944-5800 Fax 781-942-9149 Reading School Building Committee Dr. Harry K. Harutunian October 31, 2002 Dennis A. Richards Associate Superintendent TOPIC: Letter to the School Building Committee - L. Phillips Please find attached, for your information, a copy of a letter from Linda Phillips to the School Building Committee regarding the RMHS building project. If you have any questions, please contact me. CC: Reading School Committee the desk of LINDA PHILLIPS , J ~,S 7~ yy~~~L% /f i~'L.~ C.~Y' X -~c~L~ LC , . _ ~ ~ t` ~ ~ sc-.. -,~_-,;ate . ' C- C' C C::e`. ` J t..:.... (781) 944 -14 07 School Department ♦ We have made a great deal of effort to enhance the frequency, quality and coverage of com- munication within the Killam and Reading community at large. Killam Kaleidoscope and the Learning Fair Ice Cream Social are only two of many examples. ♦ Killam's Pillars of Character theme has been instrumental in promoting a safe, respectful and tolerant school climate. ♦ The Special Education Department developed and implemented new programs at RMHS for students with social/emotional and language issues that has resulted in a savings, in out-of-district tuition costs. ♦ The Special Education Department developed workshops and other staff development opportunities on the following topics: assessments, reading problems, accommodations and modifications of regular education and co-teaching behavior. Reading School Committee Tim Twomey, Chairman Leadership 2001 was an eventful year for the Reading School Committee and our Town. The April 3, 2001 Town Election saw the re-election of Pete Dahl to a second term on the committee, and the election of John Russo to his first elective office. John brings his background in private industry to his work on the committee while Pete's re-election helped us to retain his valued experience in finance and longstanding Town volunteerism. At the committee's annual reorganization in June, Tim Twomey was elected Chair and Bill Griset Vice Chair. School Constructions Projects In 2001, the School Committee reached resolution of the Ten Taxpayer suit which had stalled the work on the Alice M. Barrows Elementary school, and delayed the start of construction on the new elementary school at the Dividence Road site. Although the School Committee had acted on the advice of Counsel, and only after consultation with the Office of the Attorney General in connection with the bid process, the Superior Court found a technical violation of one of the provisions of the Designer Selection statute. The court ruled, however, that the School Committee had not acted in bad faith and, further, that going forward with these two building projects was clearly in the best interests of the Town of Reading. The case ended with no sanctions being imposed against the Town, and with both parties agreeing to the dismissal of the court action. As the School Committee was preparing to go forward with the Barrows and new elementary school projects, a complaint was filed with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) by one of the abutters to the new school. The Town was then enjoined from breaking ground on the Dividence Road project. This DEP complaint, along with a subsequent related Superior Court action, has effectively stalled both school construction projects for the time being. The School Committee remains committed to these much needed building projects. 256. School Department At the J. Warren Killam Elementary . School, the committee replaced one of the two boilers at a cost of more than $80,000. Killam remains on the School Coirunittee's list of renovation projects. Throughout 2001, our community continued to focus on the need to rebuild Reading Memorial High School. The School Building Committee, ably chaired by Russ Graham, worked with the Board of Selectmen to receive Town Meeting approval for a $450,000 debt exclusion override in order to fund the comprehensive architectural study needed to begin the RMHS project. This will come before the voters in the Spring 2002 Town Election. Budget An extended period of unprecedented growth in our national economy came to an end early in 2001, and the United'States finished 2001in the throes of its first true recession in recent years. Not only has the Town of Reading shared in this downturn in the national economy, but we have been further laboring under the weight of our own fiscal crises. A "bedroom community" for decades, Reading possesses a very limited commercial/industrial tax base. As a result, in essence because of the very residential nature of our community, our taxpaying homeowners must shoulder approximately 92% of the total property tax burden. It is hoped that the anticipated development of the Town landfill Fall 2001, the School Committee was faced with the need to reduce its approved FY 02 budget by $618,941 which resulted in the scaling back of curriculum initiatives, music and drama equipment purchases, and numerous other regular day and Special Education services. Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) 1 Reading's Statewide prominence in the MCAS rankings continues to grow. In 2001, our system placed 22 out of 211 cities and towns in the Commonwealth despite the fact that our annual per-pupil spending is now $899 below the Statewide average, and 242 out of 329 cities and towns. Achieving such results continues to be a hallmark of our schools and is consistent with the very best aspects of that Yankee frugality that has long characterized the Town of Reading. These results were not achieved by sheer luck, however, but reflect on our entire system from the priorities of the Reading School Committee and our Superintendent, to the exceptional efforts put forth by the other administrators, building principals, and our consummately professional teaching staff. Into this mix must also be included the hard work of our high achieving student body and the parents and families who seem tireless in their support of, and involvement with, our schools. Volunteerism The spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in Reading. In 2001, Reading parents and families continued their proud and longstanding tradition of support for the work of the Reading Public Schools. Volunteer organizations, from the Band Parents Organization to the Coolidge Middle School Science Olympiad, from the Boosters and the Friends of Reading Athletics to the Parents in Support of Student Theatre, and the school PTOs worked hard to raise approximately $500,000 to support myriad student activities which could not otherwise be funded within the limitations of the School Committee budget. The number of parent volunteers in our classrooms continues to reflect very favorably on our system, and gives parents, grandparents, and others further opportunities to teach the important lessons of volunteerism and community service by example. It has been said that this spirit of volunteerism is one of the many aspects that makes life in our community the extraordinary experience that it is, and the downturn of our nation's economy does not appear to have dampened this precious commodity. 257. FLA:'~ i6JR.un A S S 0 C I A T E S Memorandum part: July 24, 2002 To: Reading School Building Committee From,. Robert Peirce Re; Agenda/Prog~ess Report AGENDA - 7/24/02 For the meeting with the Reading School Committee tonight it is our plan to review the schedule of work, briefly report on progress co date and answer any questions. Attached find a devised Work Pla.o based on the discussion at our meering of July 10, 2002. This Plan conforms to the dates for progress in the Building Committee RFP. In addition, we also attach notes from our initial programming meeting with school sdministracors on July 16, 2002. PROGRESS REPORT FA.I and consultants have continued with the Documentation and Review of existing conditions. Preliminary program coordination has begun: Task 2: Existing Conditions Assessment -Consultants (HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, Structural, Landscape, Civil and Technology) have completed sire reviews. Incomplete are Security and Hardware- All A uiiIsssr1ul Pit I J - r--- _ ...-1 - ---1-a records is being completed this week and is being incorporared into CAD documentation, -Compurisonlevaluarion of existing floor plans co Program requirements is being developed. Further, FAI and members of the Building Committee met oa Tuly 18 to review a draft Contract for the Feasibility Sc 1 Comments from that review and subsequent conversations are being iacorporated . A final draft reflecting agreed modifications is expected co be forwarded to the SBC by 7/26!02. Flansbu ,h Associates, Inr- 77 North W4shington Strer* Boston. NA 021 14.1910 7 617.367.3970 F617-n0-7$73 www.fal-ar '}1,com Town of Reading Reading Memorial Sigh School Study and Schematic Design FAl No. 2204,00 Work plea - ».__.5 July 24, 2002 Project Overview The purpose of the study is_to explore the Town of The,U4dy,will include a cornprehensive review of existing building facility and systems, a review the High i:ahaal tsaEeas, 441-161•rmont of tho oduoatioaal pragrnm, id•ntifioaria n of building nlllvvrt»n;fiar'and deficiencies, and recommendations for improvements.. Renovation alternatives will be evaluated, and a single option developed through schematic design. The specific scope and schedule for the project is outlined below. Meetings shall be bi-weekly, on Wednesdays, beginning July 20i 2002, through January 2003, • An Architect's Report agenda will be prepared for each meeting by FAI and submitted through the Superintendent of Schools' office prior to the scheduled meeting. ~ ]►DK 1: L J Vln Jan u.a asua■ as •v w ati a a~u • Visit Site with Consulu:3nts Establish Project Schedule • Develop Work Plan (tasks to be performed; products; schedule; fee allocation) • Initial Meeting with School Building Committee and Reading School Committee • Initial Meeting with School Principal and School Superintendent • Meet with Department Heads • Gather available existing documentation Product: Work Plan, Schedule T&3k 2: E141in1_Q dldoas Asa ament JKAe 10-July 29 Using data from previously competed studies, other written and graphic information as well as information derived from field investigations, identify the following- General Building :Data; a) Convert Existing Building Plans to CAD b) Develop a Chronology of Construction c) Chronology of Significant Maintananae Projects d) Total floor areas (gross and net) Develop Efficiency vatic a) General Building Description including organization and levels. F LAN S BURG H ASSOCIATES September 16, 2002 1 " SFp 1 7 2002 tits. Christine Lynch Ti`,T= :~=r. =.•l~.'- _ Archicec[ure School Building Assistance Ma5[er Plannmg Department of Education Infer or Design 350 Main Street Programming vlalden, 'NIA 02143-5023 Principals RE: Reading Memorial High School David S. Solcau. ',IA Kace M. Brannelly, FSNIPS Alan S. Ross, AfA Dear Christine: Duncan P. McClelland, •\[.1 Sidney R. Bowen, III We are writing in response to your letter of August 26, 2002. As you know, the Town of Reading, through its School Building Committee, has engaged FAI to Chairman evaluate options for the physical and programmatic revitalization of the Reading Eacl R. Flansburgh, FAl-~, NA Memorial High School. Senior Associates Samuel Bird, AIA We are in the process of undertaking a feasibility study to address alternative Jorge M. Cruz, AIA approaches to achieve this objective. Much of the basic information you have asked Suzanne M. Rrvlcz, AiA be presented to the SBA is included in the scope of our work. It is planned that the ciaces \I. results of this study will be presented to Town Meeting in November. We will aAaoie forward a copy of the material to your office before December 1, 2002. We are David Curtis id R. DeFilippu, AIA anticipating that the Town of Reading will make a decision to pursue a completed Vincent E.J. Dube, MA application to SBA before June 2003. Rose "A. Fiore Kimberly A. Genercu. Sincerely, James A. Highum, AIA Peter W. Lambert FLA BUR ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas J. 'Aueltcr, MA Dominic 1. Pedutta JRobert E. Peirce, A[A James B. Williams, Jr., AIA Sidney R. Bowen III Principal Cc: Dr. Harry Harutunian, Superintendent, Reading Public Schools; Mr. Russ Graham, Chairman, Reading School Building Committee 2204/91603/srb rln-h,-h A-,;-.. I- 77 ,n,., , r , FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES Invoice 28 August 9, 2002 Project No: 02204.00 Invoice No: 0024235 Dr. Harry Harutunian, Superintendent Reading Public Schools 82 Oakland Road Reading MA 01867 Project: Reading igh School Study Feasability and Schematic Design Services Professional services from July 1. 2002 to July 31, 2002 Billing Type: Fee Phase Name Doc, Review Exist Conditions Program Rev and Verification Schematic Design Phasing Cost Estimates Develop, Present Final Rprt Total Fee Contract Amount 180,000.00 39,000.00 103,000.00 36,000.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 418,000.00 Percent Fee Complete Earned 75.00 135,000.00 35.00 13,650.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148,650.00 Previous Billed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Current Billing 135,000.00 13,650.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148,650.00 Total Current Billing = ($148,650.00 Thank You Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114-1910 T617-367-3970 F61.7-720-7873 www,fai-arch.com