Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-16 ad Hoc School Building Committee Minutes,V Reading School Building Committee Minutes of RSBC Meeting Held on October 16, 2002, 7:30 p.m. (In the RMHS Guidance Career Center) Committee Members Attending: Russ Graham, Chair (RG) Bill Carroll (BC) Warren Cochrane (WC) Rich Radville (RR) Tim Twomey (TT) Jeff Struble (JS) Michael Scarpitto (MS) Alex McRae (AM) Dennis LaCroix (DL) Paula Perry (PP) p/t Featured Guests: Frank Orlando (Staff) Dr. Harry Harutunian (Staff) Gary Hart (Staff) Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.) w c M XM > 70 CC) Cn 01 ° Cr RG asked if FAI had anything to report on reducing the phasing times for any on the options (primarily Options 1 and 2). Sid Bowen said that his office was in the process of investigating the costs and procedures involved with using temporary modular classrooms to act as swing space to aid the phasing schemes but had not completed them as yet. At issue is not determining the cost of renting the modulars, but how to service them with power and heat and where to put them on the site. Exploring the value of the possible acceleration of the phasing schedules that modulars might allow would not be worth reviewing if the associated costs were not known. FAI hoped to present modular information at a later meeting. Another idea for improving the phasing aspects of the high school renovation was voiced at the previous night's Open Meeting at Parker Middle School, which was to employ an off-site venue as swing space (rent temporary space in another existing building to house a significant portion of the student population). The Addison- Wesley (A-W) property was mentioned as a possible site. Dr. Harutunian said there would be several obstacles to such a venue in his view. One would be the bussing required to transport students to the A-W site. Another would be the cost of rental. Another would be the need for the students to use elevators for changing floors. And still another would be the fit-up costs to customize the space for classroom use. He Reading School Building Committee Meeting Alinutes fr-on7 October 10, 2002 thought that an adjacent community might have rental educational space to use that might do away with some of those concerns. - AM thought that any ideas regarding off-site rental should be proven practical before pursuing them. - Frank Orlando thought that the A-W scheme was a creative idea that indicated willingness on the part of the community to try and help the phasing situation. However, he felt the logistics of such a venture would be too difficult to arrange successfully and did not recommend pursuing it. RR brought up a suggestion by a member of the Board of Selectmen to use added shifts to compress the time needed to complete the phases. Mr. Bowen said that in past projects, they have specified second shift work to be done, sending workers into non-isolated areas after the students have left for the day. The crews had to do as much work as they could in those second shifts and clean up before leaving to allow the areas to be used during the day. However, compelling overtime for work in the isolated areas was not something that FAI had ever done. RR thought the Selectmen's idea was to specify double shifts in order to reduce the calendar time spent on the project. Mr. Bowen said he would look into such a scheme to see if it had merit. Dr. Harutunian asked if there was any contingency time built into the phasing schemes developed thusfar or were they dependent on deadlines being met on time. Mr. Bowen replied that the phasing schemes were constructed with the over-riding requirement that the educational program would not be affected if deadlines were not met on time. This meant that there was no reliance on season-dependent procedures or scheduling of phases that used narrow time windows (like spring and winter vacations). Hence, he felt that the only way to "tighten" the phasing would be to make more of the building available to the contractor at any one time (by finding more swing space). JS asked if double sessions could be used to compress the amount of school space needed and thereby give more of the school over to the contractor during the phases. Dr. Harutunian and Mr. Orlando replied that due to the DOE regulations for time spent in learning, double sessions would not be feasible, making the second session run well into the evening to satisfy the reg's. Observer Kendra Cooper related a novel phasing scheme used at Newburyport High School. The school was vacated for renovation by sending the high school students to the nearby middle school and sending the middle school students to a vacant elementary school in the adjacent town of Salisbury. Salisbury charged Newburyport only one dollar in rent and had Newburyport pay the cost of operating and maintaining the building. This arrangement was in force for two years. TT asked FAI if they were looking at creating temporary classrooms in the field house as swing space. Mr. Bowen replied that to do so would mean the suspension of interscholastic athletics for one to two years. Therefore, they were looking into renting modular classrooms as a way to create more swing space. Reading, School Building Committee Meeting Minutes from October 16, 2002 TT commented that it thought it would be difficult to use off-site space (such as at A-W) as swing space and he did not think an almost rent-free situation like Newburyport experienced could be found near Reading. Dr. Harutunian then commented that the Town of Stoneham was going to have a large elementary school vacant in the future. He also noted a similar school-rental situation that occurred in Salem (using a vacant school in Beverly). He doubted that the rent would be as low as Newburyport paid, however, and pointed out the costs of bussing needed to transfer students across town boundaries. TT also noted the costs and the political element of uprooting a student population to a remote location. AM wondered if there would be any problems with relocating just the ninth grade to another location. Frank Orlando and Dr. Harutunian said that there were too many programs that the freshmen participated in that overlapped with the upperclassmen to make such a separation work. Also, administrative staff for the freshmen would have to be duplicated off-site and would likely be cost-prohibitive. AM then asked if extending the school day by one period would benefit the phasing. Dr. Harutunian said that such a plan would require renegotiations of teachers' contracts. JS initiated a general discussion about what costs would be reimbursable by the State by asking if the costs of bussing, equipping and running an off-site facility would be reimbursable (administrative costs would not be, "moving" costs might be). Other topics included the payment of costs over the - maximum cap allowed by the State, whether that cap was enough to build an adequate new high school (FAI thought it wasn't) and how the State would view reimbursements for renovations over new construction. Observer Jackie Mandell put forward an idea of using the industrial arts wing as temporary swing space which could be later used for other non-high school purposes. A general discussion ensued on the value of spending money for building temporary classrooms and having non-programmatic space left over. The costs of building acceptable space in that wing were noted as being higher than elsewhere and it was thought that any renovations not destined for program usage by the high school would not be regarded as reimbursable by the State. FAI said that they could investigate such an idea further. RG asked FAI and the Committee members for their impressions of the comments fielded at the public meeting in Parker Middle School the night before. - Sid Bowen said Robert Peirce had drawn up a summary of the comments made at the meeting (copy attached). He said that some of the comments they had not considered and would be addressing them in the future. Many of the issues that were raised had been addressed already. - TT said that he did not see any dominant opinion from the attendees about which option was favored. He noted that parents who were concerned about the effects of the phasing on their children seemed to initially gravitate towards Option 3 (shortest phasing). RG noticed some couples splitting on favoring Options 2 and 3. Reading School _Building "onannittee Aleeting illinutes ftom October 16, 2002 JS observed that most people noticed that the choices between the renovation options (1 & 2) and the reno./addition option (3) were a choice between the most space and least phasing, which was an astute observation after so brief an introduction to the options. - RG noticed that with few exceptions the attending group seemed to accept the close cost estimates. RR added that he felt that since the options all aimed at providing comprehensive upgrades to the school both physically and programmatically, arriving at similar costs through different methods of approach did not seem unreasonable. - AM commented that he was encouraged by the spirit exhibited by the attendees to help bring suggestions for the options to the Committee's attention. He also noted that the three options do differ in costs more significantly if one looked at the costs to Reading after reimbursement of the cap amount and that these to-Reading costs should be made clear. JS asked Dr. Harutunian if the School Committee hadn't voted to reject any scheme for the high school that wasn't 100% reimbursable. He responded that the SC had taken two votes on the matter, both specific to options presented in the Strekalovsky & Hoit feasibility study. The first vote was not to approve a scheme that only addressed administrative and physical needs and did not address educational program (S&H Opt. A). The second was not to approve the construction of a new high school (S&H Opt. D). Both rejections were due to the fact that the SBA guidelines in force at the time of the votes would have prohibited these projects from receiving reimbursement. - RG was reminded that a joint meeting with the School Committee had been scheduled for November 7, 2002 and so informed the Committee members. Observer Linda Phillips asked what were the plans for the Filed House and what would be the cost of renovating it would be without state reimbursement. She said she had a conversation with Jeff Wulfson of the SBA in which he told her the Field House was not reimbursable. Sid Bowen responded that all the options renovated the Field House and that the costs associated with it were included in the overall renovation costs, not itemized out for separate funding. Mrs. Phillips then passed out copies of notes made by SBA personnel from meetings held with Reading representative (copies attached) which she claimed contradicted statements to the Committee by Mr. Graham and Mr. Bowen concerning the reimbursability of the Field House (she said she obtained the notes with Jackie Mandell). She claimed Mr. Wolfson saw no need for transfer of care, custody and control of the Field House to the School Committee for the sake of SBA reimbursement because he told Mrs. Phillips that the Field House was not to be considered for state funding. She demanded an explanation of the discrepancy. Mr. Graham responded that her assertions were contrary to his recollection of the meetings that he and others had with the SBA personnel in question and that he would research the notes and report back to the Committee on the subject. - AM passed out copies of an article from the Boston Globe about the artificial track and playing surface installed at Belmont High School's football stadium Reading,School Building Connnittee l9eetin}; Minutes fivni October 10. 2002 (copy attached), noting that similar materials are being considered for Reading's fields. RG and Dr. Harutunian remarked that they had traveled to Belmont with the Athletic Director and a member of the School Committee to see the new installation and picked up some informational materials that they would try to distribute to Committee members. AM requested the production of educational specifications and have a discussion of them before choosing an option, mainly to determine a target enrollment around which the ed. specs would be based. JS asked FAI if any of the options would change materially as a result of pinning down the enrollment number. Sid Bowen replied that unless that number was well beyond the working assumption (of 1,320 students), there would be no significant revisions to the options that would change them from their present forms. JS thought that determining or not determining the enrollment number would not affect the decision-making process. AM also wondered if enough options had been created; specifically, if another option involving renovation/addition was possible between Options 2 and 3. Mr. Bowen discouraged further sub-division of the options, noting that his firm had looked at intermediate options between 2 and 3 and found that they did not create more valuable options and seemed to cause confusion. He said that creating a continuum of options would obscure any clear direction to follow for any of them. AM offered an idea that had surfaced via public input about saving the existing auditorium in Option 3 rather than build a new one as an example of looking "between" options. Mr. Bowen replied that - they had looked at such an idea early on an found that planning circulation and phasing around the preservation of the existing auditorium produced poorer results than any of the others and would ultimately cost as much as building a new auditorium. Observer Linda Phillips asked if a feasibility study were being produced by FAI and when would such a study be available. She referred to procedures recommended by the Inspector General. Observer Jackie Mandell interrupted by referring to a letter written by FAI in which Sid Bowen wrote that his firm was in the process of undertaking a feasibility study for the physical and programmatic revitalization of RMHS. RG answered that as instructed by Town Meeting and affirmed by the voters of Reading (via a debt exclusion election), the SBC was engaged in producing a schematic design for Town Meeting and the voters' review. He said that Mr. Bowen might have referred to the feasibility stage of producing that schematic design in his correspondence. He cautioned the observers not to continue to interrupt and be discourteous. 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 9:05 pm). Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary Reading School Building Committee 4-5 -2 r Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education _ School Building Assistance Building Needs Conference chool District: /5e'-a C41 ame of Building Committee: hairperson/Contact: rchitect for Planning: Dcal Funding Authorized for Design: $ urrent Grade Organization: -oposed Grade Organization pope of Project: Grade Range: Name of School: Site identified: r -D 6/1 UIUU Category Application 4 Date: 14, 7 ( /0 Date Appointed: Telephone: ~tr~tetion $ Elementary Middle/Junior. Elementary Middle/Junior. A/R New Conversion Acquisition_ Changed from: Type: Secondary SecondaryReno Alternative Age of Bldg Enrollment: Acreage: J=c l Problems rem- sated by this proposed project: --I - c v~ o a t ~ i~~ u x '.]t * t P 4- O" -0, 0 ~ Q ~1, ~ ~t JC. W r :7 d n'~ C GG r• n ~ ~ C 7'Yt v > i C. i c. 1l ? Chi c•-? !1 c w r- y r C _ , S . r k-7 ) SYr a c 1..~i ~ L~G J1G~y"L./ ,S'c~-. .~t t t ~ ~ l7 u ~ f S CdG~7~... ~ jr' - ~vr 1 '1 C.~"~'i ~ Cfi' pt c• c1r ~ a r' ! ~ s... ructural Problems remediated by the proposed project cn d c i p ~on•~ - cz t,D C ylt - ~5 w tYz~~d~ r h a cry ~VJ L~irr~~ll~ v~1 C t t I i ~L r-c -0 -L,- 0 iL,-M r'-Z ~ t ;1 J t• ~ F- C ~ is a ~ c c a 7r F i c 1 ~ ~ ~ c ,,r c c..~4Y7 l7! q'~ C ! ~ a ✓l. o ra>~ `a ~xt Steps: C~._.a. r 1., ~ c. ~1 C' c'~ r t r'~ > J ~ : 'l .31rt ~ r~ ~ d ~ ~ ~t z ! d 1 t ~ ~ .S c r c r> c ~ lz N a cr` } a 5Lh ~R L?mac' f> c 1va1t~ sec a Ji~1 rt'l c e ease provide the following materials to Department staff at this conference: (if not previously submitted) 10 year Enrollment projects including the name of the developer Long Range Educational and Facilities Plan in brief outline/summary format (3-5 pages) Space inventories for each schoolhouse under the jurisdiction of the school committee. Form 645-3 Rationale for Construction V Vote to approve/appoint School Building Committee Local funding authorization / v d) Education Survey (summary) VI c St rral/feasibility study on replace men t/re novated buildings / u t = l~ 6 Y7 0.0 441 tendartce -Name and Position (please print) use reverse side as needed /j 0 A- 0 =°D Q ~ ~ DO 0 0 .1, o FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES Meeting Notes Summary:. Internal FAI DATE: October 15, 2002 PROJECT: Reading Memorial High School FAI PROJECT NO: 2204.00 RE: Public Information Meeting @ Parker School Summary: The Building Committee Chair introduced the project, the history of the project, and the decisions of Town Meeting. FAI presented the three options currently under consideration. The public was invited to provide comments and questions. The following bulleted items The following facts, issues, and concerns were raised by the public. These items are stated for record purposes and should not be considered action items. Some are addressed by the current designs, some are up to the Building Committee, others should only be considered as we further develop the project. Solutions that impact project scope, cost, or phasing will be reviewed with the Building Committee. Educational Issues will be reviewed with the Principal and the Superintendent. • The Auditorium needs an area, or areas adjacent to it, which can be used for break out space, intermissions, etc. Currently, the cafeteria is used for this purpose. At least one resident expressed a strong interest in maintaining the relationship between cafeteria and Auditorium. • Concern was expressed about asbestos removal in an occupied building. What methods are employed to insure the safety of students and staff. • The relative life span of the schemes was questioned. There was an interest in whether one option offered a greater life span than another. FAI answered that each option anticipated renovating, or building new, to achieve a fifty year life for the building. • Many people were interested in the relative operating costs for each option. Many questioned whether Option 3 would be cheaper to operate. FAI stated that we don not have facts and figures which address that question. FAI stated that relative the current RMHS, operating costs for any of the new facilities would be greater. However, relative to each other, Option 3 would have less operating cost. k • It was noted that excavation and earthwork in the area of the school will be difficult. One person stated that peat was encountered during excavations for the field house. Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washing on Street Boston, MA 021 14-1910 T617-367-3970 F617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES • It was suggested that double shifting the construction reduce construction periods. • There is concern about traffic flow in the site plan for Option 3. The flow of cars to the entry and the field house was considered too constricted. • One person expressed a `philosophical' opposition to the idea of tearing down an auditorium in order to build a new one. • One person offered the idea that, in Options 2 & 3, areas of the first floor could be cleared to provide open area adjacent to the auditorium. • One person felt that the Building Committee must develop objective criteria for evaluating the options, rather than relying on interpretation by individual members. • It was felt that for Option 3, the 24 months of construction which impacts the students, independent of the demolition, should be emphasized over the total estimated construction period of 32 months. • It was suggested that a portion of the students and faculty could be relocated to another location in order to ease the phasing of Options 1 & 2. • The existing Gymnasium is heavily used for recreational basketball. • It was suggested that if Reading High School were to provide space for Satellite University programs, or other adult Ed., some air conditioned spaces would be required. These programs often run through the summer. • One person expressed the opinion that FAI had not offered ` a choice based on price.' The options are so close in price that the choice is not meaningful. • FAI stated that Option 3 was developed out of a concern over phasing. • It was suggested that recent (past five years) school improvement projects should be listed and quantified so that the town has a sense of what new work will be `thrown out' during this construction. FAI stated that we are not yet at a level of detail to address such a concern. 2204.00/meeting notes/MN 10/15/02 summary Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 021 14-1910 T617-367-3970 F617-720-7873 www.fai-arch.com 0 0 N N H C7 w it o d w o O it 41 vi y: d m o ° a 0 Z C'n i Q . •I+IJ 1~1 O a U 1^ A CL z o V) H M/O I`W O ~g 'El 13 4 t 6i = 3 w UN ocaa en cy.~U~>~ aA~o Joao ° ~ ~ ~ o A OA d o c ate ro❑ w a' Id ° ca ,p C G 6 G U G .o C U c~ cUd .o G N F' 'd 'd x cUi ~ w ~ A O U O Y~ N u O :d 5~ W U~ A 'G 'd O U d y y U° N ° O O A b O bD U ~i . i, ° t-' U F. O & y O N U N~ N J `S Al G A Y i .C A G° A N O 3 a3 a 4 U C G U q y N A w A .N w H o o A a~~i y GObl)'w Ei' ~d OO Cld .C O G y c 'c " :c .~S c'°i o G .G A t'G., .S b4 o r 'O x o F ;z b~ •ci r; c H p •S. F y °p~, > " c'~ ~d U "C G U O ,GAO cd U 0.'t4 ~G a~ c~ 5 G „ N N bA •cd U ai v, eo.G,-. A ~a G G a„ a~ ~ a no G o 5 yaw 3 u, O ed O /I Iti - ~ d ' t a r Azz l~ o ~ $1 fu 1 r 4 f, ~ 1 s. J C };i Yip. r . J f t~ t i I y t lI z 4 .F s I k J b y ii i °odo~N°~^ a~ A 'O icy ai U U A c~ a N E b Go 0 0 044- ° h to P4 ati- oMogooo~o° O ,Up :d N J E Abr, ti ~ U cd ~ o H rn Cd U U i.. k" ~ w c ~ ~ o o F' w O N ~d 'G O t-i . N Y~ N H W y y U U .G .C R7 y U +.C+ A v' ~otib~ ~ ~v s~ O x ow H A U G cy ~ O b~ 0 c°'~z ~v o caT' 0 to bb 0 U U G U U >r 0 h 60 ~ H U b a P o ,G owl y .-U+ bA ^ G U bA N w 42 v 3 O ° O G r~ N 4.3 N w O ~ td U~ "xN,vEoo3oU b ~ ro~ C y o ao o~~ a to ~ v 949- i o U o o x> b J~ G~ O A S y C U. G O A~ y O ^ ~ rn '0 33 ;~~.~0 00 430 3 F a o o mrob 5 ro'o o VU„ 0 «7 b0 'C1 w G A cG•3 U U U U ° o N O O Y U i.. rC ^O U rti o m~ 3 3 ~ .G c ro 3 d4o p 0 c A G G ni O ,a: b`d,G IN G. U P U G fa' . ,4 y a~ yp o .~S a~ a~ cd G ^4 A C° . cd ti 3 ^ o a c a a a 3 ti a j o a °ti ° a .r N N O A b U O"° w0 ' N G U O O N U x•b i., A b O. p A o° v .d p v a vvi o a~ w ~i. q cd 5 w +1 f` ! Z a r7., tvt~~ `a3 C O aei Urn p ° U Sj u -d .u~ ,a~'t- W .+'G+ y y o xy Z I d FU O ti O 0.Y •S b f b GO O G > W ^y Ad G^ a~ ti G a' w v> aHii . p ` +'G.. 69 fno x , p_ o N .d U bG w a~ 3 .N G ai y cd o of c° N bn.~' v o ~w a o d a N°° I o'> " G on ai cad x G G .ld N .o ti v ago c"a ~-!N o 'N y y 'd F G 'a~ pWj N G cd .G. ,y ~c..C b ~j G p a~ 5 O N '.o o v 3 .G G F' O 'c7 G rJ ° Y V' f-, Q , `T7 °FG'. ✓ d a Q ° ci H ai A~omnw '3 w o ~~'nGo aau3° 3oG cr)