High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #52 Minutes

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Wayland High School

Commons Conference Room

Attendees

HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Dianne Bladon, Steve Breit, Brian Chase, Jim Howard, Fred Knight, David Lash, Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels, Jennifer Steel,

Absent: Josh Bekenstein, Karen Talentino, Steve Tise

Ex Officio members: Louis Jurist

HMFH: George Metzger

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

MSBA Status Meeting (2/13/08) Summary – Lea updated the group on the Massachusetts School Building Authority status meeting held the previous day in Boston. Attendees from Wayland were:

Gary Burton Superintendent

Barb Fletcher School Committee Chair

Fred Turkington Town Administrator

Joy Buhler School Business Administrator

George Metzger HMFH Principal

Lea Anderson HSBC Chair

MSBA attendees were:

Ralph Wallace Director of Capital Planning

Mary Pichetti Director of Construction Management

Christine Nolan Associate General Counsel

Sean Walsh Project Field Coordinator

Brian McLaughlin Legislative Liaison

George Driscoll Deputy General Counsel

Ralph Wallace reviewed the MSBA process from the 2003 moratorium, development of new regulations, SOI submissions, facilities assessments through selection of 83 projects into the capital pipeline (49 for Feasibility Study, 27 repair projects, 7 project budget and scope). Ralph said that Wayland is not unique in having produced a study during the moratorium. Half of the 49 feasibility study schools have conducted some type of study.

Ralph then asked Wayland attendees to talk about what we would like to see happen. Gary and Lea reviewed Wayland history and work done over the past seven years. We said that we would like to work with HMFH on a revised study that adheres to the new regulations and enrollment projection. We would like to use the studies that have already been done and not start at the beginning again. We would like the HSBC to continue in its current make-up.

In anticipation of topics that might come up based on our list of questions, we handed out material that included a complete review of the Designer Selection process we went through in 2003/2004, HSBC bios and selection process, the HSBC Phase I Final Report, the Oct. 2007 Enrollment Report, Jeff Dieffenbach’s presentation on enrollment, and the FY2008 Budget Booklet. We also left a CD with the 2002 Feasibility Study and the 2004 Preliminary Design Report. We drew attention to the four options (including the stop gap) -that were studied by HMFH and Turner in response to the Senior Site Review report that said “the group has not been advised of a comparison between replacement or renovation plus school building additions.” Ralph said that they will review the study and the architect procurement information carefully.

Ralph said that the goal is to go from where we are today to the Project Budget and Scope Agreement. He expects that this takes 12 or 13 months when starting at the beginning. If MSBA authorizes us to use HMFH, we could shave a couple of months.

Steps leading to a Feasibility Study are:

1. Initial Compliance Certification must be signed. This shows that Wayland is in good standing regarding audits on previous projects, and that we agree to move forward in a collaborative way.

2. School Building Committee formed. MSBA will review our committee to make sure it is appropriate and that selectmen and finance committee are represented.

3. Wayland must complete a questionnaire for enrollment forecast. This includes information on building permits, charter schools, etc.

4. Enrollment projection must be completed working with consultant IIC. They use a 5-year cohort survival, building permit data, forecasted fertility rates, live births, etc.

5. Procure Owners Project Manager.

MSBA will provide us with guidelines and scope of services. Wayland does the search on its own.

6. Procure architect.

MSBA will study our previous procurement process and give us a ruling on a month.

A Designer Selection Panel consisting of MSBA and town officials is the typical arrangement.

7. Do the Feasibility Study.

This must include an analysis of renovations, build new options, and a “no build” option.

We would have to update costs, assumptions relative to new regulations.

The Feasibility Study must look at alternative solutions and then get to 15 or 20% of schematic design of the preferred alternative so that cost estimates are realistic.

8. Parties make agreement on Budget and Scope including schedule, price, MSBA participation. After the Project Funding Agreement is done, increasing the MSBA amount will be the exception, not the rule. Goal is to spend $100k’s not $M’s to see if we should go ahead.

9. MSBA Board of Directors votes on the BSA. Town has 120 days to get town to agree on project.

Ralph said that the minimum reimbursement rate of 40% is what Wayland should use to plan for the high school project. He said that it would be very difficult for Wayland to qualify for enough reimbursement points to get from our “baseline” of 33.95% up to and above 40%. The base line is the number that incentive points get added to. The Feasibility Study will be reimbursed at the rate of 40%. It is possible that Wayland might get some incentive points, but it is unlikely that Wayland would be able to add 7 or 8 percentage points above the base line to get above 40%.

Ralph then laid out a hypothetical scenario for Wayland: a school for 930 students at 189 sq. ft./student results in 176,000 sq. ft. MSBA’s current estimate for hard and soft costs, OPM and architect included, is $325/sq. ft. The result is a $57M project with Wayland responsible for 60% of this cost. He said that cost numbers will have to be adjusted for escalation.

Questions:

Several of our questions had already been answered.

• We asked about phasing a project. Ralph said that the goal should be to implement a project that solves the long-term needs. MSBA won’t solve the same problem twice. They would have to think long and hard about “multiple bites at the apple.” There is such pent up demand that coming back with another request risks getting into another long line.

• We asked about the Field House. If a renovation is funded privately, is it possible for MSBA to fund a gym? Ralph said, “I won’t say no”.

• Earlier we asked if there is a downside to privately funded projects proceeding now. He couldn’t think of any.

• We asked if the Field House would be reimbursable. If it is newly built, then no. We would have to evaluate a renovation as we work together.

• We asked about a best case time line. Ralph responded that if our requests are granted, then it would be 9 months to an agreement and then 120 days to a town vote. The Board meets six times a year, so we would want to be aware of the timing.

• We asked what “Innovative Community Use” incentive means. He couldn’t answer.
• The 8% Maintenance incentive is going to be very difficult to get.

• We can expect MSBA to get back to us in a month with an answer on HMFH.

HSBC members commented as follows:

- The steps leading to a feasibility study seem more realistic than the previous flow chart

- Is the funding approved at last year’s town meeting ($300k) the right amount to get to what the MSBA expects in the Feasibility Study? What do they mean by 15-20% of schematics?

- To get through schematics we are not starting from zero.

- Do we have to front the money for the Feasibility Study?

- It would be nice to have an active participant from MSBA coming to our meetings.

- MSBA “best case” timeline is probably too optimistic.

Lea will follow up with the MSBA on the following questions:

· When does MSBA's cost sharing of the feasibility and schematic design effort occur and what form of agreement with the town is in place prior to the Project Funding Agreement?

· Will MSBA use the pay as you go procedure for this portion of the project?

· If the town's funding request within 120 days for the PFA date fails, does MSBA still cover its

share of the funds spent to date?

· Clarify whether when you referred to 15-20% and schematic design effort you meant Schematic Design at 15-20% of the project design effort or 15-20% of a schematic design effort.

· How will MSBA and Sean Walsh, our project rep, work with the building committee during the feasibility and Schematic efforts?

· Will MSBA attend building committee meetings?

· What level of in –progress submittals will MSBA require?

· What will be the nature of the approval of the revised feasibility study needed prior to beginning the schematic design?

Field House floor and bleacher upgrade – Kim Keefer addressed the HSBC about a plan to install a new floor and bleachers in the Field House with private funds. Kim had attended the October 18^th HSBC meeting and reported that there is a group of people in town interested in improving the interior of the Field House and increasing gym space. He said that the goal is to return to the original Field House design of an open floor and improve safety. Both the floor and bleachers are well beyond their life expectancy.

Doug Sacra of Maple Hill Architects then took the group through a description of the plan to install a new floor inside the track that would be used for practice (3 courts or open field house), competition, and Town Meeting. They would like to do this over the upcoming summer and early fall. Doug and Kim and Karen Vachon have met with Dr. Burton, Pat Tutwiler, and Martha Jamieson. They are approaching the HSBC now that the first meeting with the MSBA did not uncover any reasons not to proceed. They will next take their plan to the School Committee. They will have to meet with the FinCom to show that the improvements will not increase maintenance costs. Doug stressed that the fundraising effort would be low key and that the work is minimal. There is still a need to replace the roof and windows, and provide handicap accessibility as pointed out in the studies done in 2004.

The HSBC discussed the plan. The group agreed that there does not appear to be any negative cost implications on a potential high school project. To the contrary, the group agreed that this private effort will reduce the scope of the project. The HSBC took a sense of the meeting vote on proceeding with the floor and bleacher replacement. All 12 members present approved. The HSBC thanked Kim Keefer and Karen Vachon for this potential gift to the school.

Website – Lea asked the group for comments on the new web site. Two volunteers in town have been working with Fred Knight on the new site. She thanked Fred, Claire Seheringer, and Janet Correia for their work. The feedback from the HSBC was very positive stressing the “user friendliness” and simplicity of the site. It was suggested that the picture might be improved and that pictures of overcrowding are preferable to flooded walkway pictures.

Next Steps – Lea said that the ball is in MSBA’s court. They are expected to issue forms that Wayland will have to submit including the Initial Compliance Certification, enrollment, and the building committee. The next meeting will be scheduled when there is some action to take.

Motion – A motion was made by Joe Lewin and seconded by Cindy Lombardo to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #51 held on Thursday, December 6, 2007.

Vote – The motion was approved unanimously - 11 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention

Comments from observers: There were no comments.

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Observers: Janet Correia, Kim Keefer, Doug Sacra, Claire Sehringer, Karen Vachon, Lisa Valone