Thursday,
June 24, 2004
Wayland Town
Building
School
Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members:
Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Steve Breit, Brian Chase, Jim Howard,
Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels, Steve Tise
Absent:
Dianne Bladon
Ex Officio
members: Gary Burton, Fred Knight, Charlie Ruopp
Turner team:
Dick Amster, Julie Bezoetdebie
HMFH team:
Steve Friedlaender, Doug Sacra
Chairman Lea
Anderson called the seventeenth meeting of the HSBC to order at 7:40 p.m.
She reminded the
group that HSBC meetings were being taped for showing on the local cable
channel on Wednesday evenings.
- Options
Progress
Steve
Friedlaender introduced the discussion on options, indicating that Doug Sacra
would report later on phasing. He
said that decisions on tradeoffs of length of construction, cost, and
disruption to the education program must be made by the HSBC as the group
analyses options.
Steve reviewed
changes made to Option 2 (renovation of four buildings, demolition of lift slab
buildings, new construction) that open up the space around a new academic
building for Science, English, and Social Studies. The change might lead to a proposal for a main entrance in this
new building, but more time is needed to consider this.
Steve showed a
variation of Option 3 (all new construction except for renovated Field House)
that is a campus arrangement with four separate buildings, as well as an
iteration showing the buildings joined, a benefit of which is reduced number of
elevators, stairs, and doors.
Included in this iteration is room on the site for future expansion
should more classrooms be needed.
Steve said that the approach to a new school raises landscape design issues
that a landscape architect will have to consider. Discussion ensued on the Field House being the first
building visible as one approaches WHS.
An opinion was expressed from some HSBC members that it might be
desirable to have the Field House in the middle of the scheme: non-academic
areas (commons, admin, auditorium, gym) to one side of the Field House and
academic areas on the other. It
was pointed out that this variation might negate the benefits of new
construction around reducing or eliminating the need for phasing. It was stated that the HSBC is looking
for the least cost option for each of the three families of options. Should the
group choose new construction, then HMFH can look at ways of dealing with the
Field House facade or relative placement of other buildings.
A member of the
committee asked to know the cost premium for the campus “feel” relative to the
least expensive way to build a facility that satisfies the educational
program. A discussion on a Walmart
(big box, least cost) approach to construction led to different points of view
on what is important in Wayland.
Some members felt that cost effective, excellent education is what
matters and appearance is secondary.
Others do not want to perpetuate the lack of attention to appearance in
Wayland. The HSBC wants to
understand trade-offs that affect education vs. trade-offs on other design
issues. In concluding the
discussion on efficiency of design, Steve expressed his view that Option 3
would be the smallest of the three options in square feet and that the 1.3 to
1.35 multiple of net to gross square feet would be the lowest HMFH has ever
done.
Doug Sacra
presented a floor plan of a lift slab building (Option 1) that showed column
placement in renovated, resized rooms.
The columns are 6” x 6”. He
said that some columns would be 6 feet into a room and might be
inconvenient. In answer to a
question about ceiling height, he said that the concrete slab is 9 feet
high. New ceiling tile would bring
it to 8’10’’ and that piping would be hung to 7’10” high. In the tiered business classroom, the
pipes would hang down to 6’10”.
Duct work would be minimal.
Doug presented a
sample phasing plan for Option 1.
He explained that the schedule for design time varies for different
schemes. He presented multiple phases in a linear format. Comments from the HSBC focused on the
total length of construction time for a multi-phased option. The opinion was expressed that a 4 or
5-year construction project is not acceptable. When asked for a guideline on a reasonable length of time,
24-30 months was stated. The HSBC
is looking for the collective wisdom of HMFH and Turner in recommending the
best possible combination of schedule length and cost.
- Agenda and
Template for next week
Dick Amster presented
the proposed format for the next meeting (July 1) at which the design team will
present
- a comparative
qualitative evaluation of 3 options (45 minutes)
- phasing and
scheduling discussion of 3 options (45 minutes)
- cost
estimates for 3 options (45 minutes)
Dick asked the
group if a linear presentation for phasing is helpful. The consensus was that it is
useful. As part of the qualitative
evaluation, the options will be assessed relative to the HSBC’s
objectives. It was suggested that
the qualitative analysis focus on key elements where the differences are
significant, not necessarily each and every objective. It was suggested that questions be
limited to ones of clarification during the presentation. The HSBC will meet one hour earlier
(6:30 instead of 7:30) due to the length of the presentation.
It was pointed
out that the presentation relates to families of options, not final
design. It will be very important
for the public to be reminded of this at meetings and at the forum on July 8.
Dick was asked
to show assumptions for cost per square foot. He was reminded that the HSBC needs to know the cost of not
renovating the Field House. The
group agreed that any phasing proposal must be reviewed and agreed to by
Charlie Ruopp.
Lea suggested
that the schedule be revised to allow more time between the community forum on
July 8 and the option selection scheduled for July 15. It was agreed that the July 15th
meeting would have an extended public comment period and that the HSBC would
spend its time discussing the options.
A meeting will be posted for July 22 as a target date for selecting an
option.
Lea reported
that a draft agenda for the forum was being circulated and that Dianne would be
working on the forum when she returns from vacation. A letter to the editor will be submitted this week inviting
the community to the forum. A
suggestion was made to give an update on state building assistance and also to
include some benchmark information in the presentation.
In response to
recent e-mails on SBA funding, Gary Burton brought the group up to date on the
School Committee’s effort to get the legislature to grandfather towns like
Wayland when the new funding program is up and running. The current Senate bill is not clear on
grandfathering, while the House bill was clearly very favorable to
Wayland. Gary reported that he had
received good news on reimbursement for renovation projects in the early 1990s for
which Wayland has never been reimbursed.
It should be made clear that the School Committee is working to
communicate our needs to legislators.
Upon a motion
duly made (Cindy Lombardo) and seconded (Jim Howard), the Committee voted
unanimously (9-0) to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #16 on June 17,
2004. (Note: Joe Lewin departed at
9:30 p.m. prior to the vote.)
The meeting was
adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Observers:
Pat Abramson, Barbara Carter, Arnold Goldenbaum, Margo Melnicove,
Charles Raskin, Richard Turner
Comments from
observers:
Comment that the
current Wayland Town Pool building would not be a good option for affordable
housing.
Question on
timing of high school debt exclusion vote and comment that January or February
would not be a good time for many people in town to vote.
The next regular meeting of the HSBC is scheduled for Thursday, July 1 at 6:30 p.m. in the Wayland School Committee conference room in the Town Building.