Thursday,
July 15, 2004
Wayland High
School
Language
Building L1
Attendees
HSBC members:
Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Brian Chase, Mary Lentz,
Joe Lewin, Eric Sheffels, Steve Tise
Absent:
Steve Breit, Jim Howard, Cindy Lombardo
Ex Officio
members: Jay Chandler, Allyson Mizoguchi,
Charlie Ruopp
Turner team:
Dick Amster, Bob Ho
HMFH team:
Steve Friedlaender, George Metzger, Doug Sacra
Call to order
- Chairman Lea Anderson
called the nineteenth meeting of the HSBC to order at 7:40 p.m.
Update – Lea reviewed meeting with the Wayland
School Committee on July 7. The
HSBC was asked to wait until SBA deliberation in the state legislature is over
in late July and to understand prioritization of the educational program before
making a recommendation of proceeding with a particular option. The HSBC was also asked to communicate
the consequences of dropping program pieces to achieve a lower project
cost. The HSBC asked the WSC for
direction on timing of a vote relative to other town and state decisions
(overrides, election dates, SBA).
The HSBC will next meet with the WSC on August 2.
Department heads
from conservation, water, and health have suggested that they, the architect,
project manager and an HSBC representative meet with the state DEP regional
manager very early in the design process.
On July 13,
Senator Scott Brown visited Wayland High School, toured the facility, and
discussed the status of SBA. He
and Rep. Susan Pope are encouraged by the formation of a conference committee
to resolve SBA reform legislation.
George then
articulated the question asked by citizens at the forum as well as the HSBC,
“Can any of these options be done over time?” A lengthy discussion followed. Questions and comments were:
-
What are the implications of phasing?
-
Is there any way to build option 3 without moving fields?
-
Is there one option that can be most easily segmented?
-
What is the political will for funding this project?
-
A key consideration is future flexibility.
-
We don’t want to get down a path where we cannot regroup.
-
One scheme might be easiest to phase, but not meet prioritization.
-
Phasing might allow short-term project for absolutely essential pieces.
- Segmented approach won’t be less expensive.
-
There will be disparity in the program for new construction vs. old.
-
How much more would a phased approach cost?
-
What is the impact to the quality of the program?
-
Private schools operate with a phased approach, but have much more land.
-
Would a new science building trigger the need to upgrade everything to ADA and
code?
-
What is the best implementation whether it is phased or not?
-
Keep focused on where we want to end up; the phasing question can be answered.
-
SBA could change which option we choose.
-
People thought we would get 3 price points; many, not all, were surprised we
did not.
-
Is there a big piece we could bite off?
-
Code compliance is a regulatory minefield; could we get waivers?
-
There are no easy answers.
Dr. Burton
introduced the subject by reiterating the findings of the High School
Feasibility Study Committee and the HSBC that the high school facility is
deficient in three areas: life
safety and handicap accessibility, educational program needs, and space for
increasing enrollments. He has
asked Charlie Ruopp to develop a prioritization of the program that will be
presented at next week’s meeting.
He reviewed some of the prioritization that has taken place through the
Educational Programming process.
The group
discussed prioritization at length and raised the following comments and
questions:
-
Prioritization can be used to throw things out or to sequence work; that is
all.
-
If the town ends up doing only the top priority, in 10 or 15 years it will seem
shortsighted.
-
Look at long-term investment.
-
We have not given the town any options.
What are implications of a range of prices?
-
SBA has an impact on the option choice.
-
There are 3 choices: build all at once, phased approach, cheaper stop-gap.
The group
discussed the need to communicate with the Board of Selectmen, Finance
Committee, and School Committee to seek input on strategies for bringing a
project before the voters. It was
agreed that answers to questions on phasing and prioritization should be
addressed before asking the town boards for time on their agendas or inviting
them to attend an HSBC meeting.
Dick Amster
reminded the group that we are not done with space yet. He said that Turner and HMFH will not
be able to answer the question about the minimum project until the end of the
summer. The group asked that the
information be available for the Aug. 26th community forum. His opinion is that the high school
facility will need $50M worth of work, but it could be more if phased. His experience tells him that the more
we wait, the more it will cost.
George wrapped
up the discussion by suggesting that the HSBC first choose a direction that is
both educationally and fiscally responsible. Once a decision is made on where we would like the project
to end up, then we should grapple with the minimum option. He related the latest information on
SBA: there will be a program;
there will be some change to the funding percentage; towns will be required to
bond only their portion; backlog will be cleared much more quickly than in the
past. Last, he suggested going
back to the goals developed in April to see where we are. His advises the HSBC not to become
paralysed into not making a decision.
It was suggested
by HSBC members that factors such as phasing and impact on the neighborhood be
discussed for each option. There
was consensus that no option should yet be eliminated, but that there should be
less investigation of Option 1, the most expensive option. It was pointed out that we should be
careful about asking for too much information at this stage, because there is
still a lot of work to be done after a direction is chosen. We do not want to run out of money in
this phase.
Topics for next
week’s meeting include:
-
Prioritization presentation
-
Phasing information
-
Energy cost comparison
Upon a motion
duly made (Josh Bekenstein) and seconded (Mary Lentz), the Committee voted
unanimously (8-0) to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #18 on July 1, 2004.
The meeting was
adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Observers:
Pat Abramson, Steven Allen, Milton Baily, Sherry A. Cohen, Mary Beth
Finch, Bob Gordon, Bob Hatten, Dave Kominski, Rose Marie Konowski, Jeff Levine,
Jerry Melnick, Peg Norwood, Rosey Rosenthal, Tom Sciacca, Kathy Siracusa,
Michael Short, Jim Spinale, Richard Turner, Molly Upton
Comments and
questions from observers:
Comment: Strongly supports high school proposal,
but proposes giving abatement to people who are 60+ years old and have lived in
town for 20+ years.
Comment:
Supports high school as a first class educational institution and as a good
neighbor, but is very concerned about option 3 which places the track and
football field very close to houses on Charena Rd.
Question: What
triggers an upgrade of all the buildings? Answer: If you spend more than 30% of
the assessed value (30% of $6M) on things that are not just repairs.
Comment: The
current football field is a nuisance now, but it would be much worse if field
were located closer to homes.
Comment: Site is
environmentally sensitive with river and wells. Buffer lines were a compromise. Parking lots are especially bad.
Question: Will we know the tax impact for each
household before the project comes to a vote? Answer:
Yes,
the HSBC will ask the Finance Committee to help determine tax impact.
Comment: Project
will be intrusive to 30+ houses on Charena Rd.
Question: Does option 3 include field? Answer: yes, but not cost of artificial
turf, only natural turf.
Comment: The town spent money within last ten
years to redo the fields.
Question: Where are we in paying off 1990
renovation? Answer: We are 14
years into paying off 7 years of interest only and 7 years of 18 year bonds.
Comment: Look at the middle school project
escalated to 2007 costs as a reference point for this project.
Question: What is timing of bonding? Answer: Funding from SBA will not occur
until ’08. Towns bond only the
portion they are paying.
Question: Why not keep small classrooms, but hire
more staff to make rooms useful?
Answer: Over the long term
it would be much more expensive to hire staff and reduce class size.
Comment: Thank you for all the hard work. Does not mind paying taxes, just wants
to spend appropriately.
Professionals can give advice on cuts based on experience. Priorities might suggest smaller
auditorium, smaller gym. Phasing
might not be so bad in long run.
Comment: Knows person in Newton who has a
$28,000 tax lien on her house which has appreciated from $400,000 to $900,000
in the last few years.
Comment: With a phased project, we are not
committed to do everything. If
education changes, we can adapt.
Comment: Football field is in wet area. Worries about 2-story structure having
trouble with ground water the way the Public Safety Building does.
Comment: Public Safety Building was supposed to
cost $5.7M, but ended up at $7.4M.
The next regular meeting of the HSBC is scheduled for Thursday, July 22 at 7:30 p.m. in L1 at Wayland High School.