High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #21 Minutes

Thursday, July 29, 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, Steve Tise

Absent: Dianne Bladon, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels

Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Jay Chandler, Fred Knight, Allyson Mizoguchi, Charlie Ruopp

Turner team: Dick Amster, Julie Bezoetdebie, Bob Ho

HMFH team: Steve Friedlaender, George Metzger

Call to order - Chairman Lea Anderson called the 21st meeting of the HSBC to order at 7:40 p.m.

Revised Options – Steve Friedlaender presented revised Options 2 and 3 that address questions raised at the previous meeting about doing the project in multiple phases over a longer timeframe and alternative placement of the football field. He began with Option 3 saying that the original placement of the football field was logical given the site, but that the neighbors rightfully expressed concern. He said that Option 2 and Option 3 can both be done in phases.

Phase 1 of Option 3 would build a new academic building behind the Arts building with no disruption to the existing campus. Students would move into the new academic building for all academic classes. Existing Arts, Commons, and Administration buildings would remain, while the Language, Social Studies, and Science buildings would be demolished. If there were to be a significant amount of time between stages, then the Math/English building might remain.

Phase 2 of Option 3 would build new space for commons, music, gym, auditorium, locker rooms, admin, guidance, and library, and renovate the Field House. The wastewater treatment plant location, site planning, and aesthetics will be considered as details are developed during conceptual design of a selected option.

In answer to questions, Steve said that there is room to do construction with school in session; that we should talk to the School Committee about modular classroom placement; that the design could take on more of a campus feel if some of the buildings were separated; and that the latest wetlands markings are noted on the map.

Steve then presented a new Option 2, which still proposes to reuse four buildings (Art, Math/English, Administration, and Field House), but also renovates and expands the Commons.

Phase 1 of Option 2 would build a new academic building for Math, Science, Social Studies, and English behind the Arts building. The commons would be expanded and renovated, while the Administration, Arts, and Math/English buildings would be renovated.

Phase 2 of Option 2 would build a new gym, auditorium, locker rooms and renovate the Field House.

Bob Ho ran some very rough numbers that show Phase 1 of Option 2 costing $42 million and Phase 2 costing $16 million for a total of $58 million.

It was noted that this scheme was developed to answer the phasing over time question and that it is in no way preferable to the original Option 2. This revised version is $4 million more and much less efficient in square feet because the Commons is no longer part of the new space. The original Option 2 would cost $54 million if it were done all at once. Dick Amster noted that there is the risk that Phase 2 might never be done.

Dick said that they would revise the budget for Option 3. The question was asked about the cost and obligation to do the health and safety elements during Phase 1 of Option 3. Dr. Burton pointed out that doing only the first part of Option 2 would hurt the Fine Arts program. He remarked that it would be wasting money to do improvements to buildings that won’t last a long time.

The following points were made during the lengthy discussion on the revised options.

- The reason for doing this exercise is to answer questions. We could use phasing as a fallback strategy if there is not support for doing the whole project.

- If there were no need to phase, we would never do it.

- The revised Option 3 is much better than the former one.

- Won’t we save money by not relocating the football field? Dick said they will look at the tradeoff in costs between the savings on the football field (around $1M) and the added cost of benching into the hill.

- A renovated Commons would be larger and would still have very low ceilings.

- Would the Field House have good life expectancy? Steve said yes.

- What happens if only Phase 1 of Option 3 gets done? We would have to spend money to upgrade other buildings.

- If we look at multi-contract phased jobs, how does it work in ways that address the program? What happens to the campus? If we leave many old buildings, operational costs increase.

- There would be additional cost to make the school livable, money that would be thrown away.

- Dick reminded the group that we should stick to our plan to select an option and that much more detail will be worked up in the next stage.

- The choice is now between old Option 2 and new Option 3.

- If we do Phase 1 of either option, which one is more functional? Option 3 Phase 1 would feel disjointed; might need M/E building to join campus and provide extra space for music.

- There is such a small difference in price; build new building.

- To understand cost of Option 3 Phase 1, we need to know if code upgrades are required. Assume that they are.

- We will know what the code upgrades are worth.

- If project is phased, we have to presume that it stops after the first phase.

- Phasing that has only one stage is not a phase.

- There is much confusion on the term “phasing”. We have used it to mean the plan for accommodating students and the program during construction and now we are using it to mean “multiple projects” or “master plan” for the longer term.

SBAB – George Metzger reported that three bills have been signed by Governor Romney. The bills address paying off 420 projects on the current waiting list, reforming public construction law, and establishing a new agency to oversee funding of school construction. George expects that planning standards will not change much. What falls in and what falls out might change, e.g. pools and field houses do not qualify in the old SBA rules. Requirements for timing and phases of submittals might change. Other regulations will be integrated on sustainable design, reuse of existing buildings, multi-use of site. New regulations will be determined no earlier than January 2006 and no later than July 2006.

There is no penalty for proceeding in the meantime, although we might need to revise something. Financial incentive points are not assured. If striving for incentive points adds more to the cost of the project, then it may not be advisable to pursue them. Priorities (overcrowding? integration? etc.) have not been determined. If we don’t get funded in first year, there is no assurance that we will get funded the next year.

The old base funding (before incentive points) was 39% with a minimum funding level of 50%. The new base funding is 31% with a minimum funding level of 40%.

The following points/questions were made:

- We need to know our reimbursable limit.

- A construction manager is now required, but there are no incentive points for having one.

- We might get incentive points for the community use aspects of the gym and auditorium.

- What does the reconstruction incentive mean?

- The middle school project was approved before we began construction.

- Are there any differences in reconstruction points between Option 2 and Option 3?

- Would we ever get all 18 incentive points?

Planning for WSC meeting on 8/2/04 – Lea reviewed the plan for the update to the WSC. Steve Friedlaender, Dick Amster, and Lea will attend. Other HSBC members are also welcome. In reviewing a draft letter to the WSC, questions arose about asking for guidance on timing of a vote and separating the project into phases. Discussion followed.

- The charge to the HSBC is to recommend a project that satisfies the program in the most cost effective way. If doing the project in pieces satisfies this charge, then we should recommend it; if it does not, then we should not.

- We cannot make a judgment on what the town can or cannot afford. We need guidance from Town boards on strategy for timing of the vote and doing the project over a longer time.

- We now have a crisp answer to “Can the project be done in two pieces?”

- We have to answer the question “Is there a lower price project?” in case the Town does not have an appetite for the whole project.

- We are probably ready to make a selection tonight.

- The WSC update should occur before the HSBC selection.

Lea asked the HSBC members to be prepared at the next meeting on Aug. 5 to discuss their positions on specific options.

Minutes

Upon a motion duly made (Joe Lewin) and seconded (Josh Bekenstein) the Committee voted unanimously (8-0) to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #20 on July 22, 2004.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Observers: Pat Abramson, Dave D’Orlando, Geraldine DiSavino, Sam DiSavino, Arnold Friedman, Janis Friedman, Ian Hecker, Alf Jacobsen, Parooky Jacobsen, Zhi-Dong (John) Jiang, Louis Jurist, David Konowski, Rose Marie Konowski, Jerry Melnick, Heather Pineault, Kathy Raskin, Charlie Raskin, Matt Shear, Kathy Siracusa, Molly Upton, Ed Walker

Comments and questions from observers:

Comment: Thank you for listening to concerns of abutters about the football field; however, those buildings (Opt.3) are very close to residences. We are worried about cars parking on our streets and noise.

Comment: Make copies of matrix comparing schemes. (Fred reported that it is on website and at library.)

Comment: Please show elevation and topographical plan of new building relative to Kelsey Rd. Concerned that it will be too tall.

Question: What is the fire access in to the neighborhood?

Question: Could the building be swung away from the abutters?

Comment: Thank you for responding to concerns. HSBC has restored my faith in the process. Buildings could be placed in a different orientation.

Comment: Please find out what the approvable limit for SBA funding is.

Comment: There is confusion about the term “phasing.” Options for financing are what we were talking about tonight.

The next regular meeting of the HSBC is scheduled for Thursday, August 5 at 7:30 p.m. in the School Committee Conference Room in the Town Building.