High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #25 Minutes

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Wayland Town Building

School Committee Conference Room

Attendees

HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Steve Breit, Brian Chase, Jim Howard, Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels

Absent: Steve Tise

Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Fred Knight, Charlie Ruopp

Turner team: Dick Amster, Julie Bezoetdebie, Bob Ho

HMFH team: George Metzger, Doug Sacra

Call to order - Chairman Lea Anderson called the 25th meeting of the HSBC to order at 7:40 p.m.

Updates on recent meetings ñ Lea reported on the meetings held with the Finance Committee on 9/13, School Committee on 9/20, and Town department heads on 9/21.

Finance Committee: Mary Lentz reviewed the presentation on tax impact. She reported that Cherry Karlson has signed off on all numbers except the mean and median valuations. Fincom has requested that the HSBC show tax impact of the high school project without taking debt retirement into consideration and also show tax impact net of high school debt retirement only. They have requested a series of tables showing tax impact for various house assessments. Mary will develop these.

School Committee: Lea reported that she reviewed the update and tax impact analysis with the School Committee. The SC asked the HSBC to discuss the cost and schedule implications of various vote options and report back. Lea deferred this discussion to later in the meeting.

Town department heads: Lea reported that Doug Sacra, Julie Bezoetdebie, Joy Buhler and she attended a meeting of all department heads (planning, building inspector, water, roads, fire, police, health, surveyor) to review the high school project. The department heads noted that they were speaking in their professional roles and not for their respective committees. Issues discussed were parking, traffic safety, lighting, public safety access, wastewater treatment, storage, and town-wide use. They confirmed the wisdom of the HSBCís decision to move the building from the football field, not only because of neighborís concerns, but also due to major issues with the flood plain.

HMFH/Turner Report ñ Selected option progress - Doug Sacra reviewed recent work on selected option 3. He said that the architects have now stepped back to develop a clearer organization of the buildings. He showed two schemes that accomplish things differently. Both schemes leave the campus intact during Phase 1 and the commons, arts, admin/media center buildings intact during Phase 2. The first scheme shows the commons on the courtyard, the library on the second floor of the common building, and the academic buildings joined into one so that there is one elevator and three staircases. The second scheme shows a ìMain St.î type of commons, and the library on the first floor overlooking the courtyard.

Doug said that both new schemes have slightly reduced square footage and connected academic buildings. He said that back feeding of utilities is now necessary due to the project being in two phases; cost impact will be developed. George Metzger stated that they are not looking for a vote on the schemes at this point. There is a lot of work to do to develop a clear organization of the buildings.

Comments from HSBC members:

- library next to commons is a good thing

- loosen up the ìMain St.î commons

- these designs deal with many issues that have been raised; great progress in the right direction

- parking lot is not in view of administration (there is a monitor)

- take a closer look at administration/ kitchen positioning

- commons overlooking the courtyard is preferable

- receiving should be put somewhere else; the back of the school has prime views to river

Doug was asked to send a pdf file of the latest design to Steve Tise.

Project schedule ñ Dick Amster presented an updated milestone schedule that adds two weeks to the timetable. HMFH needs two more weeks to work through the details. The schedule is:

10/7 Selected option progress ñ parking/benchmarking/ athletics revisited

10/14 General discussion and release to begin pricing, phasing, & schedule

Present stop gap project

10/28 Final cost, schedule & phasing of selected option

11/11 Draft Report

11/18 Final Report & Presentation materials

It was pointed out that the 11/11 meeting date will have to change due to the holiday.

Cost estimates: Dick said that Hanscomb Faithful and Gould will prepare another detailed cost estimate. Turner will prepare an independent cost estimate. They will then reconcile the estimates if there is a discrepancy. The current Turner estimates are based on gross square footage per building. Their next estimate will be a much more detailed look at the building components. George and Dick were asked to share both estimates (after they have been reviewed and checked) as well as the reconciliation. They were also asked to send out the specification outline for review prior to the relevant meeting. Joe Lewin, Eric Sheffels, Brian Chase, and Steve Tise will review the costs. Dick agreed to send out the cost information prior to the Oct. 28th meeting.

Dick will send an e-mail describing the deliverables (such as cost estimate, schedule, outline specifications and drawings) so that Dianne Bladon can formulate a communications plan for the rest of the project.

Benchmarks: The group confirmed the importance of benchmark information for both arts and athletics, two areas where there are variances from other schools. Doug requested help from Charlie Ruopp in trying to come up with educational program information from other schools. The HSBC is looking for a few notable comparisons, not a major study.

Parking: Doug said that his plan currently calls for 528 parking spaces. Dan Bennett will take a look at the data in the next few weeks.

Discussion of vote timing and number of votes ñ Lea framed the discussion by saying that the HSBC has been asked for objective feedback on the vote timing and number of votes. The HSBC was directed to stay away from the political arguments and just focus on the project impact. She asked the group to consider three questions:

1. Is there a cost or schedule impact to having two votes ñ one for design funds and one for construction funds?

2. What is the consequence of delaying the vote beyond January?

3. What is the earliest date we could be ready for a vote?

In response to 1., Dick said that there would be a cost to the town to hold two elections and an added effort by the HSBC to conduct two communications campaigns. However, he did not see a significant premium to splitting the project, assuming a timely first and second vote that allow the schedule to remain intact. Julie reported that the schedule could be minimally improved if a vote were to occur in late fall, instead of early winter.

Comments on 1:

- A vote on design money is the same as a vote on the whole project. Every vote is a referendum on the entire project.

- People will want to know what they are going to get for the design money. We need the final

report of HMFH/Turner before going before boards and the community whether it is one or two votes.

- Will the town allow the project to go forward without the final regulations of the SBA?

- Draft regulations will be issued Jan. 2006. (George does not think there will be big differences

between current and future regulations.)

- TThere is a risk that design funds will be approved, but construction funds will not be approved.

In response to 2., Dick had estimated that delaying the design start will add escalation costs and inconvenience. For example, instead of moving the academic classrooms in the summer of 2007, they would have to be moved during a vacation in 2008. Every year of escalation adds $1.5M to $2M to the project cost. The schedule is designed to take advantage of summers. Moving into cold seasons for certain aspects of the project has a cost impact.

Comments on 2:

- There is so much uncertainty about the project. We need to give the town information on what the consequences are of not making a 2007 date for new academic classrooms.

- Pushing for this schedule is important. By 2007, we will have had modular classrooms for two years and the enrollment will be pushing 1000. Delaying until 2008 will make the situation worse.

In response to 3., many members of the HSBC were determined that there be adequate time to inform the public on the final report. Given the two weeks added to the schedule tonight, the possibility of a Nov. 30th vote is unrealistic.

Comments on 3:

- The credibility and professional approach of this committee is at stake if we rush to a vote without the time to inform the community.

- Last year we spent six weeks from the release of the final report of the HSSC to the vote.

- On Oct. 14 we will know what the design looks like. We could start communicating then.

- Mid-January is the best timing for the project, politics aside.

- The trade-off is between rushing and not being ready and waiting and escalating cost.

- The very earliest we could be ready if there is no other option is the week of Dec. 13th.

- Preliminary information will be good enough. People need to know about everything leading up to this point, not just the final numbers.

- The first time we will see final pricing is Oct. 28. There could be more work to do on costs after the committee weighs in.

- Whatever the political judgment of the boards in town, the HSBC has to present an objective recommendation.

Dick related his experience in Hingham where the unanimity of the town boards in favor of the recent override was key, in his mind, to the successful vote.

HSBC consensus was achieved as follows:

1. The HSBC recommends that the full design-build project be voted on in mid-January 05.

2. If Town boards do not agree with 1., then the HSBC recommends that design funds be voted on in mid-January to ensure continuing progress on the project.

3. There is a reluctance to vote in Nov/Dec on the whole project or design funds because there will not be adequate time for communication. If there is no other option, then the earliest possible date the HSBC could be ready for a vote is the week of Dec. 13.

There was a strong consensus that January is the best time to have the vote from the perspective of giving the committee an adequate amount of time to disseminate information.

There were conflicting points of view on whether the HSBC would be ready for a vote on the whole project or even the design funds in December. Some expressed the sense that it would be easier to pass design funds, not the entire project, if we are rushed to vote in December. Others felt that there was no difference between voting on the entire project or design funds. Others still felt that any vote in December is too early and that there is a real risk of failure because the communication will not be adequate.

Waste Water Treatment Plant ñ Gary Burton reported that he had received a request to float the idea of considering more users, including Happy Hollow School and neighborhood houses, in the design of the WWTP as a way to share costs. He said that there is some town owned land near the town wells that might be a possible location. Discussion included the following:

- WWTPs like to be used.

- Our system is being designed with the ability to shut down parts of it in the summer.

- The town land is close to the wells, an area we are trying to avoid.

- Some neighborhoods have looked at the possibility of building a shared system. This neighborhood could do it in the future.

- Keep them separate at this point.

Design Costs ñ Dick Amster presented an estimate of pre-construction design costs through bid of about $4M. Dick was asked to be specific about any items he knows about and to leave the contingency for unexpected expenses. It was recommended that we err on the side of too much and not too little because falling short on a design budget would have serious consequences. Not spending the whole budget is better than not being able to hire a consultant for a specific design issue. Doug estimated that costs for consultants not included (auditorium, gym, lighting, day lighting, and energy modeling) add up to about $126,000 more.

Dick will itemize and show details.

Minutes

Upon a motion duly made (Joe Lewin) and seconded (Cindy Lombardo) the Committee voted unanimously (10-0) to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #24 on September 9, 2004.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

Observers: Pat Abramson, Mike Crismond, Mark Santangelo, Linda Segal, Michael Short, Richard Turner

Comments and questions from observers:

Comment: The location of the new practice field concerns the neighbors because of the potential for lights and noise.

(Doug pointed out that the field is not a regulation size and probably would never be lit.)

Comment: The Board of Selectmen has requested that all the tapes of the HSBC meetings and forums will be saved.

Question: Will there be a door to the outside in the new cable studio? Answer: yes

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