Thursday, March 23, 2006
Wayland Town Building
School Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Steve Breit, Brian Chase, Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels
Absent: Jim Howard, Steve Tise
Ex Officio members: Joy Buhler, Gary Burton, Fred Knight, Charlie Ruopp
HMFH team: George Metzger
Turner team: Dick Amster
Call to order – HSBC chairman Lea Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MSBA topics
- Update on meeting with Katherine Craven - Lea reported that four Waylanders (Joy Buhler, Jeff Dieffenbach, Cindy Lombardo, and Lea Anderson) met with Katherine Craven, Executive Director of MSBA, and Matthew Donovan, MSBA Outreach Coordinator in late February. Ms. Craven was well aware of Wayland High School, having visited Wayland shortly after her appointment. She was complimentary of WaylandÕs professional approach over four years of planning. She recommended that we
- submit a Statement of Interest as soon as possible
- work with MSBA over the next year as we develop agreement on the facility needs of WHS
- submit a Phase 1 application as soon as the moratorium is lifted in July 2007
Ms. Craven said that if there is ongoing regular communication between our groups, it should be possible to turn around the Phase 1 application very quickly in the summer of 2007, and invite a Phase 2 application. She stressed that the MSBA will work with Wayland. She also reported that MSBA is hiring an engineer to analyze the preliminary needs assessment (data gathering completed in March) and develop a Facilities Condition Index. MSBA is also hiring a consultant to do independent enrollment projections.
Lea reported that many of the questions the HSBC had asked were not answered, as they depend on the release of the regulations. Draft regulations are expected to be rolled out this spring in the following categories: space standards, owner project manager, application process, progress payment/audit, green schools/smart growth, technical standards and science, maintenance and capital improvement.
Review of district data – Dr. Burton reviewed the District Data report received from the MSBA. The definitions of ratings are:
1. Building is in good condition with few or no building systems needing attention.
2. The building is in generally moderate condition, a few building systems may need attention.
3. The building is approaching poor condition and some building systems may need attention.
4. The building may be in poor condition and a possible candidate for replacement.
All WHS buildings were rated 3, except for the Field House (2) and the science modulars (1).
Gary has made a preliminary response to MSBA that includes a recommendation to reassess the Field House.
The HSBC discussed the classifications at length. Comments were:
- Definitions are weak and look political. Wayland should push back on MSBA to challenge rating.
- Katherine Craven predicted that communities would get hung up on ratings of 3 vs. 4. (She was right!)
- HSBC should write a letter to make sure that a rating of 3 does not preclude us from getting MSBA funding.
- Each buildingÕs list of systems that may need attention should be checked against the design report.
- Try to find out how other communitiesÕ buildings are rated.
- Go on record asking for a reconsideration of wording (definitions).
- We should take a softer approach. Ask MSBA for guidance. The process defined by MSBA is to determine needs together.
- MSBA is like a deer in the headlights. This is just a gross look at facilities.
- Ask how a facility gets a 4. MSBA ranked 17 different systems. Is there some threshold for the ratings?
- Try to find out the percent of buildings that rate a 4.
It was agreed that Gary would write a letter to MSBA to go on record with our concerns. Lea will contact Matthew Donovan and Catherine Craven requesting clarification on the ratings definitions and guidance on how to address our concerns about WHS ratings.
Statement of Interest – Charlie Ruopp reported that he is drafting parts of the statement of interest with help from Joy who is working on enrollment data. Gary requested help from HMFH in writing the section on energy efficiency. Fred Knight and Lea will work with Gary, Charlie, and Joy to review the SOI. The School Committee and Board of Selectmen are required to vote on the SOI before it can be submitted.
Joy reviewed the process for developing updated enrollment projections. She will use the 3-year cohort survival method. NESDEC (New England School Development Council) has produced an updated projection for Wayland. It takes building permits into consideration, but not potential new developments, such as the Raytheon property. The projections are for the high school enrollment to continue to grow slightly through 2010 to 929 students and then to decline slowly through 2016 into the mid-800s.
Suggestions from the HSBC were to submit a statement on the unknown impact of likely developments on the Raytheon property along with the NESDEC and Wayland projections.
Dick Amster reported that the MSBA is going to take a very hard look at enrollment.
George Metzger reviewed the process for applications from the MSBA website. ÒMSBA discovers needs and then works with communities to help fund them.Ó
The SOI is a pre-requisite for the Phase 1 application.
-Phase 1 - determine building condition, enrollment projection, fit with statutory priorities,
educational goals
-Phase 2 – MSBA Board selects projects allowed to apply for Phase 2
MSBA funds more comprehensive facilities assessment
Community submits more detail about project to MSBA
Site, environmental, schematic designs showing district goals and fit with MSBA
guidelines
MSBA decides reimbursable portions of plan and what reimbursement rates apply
-Phase 3 – Community demonstrates local willingness to move forward with project
Votes
Funding
Commitment to set aside funds for operations and maintenance of proposed building
Planning next steps – Lea proposed a timeline for getting to a Phase 2 application.
spring 2006 – respond to needs survey and submit Statement of Interest
summer 2006 – analyze regulations and develop plan and budget for preparing applications
fall 2006 – request funds for next steps that might include modifying existing plan to
new regulations, updating cost estimates for revised plan and stop gap, developing a Òmiddle conceptÓ, developing schematic design for Phase 2 application
HSBC members commented as follows:
- There is a limited amount we can do without additional funds.
- It will be important to have a thorough review for new HSBC members and also to refresh current members.
- We should not languish if there is not much that can be accomplished. Wait until late summer and then move quickly.
- What does MSBA mean by schematics for the Phase 2 application? Full schematics will be much more costly than a general conceptual plan. In any case, the funding needed would be in hundreds of thousands of dollars, not millions for this step.
- The timing is very tight to develop an article for STM this fall.
The group spent some time discussing inflation. Turner saw annual inflation factors of 10% and 11% for the last two years. It is using 7% per year for 2007 on.
Motion – A motion was made by Dianne Bladon and seconded by Cindy Lombardo to approve the minutes of HSBC meeting #36 held on Thursday, February 9, 2006.
Vote – The motion was approved unanimously (9 in favor, 0 opposed).
Observers: Michael Short
Comments and questions from observers: There were no comments.
Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:35p.m.