High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #63 Minutes

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Wayland Town Building

School Committee Conference Room

Attendees

HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Steve Breit, Jim Howard, David Lash, Joe Lewin, Eric Sheffels, Jennifer Steel

Absent: Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Brian Chase, Fred Knight, Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo

HMFH Team: George Metzger, Steve Millington

KVA Team: Frank Vanzler, David Saindon

Ex Officio members: Joy Buhler, John Moynihan, Pat Tutwiler

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

Review of 2004 Preliminary Design Study – George Metzger of HMFH Architects reviewed the study done in 2004. He presented the three options studied:

• Option 1 was mostly renovation with a new Math/Science building and additions to the Fine Arts building and a new gym and locker rooms. Estimated cost in 2004 was $56.1 million.
• Option 2 was a combination of renovation: Math/English building (built in 1965), Media Center (1972), Field House (1960); and Little Theatre/Fine Arts building (1960)

and new construction: Science/English/Social Studies building and new common space (auditorium, cafeteria, gym, admin., locker rooms). Estimated cost was $54.0 million in 2004.

• Option 3 was new construction with a renovated field house and relocated football field. Estimated cost was $55.5 million in 2004.

George reviewed the revised option 3 that was selected unanimously by the HSBC. The estimated cost in 2004 was $57.3 million. The football field was left in place in response to neighbors’ concerns about lights and noise. The proposed project was two-phased and included:

• a more efficiently sized new academic building to be constructed behind the current buildings with no disruption to the education of the students living through the construction.
• a common building adjacent to the Field House incorporating an auditorium, music and drama space, gym, cafeteria, locker rooms, administration, and guidance.

The strengths of the selected option relative to the other two schemes included:

• better educational space after construction
• lower operations and maintenance costs
• more efficient space design
• better effect on student life
• shorter construction duration
• less phasing impact and fewer moves
• educational program supported during construction
• less temporary space required during construction
• less risk to schedule
• better site logistics

The weaknesses of the selected option relative to the others included;

• weaker campus-like quality
• more playfield disruption

The HSBC discussed the 2004 process and how to proceed with the updated study. Comments were:

• We tried to incorporate better environmental aspects like natural light, ventilation that are absent in the current low slung buildings with large overhangs.
• Lexington renovated their high school which is very similar to WHS. It was “hell” according to John Moynihan who worked in Lexington at the time. HMFH was the designer. Negatives of the Lexington approach include large soft costs because of the 24 modular classrooms necessary to house the students during renovation. There was major disruption to the program, and less than optimal outcomes in the educational space.
• Wayland’s approach last time was very rational. We should update the study with the lower enrollment number of 900, final MSBA regulations and standards, an updated ed spec coming out of the Locker exercise, and new cost estimates.
• If we are looking for ways to save money, it will more likely be in scope reduction, not renovation instead of new construction (unless we learn something very different this time).
• We should approach MSBA with a project that meets the educational program within their guidelines. Scope reduction should not be considered until later.
• The Futures Team is looking at 21^st century models: interdisciplinary approaches, technology, project based learning, integrated spaces – definitely not double-loaded corridors. NEASC is also changing its standards in this direction.
• This does not mean open classrooms as we experienced in the 1970s.
• Should we look at relocating a class during construction to cut down on phasing costs and time?
• The Stop Gap option should be revised to address the requirement of MSBA’s “no-build” baseline. (Stop Gap brought all buildings up to code, repaired infrastructure, and added new space for science and other academic classrooms to accommodate the larger enrollment with 33,456 square feet).

The HSBC instructed KVA and HMFH to look at four approaches during the Feasibility Study taking into account new ed specs, enrollment, cost numbers, and MSBA regulations:

1. Update Option 2 (combination of renovation and new construction)
2. Update refined Option 3 (new construction with renovated field house)
3. Develop a single building approach
4. Revise the Stop Gap to line up with the MSBA-required “no-build” baseline

all while keeping in mind alternatives for possible scope reductions in line with priorities. Phasing options, such as temporary relocation of a grade, will be considered.

Feasibility Study/Schematic Scope – David Saindon proposed to send MSBA the matrix of tasks he had revised based on last week’s meeting. The HSBC agreed that it is better to send both the tasks defined by the MSBA grant program for the Feasibility Study and the tasks laid out in the Designer Contract for the Schematic Design. The two parts do a better job addressing the work done in the 2004 Preliminary Design.

Well tests - David reported that he had contacted the firm organizing the current drilling operations at WHS for the Water Department. David recommends performing test borings at a future date. For our purposes, a different rig would be required and we would want to have a geotech and structural engineer on board for guidance on test locations dependent on the location of the proposed structure. He prefers to perform the test once and pay for the services once. There was agreement on this approach.

Next steps:

· KVA will work on a schedule to show what we need to accomplish week by week, with special attention paid to the next 3 –4 weeks. This should be updated throughout the project.

· KVA will send scope matrix (exhibit B), incomplete budget (exhibit A), and schedule (exhibit C) to John Jumpe at MSBA.

· KVA will begin to rework the Table of Contents for the Feasibility Study.

Action items for HMFH include:

· Provide MSBA with required documentation for designer selection approval.

• Provide a fee proposal for Feasibility/Schematic to the HSBC.
• Provide list of sub-consultants.

Motion – A motion was made by Jim Howard and seconded by Dave Lash to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #62 on February 12, 2009.

Vote – The motion was approved unanimously – 6 in favor, 0 opposed (Steve Breit had left.)

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Next meeting – Thursday, March 5 at 7:30 pm in the School Committee conference room

Observers: Lisa Valone