Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wayland Town Building
School Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein,
Dianne Bladon, Brian Chase, Jim Howard, Fred Knight,
David Lash, Joe Lewin, Eric Sheffels,
Jennifer Steel
Absent: Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo
HMFH Team: George Metzger, Steve Millington
KVA Team: Frank Vanzler, David Saindon
Ex Officio members: Gary Burton (left after Special
Matter), John Moynihan, Pat Tutwiler
Call to order Ð HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson,
called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:55 p.m.
HSBC resignations:
Lea informed the HSBC that three
members of the 15-member committee have resigned with the recent call to sign
up again for a new three-year term.
Karen Talentino, Steve Breit,
and Steve Tise are no longer able to serve. Dr. Burton has written letters to each
thanking them for their years of service.
The 2006 expansion of the HSBC stated explicitly in the warrant article
and Town Meeting minutes that the committee would have Òup to 15Ó members. Lea asked Wayland School Committee
chairman Louis Jurist for his reaction.
He and Dr. Burton feel that the committee is well represented across
many areas of expertise and robust at 12 active members. Dr. Burton has sent an update to MSBA as
required when the committee status changes.
Update on Special Town Meeting warrant hearing: Lea
reported that she and Dianne Bladon attended the STM
warrant hearing on March 9, 2009.
Questions were raised on the risk to the Town associated with STM
warrant article 5, which authorizes the School Committee to enter into a
Feasibility Study Agreement with the MSBA. The agreement requires the Town to
indemnify the MSBA for losses associated with the TownÕs performance of its
obligations and exercise of its rights under the agreement. Lea will ask Mark Lanza,
Town Counsel, through Fred Turkington to prepare a
risk analysis so that this question can be addressed at STM.
Update on MSBA project meeting of March 18 Ð Eric Sheffels, Lea
Anderson, David Saindon, George Metzger, and Steve
Millington visited MSBA offices to discuss the status of the WHS project. Attending from MSBA were John Jumpe, WaylandÕs MSBA project manager, Diane Sullivan, MSBC
communications director, and Katie DeCristofaro,
WaylandÕs MSBA contact.
David Saindon
reviewed the agenda and list of materials given to MSBA:
1.
Overview of the
process and project status
2.
Review of 2004
feasibility study alternatives
3.
Draft
Feasibility/Schematic budget
4.
Architect
contract question on waste water treatment design
5.
Clarification
that Feasibility Study Agreement including schematic design
Eric reported that George
did a good job showing the logic of the decision-making in the 2004 study. With costs so close between renovation
and the build-new option, the benefits of the selected approach were less
disruption, more money going into bricks and mortar instead of phasing costs,
lower budget risk, lower operating expenses, better energy efficiency, shorter
construction time frame, and closer ties to the educational program goals. We heard from John Jumpe
that MSBA did not see enough back-up or compelling reasons to justify the
decision against
renovation and in favor of the higher cost option. John thought that the
scope of the 2004 study was right Ð looking at a combination of approaches. Option 2 (mix of new
construction and renovation) needs to be looked at again. MSBA is interested to know if Wayland
could use smaller rooms for part of its program such as SPED or other
things. He noted that with
renovation, MSBA wonÕt force space to be reduced to the exact standards. He also said there is some flexibility
in the SPED square footage if the program requires more than the regulations
allow.
Eric reported that the
most encouraging outcome was a commitment from MSBA for a weekly conference
call so that we can stay on schedule and so that each party is brought along at
the same time.
David complimented John Jumpe for his responsiveness and general understanding.
HMFH Update
List of Consultants Ð Steve
Millington reviewed an updated list of consultants. HMFH is currently engaged in requesting
proposals from firms to develop a comprehensive fee proposal for the HSBC and
MSBA. Steve reminded the group that the 2004 study was not design. The MSBA requirements for the schematic
design are much more detailed.
George Metzger informed the group MSBA is asking for a standard designer
application form, some parts of which are not applicable because HMFH was
selected in 2004. HMFH will
complete a subset as applicable, including the updated team and consultants.
Designer Contract Ð George
reported that the MSBA contract has been vetted, and is final as far as MSBA is
concerned. He has difficulty with
certain parts, but he does not see any Òdeal breakersÓ. Lea reported that WaylandÕs Town Counsel
has reviewed the designer contract and finds it in very good legal form and
owner-friendly.
David said that the OPM
contract discussions with MSBA are progressing and that issues are about 80%
resolved.
Single structure and model school Ð Steve showed the group a possible single building
approach using Hanover High School as an example. Hanover is a three story, 157,000 square
foot design. Steve placed it on the
north side of the current buildings behind the Little Theatre. Discussion ensued:
á
Leaching field
placement was in same area to the north in 2004 study
á
3 story
building on a hill will be very tall relative to the Charena
Farms neighborhood
á
How about
placing it in the parking lot?
á
Leaching fields
can go under a parking lot
á
Building a single
structure without phasing is most efficient
á
Figure out a
way to get construction done all at once and then do demo and site work
á
What is left
must be coherent
á
Single
structure might result in 8 Ð 10% savings, but have to add back in phasing
costs
á
Campus
atmosphere is lost
á
There might be
room south of the entry for a single building
á
Are the
conservation buffers flexible?
The
group then launched into a discussion about the feasibility of housing the 9th
grade in another school during construction. Pat Tutwiler
said that the logistical issues would be huge. It was agreed that we should separate
the analysis of what to do with students in a phased project from the design
questions we are trying to answer first.
Model School Ð David and
Steve discussed the MSBA model school program.
The consensus of the
group was that the Ashland model school is not applicable because it does not
fit on the site without major phasing.
Ed Spec Ð Steve reported
that the ed spec work is
proceeding within a 171,000 s.f. facility and that
they will fill out the MSBA Educational Space Template. HMFH is interested in developing a
strategy around the field house.
Can we take away the gym and use some of the space for other program
areas?
Direction to HMFH and KVA: The HSBC asked the professional team to
update the analysis on the following options using enrollment of 900, updated ed spec, MSBA space standards, and
new costs.
1.
option 2
(renovation and new)
2.
option 3A (new
construction with renovated field house)
3.
option 4 (1
free standing building on site with renovated field house)
4.
stop gap (code
upgrade and minimal classroom addition)
George reminded the group
that this will be a very conceptual look.
The detailed work will be done in the Schematic Design phase.
Contracts, budget and bills Ð Eric, Joe, and Lea, with Joy BuhlerÕs help will continue to be the
working group on negotiating the designer contract and budget before coming
before the entire HSBC. They will
also review all bills before submitting to the School Committee for approval.
Next steps (items from KVAÕs 2-week look ahead):
1-week
á
Amend budget
(ex. A) and scope (ex. B) from MSBA. Review, discuss, and accept
á
Finalize HMFH
team consultants
á
Review/verify
fee and scope with HMFH
á
Reevaluate 2004
option 2
á
Ed Program/Spec
update by HMFH
á
Start space
summary worksheet (existing conditions column)
á
Option 3a (2004
preferred option) estimate is updated
2-week
á
Present Ed
Program/Spec
á
Finalize fee
and scope with HMFH (HSBC vote/approval)
á
HMFH issues
MSBA WBE/MBE and DSB forms
á
Continued
reevaluation of 2004 option 2
á
Start Budget
statement per MSBA prescribed format (David to clarify with MSBA first)
á
Space summary
worksheet is completed
á
Start
re-organizing 2009 Feasibility Study Preferred Alternative Report for the MSBA
á
2004 Stop Gap
study to be updated
Motion: A motion was made by Josh Bekenstein and seconded by David Lash to approve the
minutes to HSBC meeting #64 on March 5, 2009.
Vote: The motion was approved Ð 9 in
favor, 1 abstention, 0 opposed.
Adjournment Ð The HSBC adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Next meeting Ð Thursday, April 2 at 7:30 pm in
the School Committee conference room
Possible meeting on March 26.
Observers: Marie Buano,
Sam DiSavino, Barb Fletcher, Shelby Morss, Lisa Valone
Candidates: Sue Pope, Alan Reiss, Tom Fay,
Malcolm Astley, Jeff Baron, Paul Grasso, Steve Glovsky