Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wayland Town Building
School Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Dianne Bladon,
Brian Chase, Jim Howard, Fred Knight, David Lash, Joe Lewin,
Eric Sheffels, Jennifer Steel
Absent: Josh Bekenstein,
Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo
HMFH Team: Frank Locker, George Metzger, Steve
Millington
KVA Team: David Saindon
Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, John Moynihan
Call to order Ð HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson,
called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Ed Spec Update Ð
Education facilities planner, Frank Locker, reviewed the progress on the
educational specification for Wayland High School. He first presented a conceptual diagram
that was the favored approach of the Futures Team. It included two areas (buildings) that
incorporated two small learning communities (grades, departments?) in each with
a ÒpurposefulÓ courtyard connecting them.
He then presented two scenarios of the ed spec Ð a matrix of functional spaces and square
footage based on the program at Wayland High School. Frank explained that after the Futures
Team concluded its work, Pat Tutwiler, Allyson Mizoguchi,
and Scott Parseghian worked with WHS department heads
to determine trade-offs to fit within the 171,000 square foot limit set by the
MSBA regulations. The first round
of programming at the end of the Futures exercise resulted in 198,000 square
feet. Trimming this to 171,000 s.f. is proving to be
very difficult. The iterations presented
were opposite ends of the spectrum:
1.
171,000 sq. ft.
with no field house included (rev. March 15)
2.
172,800 sq. ft.
plus a renovated field house that incorporates some elements of the athletic
program (rev. March 21)
Frank explained that #1
does not meet the needs of the academic program. #2 attempts to rectify this. The number
of classrooms increased from 25 to 28, science labs from 9 to 10, resulting in
core academic space rising from 36,525 s.f. to 42,000
s.f. A
slight increase was also suggested in SPED. MSBA regulations are for 850-950 s.f classrooms. Ed spec uses 850 s.f.
Field House Discussion
The group discussed
athletic space. Frank explained
that the MSBA guideline allows for about 20,000 s.f.
of athletic space, including a 10,000 s.f. gym. If the field house were renovated to
include some of the pieces of the athletic program such as storage and boys and
girls teams locker rooms, some 4,200 s.f of space could come out of new construction. George Metzger and Steve Millington
suggested that the field house might leverage space that could be used for
academic needs. A spirited
discussion ensued:
á
Field house was
just partially renovated with private money. We should use it.
á
If we are
saving 4,000 s.f. by using
the field house, we could save significant dollars.
á
We have a
40,000 s.f field house. Why canÕt we fit 20,000 s.f. of athletic needs in
this space?
á
If we reduce 171,000 s.f. by some amount of the 20,000
s.f. athletic space, could we use that for
other priorities such as academics?
We need to ask MSBA.
á
We are diving
into implementation. Let the
educational program drive the process.
á
Break out
athletics from academics.
á
Pretend the
field house is not there. How would
we present the ed program?
á
We should have
a prioritized program. The School
Committee directed us to prioritize core academic space first, and space for
non-core academic and extracurricular activities second.
á
Can we ask
teachers to tolerate smaller classrooms?
á
MSBA said that
towns were asking for large classrooms earlier and now are asking to reduce
their size.
á
We must get 40%
reimbursement. That is the
political reality.
á
Is the need for
a gym based on the WHS program or the communityÕs need? We should vet this with Pat and the
administration.
á
We should call
the field house the community center.
It is used for town meeting.
DidnÕt the state say that community use is a factor for reimbursement?
The HSBC asked Frank to
eventually present a series of programs starting with the pure program from the
Futures exercise at 198,000 s.f. and subsequent
iterations leading to a conclusion.
We need to understand how spaces fall out or are added back.
Meeting with MSBA on 3/30 Ð David has arranged a meeting at MSBA on Monday. Lea, Eric, George, Steve, and David will
attend. They will give John Jumpe a status report of where we are and let him know that
we are struggling to fit our program within the guideline of
171,000 s.f. It was suggested that we ask what
documentation we should provide to get above the 171,000 square feet.
Single building concept Ð Steve
showed the group a plot plan with a single building located where the
administration/media center and main parking lot are. The building shown is the Groton Dunstable High School.
The building is a combination of 2-story and 3-story sections. The height of the 3-story section is 42
feet. This concept requires
demolition of the admin/media center building up front. One benefit of this location is that the
road could remain open. A single
building scheme shortens the building schedule to 2 years, cutting cost
significantly. The functions housed
in the admin building would have to be moved to modulars. George explained that the back of the
site to the north does not work as well for a single building due to the height
of the land and the proximity to the Charena Farms
neighborhood. For comparison, Steve overlaid the Ashland model school to show
that it would not fit on the site.
Comments from the HSBC
were:
á
We should find
at a way to save the admin building during construction by repositioning the
building. There are too many
important functions in this building.
á
Temporary
parking is necessary to replace the main parking lot.
á
Is the
conservation buffer flexible?
Next steps (items from KVAÕs 3-week look ahead):
1-week April 2
á
Finalize Ed
Spec
á
Amend budget
(ex. A) and scope (ex. B) from MSBA. Review, discuss, and accept
á
Finalize HMFH
fee
á
Reevaluate 2004
option 2. Update with 09 Ed Spec
á
Option 3a (2004
preferred option) estimate is updated.
Update with 09 Ed Spec.
á
2004 stop gap
is updated.
2-week April 9
á
Continued
reevaluation of 2004 option 2, 3a, and single structure (option 4)
á
Start Budget
statement per MSBA prescribed format (town task
á
Strategize for
organizing 2009 (supplement) Feasibility Study Preferred Alternative Report for
the MSBA
á
Strategize for
meetings with town departments/neighbors/Con Com, etc.
á
Establish dates
for School Committee presentations.
3-week April 16
á
Continued
reevaluation of 2004 option 2,3a, and single structure (option 4)
á
Continue Budget
statement per MSBA prescribed format (town task)
á
Update meetings
with town departments/neighbors, Con Com. etc.
Schedule of meetings
With the tight schedule
to meet the MSBA May 27 Board Meeting deadline, it will be necessary for the
HSBC to meet weekly and also to get School Committee approval on the Ed Spec
and option selection. The HSBC will
also plan a public forum to solicit feedback on its findings. Suggested dates are:
April 2 Ð HSBC meeting
April 6 Ð School
Committee to receive Ed Spec
April 7 Ð Town Election
April 9 Ð HSBC meeting
April 13 Ð Town Meeting
April 15 Ð Town Meeting
April 16 Ð HSBC meeting
April 23 Ð HSBC meeting
April 27 Ð School
Committee meeting Ð HSBC update
April 29 Ð Public Forum
April 30 or May 4 Ð
School Committee to approve selected option
Motion: A motion was made by Jim Howard
and seconded by Jennifer Steel to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #65 on
March 19, 2009.
Vote: The motion was approved Ð 9 in
favor, 0 opposed.
Adjournment Ð The HSBC adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Next meeting Ð Thursday, April 2 at 7:30 pm in
the School Committee conference room
Observers: Sam DiSavino,
Barb Fletcher