High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #67 Minutes

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Wayland Town Building

School Committee Conference Room

Attendees

HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Brian Chase, Jim Howard, Fred Knight, Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo, Joe Lewin, Eric Sheffels, Jennifer Steel

Absent: David Lash

HMFH Team: Frank Locker, George Metzger, Steve Millington

KVA Team: David Saindon

Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Louis Jurist, Pat Tutwiler

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

Town Meeting Preparation – Chairman Lea Anderson reviewed the schedule for Town Meeting. The motion under Article 7 (Feasibility/Schematic Design Services for Wayland High School) will be made by a member of the School Committee and spoken to by Lea. It could come up at the end of the evening on Monday, April 13^th or after Special Town Meeting on April 15^th. The article under Special Town Meeting article 5 (Authorize Town to Indemnify MSBA) will be moved by the Board of Selectman. Lea will confirm if she is to speak to it.

Questions have come up at budget hearings about MSBA’s formal communication with Wayland on the model school program and consequences of a failed vote. Lea explained that the MSBA has not responded in writing to Wayland on either topic, but that the model school topic has come up briefly in meetings at MSBA and has been dismissed as not likely for Wayland because of our complicated site. It requires a completely different track than we are working on with MSBA. The HSBC reviewed this at its March 19^th meeting. Should voters defeat the debt exclusion or article for funding the Feasibility/Schematic, there are hundreds of school projects waiting to get into the funding pipeline, as noted by Katherine Craven in presentations and on the MSBA web site. Given the falloff in sales tax revenue and the time it would take Wayland to get back on track – probably years- the project would stop.

Update on MSBA Meeting 3/30 - Eric Sheffels, David Saindon, George Metzger, Steve Millington, Lea Anderson, and Rep. Tom Conroy met with John Jumpe and Katie Cristofaro of MSBA on Monday, 3/30.

The Wayland team explained that we are working on the ed spec, but that we are having trouble coming down to the 171,000 square feet in the MSBA guideline. Participation is a key factor for Wayland in academics, music, and athletics. John Jumpe said that back-up information on participation would be very useful in supporting the ed spec. Specific feedback we received from John was:

• Look at each piece separately (core academics, the arts, athletics). Provide back-up information on participation rates.
• MSBA would consider funding renovation of the field house or a new gym, but not both.
• MSBA has backed off its earlier position of not allowing towns to fund portions of a project itself – either with tax money or private funds. MSBA will identify reimbursable elements of a project, but towns may find other ways to fund non-reimbursable elements.
• MSBA will consider reimbursing parts of the 2004 Preliminary Design Study, as they are applicable to the current project.
• The ed spec is very important. It will drive the process.

Comments from the HSBC were:

• We are “heartened” that MSBA seems willing to listen to arguments on the ed spec. It is a rational approach.
• Wayland is one of the first to be starting at the beginning of the MSBA Feasibility Study process. There will be growing pains and adjustments for both Wayland and MSBA.
• The Ed Spec will get tweaked as we move through schematic design.
• We should try to stay within 171,000 square feet. It seems likely that everything else will be on Wayland’s dime.
• We’ll know in May what the square footage is.
• In Wellesley’s case the reimbursable project came down to number of students times square feet regulation times cost. The additional $20 million of their project is the responsibility of the town.
• Present the program with back-up to MSBA and negotiate.
• John Jumpe has been very helpful and is a “team player”.

Ed Spec Template – Education facilities planner, Frank Locker, HMFH project manager, Steve Millinton, and WHS Principal, Pat Tutwiler presented the draft educational specification for Wayland High School. The template showed five space scenarios:

1. Existing conditions (approx. 164,000 square feet with modulars)

2. Futures Team request at 237,069 square feet

3. Pared down iteration without field house at 171,000 square feet

4. Updated program at 214,500 square feet with field house

5. MSBA guidelines

Number 4 is the result of significant review and vetting by Wayland’s education professionals and architects. The group reviewed the ed spec by category established by the MSBA.

Core academic spaces: The group discussed the spaces for general classrooms, science labs, science storage, teacher preparation, small learning centers, etc. Due to the high participation of students in science classes, the number of labs requested is 10 compared to the MSBA guideline of 8. The WHS core academic program totals 48,850 s.f. The MSBA guideline totals 38,790 s.f.

SPED – The WHS program totals 4,485 s.f. vs. the MSBA guideline of 9,060. The smaller space needs are the result of Wayland having a total inclusion program. The program includes a self-contained classroom for The Education Cooperative (TEC) program that was removed several years ago because of needing space for larger enrollment. This program saves the town money by providing for students with special needs without transporting them to out-of-district placements. The final proposed SPED program will be sent to DESE (Mass. Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education) for approval.

Art and Music – The WHS program totals 7,860 s.f. compared to the MSBA guideline of 4,700 s.f. Participation in art and music at WHS is much larger than at many other schools. Providing this information to MSBA will be critical.

Vocations & Technology - The WHS program totals 4,900 s.f. compared to the MSBA guideline of 12,800 s.f. The program includes a TV/Video production space, and a fabrications/engineering lab. Some of the space is multi-disciplinary.

Health and Physical Education - The WHS proposed program totals 45,485 s.f. while the MSBA guideline is 19,800 s.f. This program includes both a renovated field house and new single court with bleachers. The participation rates will be very important to understand the program requests.

Media Center – The WHS program totals 6,450 compared with an MSBA guideline of 5,525. The space included an academic (tutoring) center. The reduction from the current program is due to changes in technology.

Auditorium/Drama – The WHS program totals 8,950 s.f. which is very close to MSBA guideline of 8,875. Auditorium has 600 seats or 2/3 of design enrollment.

Dining and Food Service – WHS program 7,700 vs. MSBA guideline at 7,550. This is significantly smaller than the current space at 11,457.

Medical – WHS program is 725 s.f. vs. MSA guideline at 910 s.f.

Administration and Guidance - WHS program is 5,375 s.f. vs. MSBA guideline at 3,633 s.f. Program has 7 guidance rooms compared with 5 in MSBA guidelines. Several spaces are really SPED related (psychologist, adjustment counselor, testing).

Custodial and Maintenance – WHS program 2,225 vs. MSBA guideline at 2,300 s.f.

Summary: Existing Current Draft MSBA

Core academics 35,045 48,850 38,790

SPED 3,098 4,485 9,060

Art & Music 8,268 7,860 4,700

Vocations & Tech 0 4,900 12,800

Sub-total 46,411 66,095 65,350

Health & Phys. Ed. 38,140 45,485 19,800

Media Center 11,008 6,450 5,525

Auditorium/Drama 9,018 8,950 8,875

Dining and Food Ser. 11,457 7,700 7,550

Medical 792 725 910

Admin & Guidance 3,931 5,375 3,633

Custodial & Maint. 1,934 2,225 2,300

Total Net S.F. 122,691 143,005 113,943

Comments from HSBC:

· Core academics, SPED, Art and Music, and Voc. Tech. combined are right on the MSBA numbers.

· Art/Music participation information must be provided to the MSBA.

· Voc. Tech. is tied to academics and science.

· Health/Phys. Ed. is more than twice as large as guideline. The program needs to be tied to participation.

· Move SPED related spaces out of Admin/Guidance. Try to trim space.

· Are guidance (and other) offices too large at 150 s.f?

· Computer classroom of 750 s.f. belongs in Voc.Tech., not Media Center?

· Is cafeteria adequate? It is much smaller than current space. There would have to be 3 lunches.

· Teacher planning space is not addressed in guidelines.

· Look for multi-purpose space.

There was a lengthy discussion on the athletic space with concern expressed about the large discrepancy between the proposed program and the guideline. The current draft ed spec includes a renovated field house and a single additional basketball court. The HSBC asked Gary and Pat for specific participation information that explains the program request. Some comments were:

· What elements of the program can fit into the field house?

· Does the field house have to be brought up to code?

· The program for athletics has not been as well vetted as academics and SPED.

· We should submit the ed program and negotiate the discrepancies, not reduce scope now.

· We should make the tough decisions before giving this to MSBA.

· Are we better off with 2 times the area or 1/2 the area?

· Our choice is to make the field house part of the project or not.

· Our choice is to make the gym part of the project or not.

· Field house renovation was estimated to cost $3.3 million four years ago. Since then, we have a new floor and bleachers thanks to the private effort.

· If we do renovate, we’ll have more flexibility.

· The MSBA defines the program as high school only, not community needs.

· Think about what the field house means to the community.

· School Committee should hear our quandary.

· An executive summary of the ed spec would be very helpful.

Action items: Frank et al. - Present revised ed spec to School Committee on Monday night (L-1at 7:45).

David - figure out what it would cost to renovate the field house today and what 19,800 of athletic space costs.

Gary and Pat – provide participation information in all areas for discussion with MSBA.

David – begin contacting town departments

Weekly call to MSBA on 4/6 – David will give John Jumpe a status report on Monday, but wait until later in the week to send the ed spec draft.

Next steps (items from KVA’s 3-week look ahead):

1-week April 9

· Ed Spec is formulated (conceptual)into Option 2, 3a, and 4 (single structure)

· Analysis of options continues

2-week April 16

· Amend exhibit A (budget) and B (scope) from MSBA. Review, discuss, and accept.

· Finalize HMFH fee

· Reevaluate 2004 option 2. Update with 09 Ed Spec

· Option 3A (2004 preferred option) estimate is updated

· Option 4 – analyze single structure per 09 Ed Spec

· 2004 stop gap is updated

3-week April 23

· Continued reevaluation of 2004 option 2,3a, and single structure (option 4)

· Start Budget statement per MSBA prescribed format (town task)

· Strategize for organizing 2009 (supplement) Feasibility Study Preferred Alternative Report for MSBA

Schedule of meetings

April 6 – School Committee to receive Ed Spec

April 7 – Town Election

April 9 – HSBC meeting

April 13 – Town Meeting

April 15 – Town Meeting

April 16 – HSBC meeting

April 23 – HSBC meeting

April 27 – School Committee meeting – HSBC update

April 29 – Public Forum

April 30 or May 4 – School Committee to approve selected option

Motion: A motion was made by Jim Howard and seconded by Joe Lewin to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #66 on March 26, 2009.

Vote: The motion was approved – 11 in favor, 0 opposed.

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Next meeting – Thursday, April 9 at 7:30 pm in the School Committee conference room

Observers: Betsy Brigham, Sam DiSavino, Ben Downs, Mary Beth Finch, Craig Foreman, Ken Isaacson, Lisa Valone