High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #70 Minutes

Thursday, April 23, 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, Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo, Joe Lewin, Jennifer Steel

Absent: Eric Sheffels

HMFH Team: George Metzger, Steve Millington

KVA Team: David Saindon, Frank Vanzler

Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Louis Jurist, Allyson Mizoguchi, John Moynihan

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.

Update on MSBA Meeting 4/23 - Gary Burton, Lea Anderson, Steve Millington, David Saindon, and Rep. Tom Conroy met with John Jumpe, Mary Pichetti, Jennifer Conaughton (contracts) and Christine Nolan (Assoc. General Counsel) of MSBA earlier in the day. The purpose of the meeting was to present Wayland High School’s educational program and to review the latest iteration of the ed spec. David reported that we provided a substantial package of information based on the work of the Futures Team, high school administration, and Steve over the past few weeks. The discussion focused on academic space. Athletics were not addressed at this meeting. Net square footage proposed by Wayland is currently about 6000 square feet higher than the MSBA guidelines for non-athletic space. Main points discussed were:

• WHS is an academic (classical) high school with very high participation in core academic subjects, arts, and athletics.
• Due to high participation level, science classroom guideline of 8 classrooms is inadequate for the current program. Wayland needs 10.
• Vocations/Technology guideline is too large for Wayland which does not offer vocational courses.
• Due to high participation level, music at WHS requires two rooms – one for band and another for chorus/orchestra. MSBA guidelines allow only one. A small music library for storing music is included in Wayland’s spec.
• Art is an area that the Futures Team identified as growing with the possible inclusion of art as a graduation requirement. Wayland is requesting three classrooms, one over the MSBA guideline.
• Special Education is a fully inclusion program at WHS. The space allowed by MSBA is almost twice as large as Wayland needs.
• Guidance requires 8 offices, compared with 5 in the MSBA guideline. Most Wayland students go on to college and guidance is a critical piece of the program.
• Dining and food services is very undersized for Wayland’s program. The current cafeteria is crowded and is twice as large as the MSBA guideline.

Steve reviewed the changes to the spec since the last meeting. The HSBC commented as follows:

• Students at WHS need spaces to study.
• Compromises might be made among various student study areas.
• MSBA assumes cafeteria seatings will be equal. Our scheduling constraints do not evenly distribute lunch seatings.
• Dr. Burton will send a letter to DESE at the appropriate time, through MSBA, for approval of the SPED space.
• If Wayland’s program is 2000 square feet over, will we present a larger project to the town?
• School Committee will be asked to weigh in. Goal is to be within guideline in total, but if there is a critical element of the academic program that is not being met, we should present it.
• MSBA said not to focus on trading off delta between renovation and new construction for extra space.
• Athletics program is not yet included in spec. All athletics assumed to fit in Field House in this iteration. Emphasis should be placed on researching the programmatic needs for athletics and then matching against the existing spaces.
• Ed Spec will evolve over the next month. Don’t lose sight of the big picture. We have to figure out what kind of a project we have.
• A risk of not nailing down the ed spec is that we end up doing too much redesigning.

* Action item: Steve will nail down athletic program details with Scott and Martha so that we know what fits in the Field House and what might be new construction (bump-out on Field House?).

George said that high schools are struggling with the MSBA guidelines that have no allowance for teacher offices, and space for students who are not scheduled every minute of the day. Teachers do not have their own rooms and must have space to prepare and meet with students. A high school is a very different model from an elementary school and high schools are different from each other.

*Action item: Dr. Burton will invite John Jumpe (and others) out to Wayland High School for a tour.

Schedule Update – David reviewed the schedule adjustments. Given the MSBA’s board meeting dates of May 27 and July 29, and the several week lead time to provide materials to the MSBA for review, it is clear that we cannot make the early May submission for the May 27 board meeting. David has talked to John Jumpe about proceeding with our refinement of the ed spec and analysis of options, continuing to meet weekly with MSBA, and coming to a joint understanding of a preferred option by the end of May. As we do not want to shortchange the time for the schematic design, David recommends that we stay with our plan to begin schematic design by the end of May and prepare to go to the MSBA board meeting July 29 for official approval of our selected option.

Analysis of Options

1. Steve presented a refined single phase/single building option (two-story) and presented a “diagrammatic” version that relates to the Futures Team recommendations. Refinements include a better entry, space for a future gym near the field house.
2. Next he showed a 2-building option, similar to the selected option of 2004, relocated to the front of the current campus, instead of behind. One building is academic space and the other includes common space. There is a large courtyard between the buildings, in response to the Futures Team direction for purposeful outdoor space.

Steve asked the group to consider directing HMFH to look at only one of these options.

Discussion ensued:

• Rough estimate of 10% savings on single phase/single building is hard to ignore. This needs to be more formalized.
• Purposeful outdoor space is an important idea from Futures report, but here is a compromise that saves time and money. Spill out space adjacent to commons can satisfy Futures suggestion
• Think of the academic space we could use for the differential in cost due to phasing.
• Respond to the language of the Futures work.
• Fresh air is unique part of the Wayland experience. Maybe it’s because of the current interior condition.
• Having seen HMFH’s Groton Dunstable design, we should be confident that the outside will be incorporated.
• We have to prove it out. Do the cost estimate of both options.
• It is amazing that we are actually accomplishing the recommendations of the Futures Team.
• The MSBA will want to see an option similar to the renovation/new option 2 in the 2004 study (renovation of Math/English, Admin, Arts, Field House plus new construction).

Direction to HMFH and KVA:

1. Continue to develop 3 scenarios

· Single building with renovated field house

· Combination of renovation of “best” buildings plus new construction (comparable to 2004 option 2)

· Renovation of all buildings with minimal new construction

2. Do cost estimates of 5 scenarios

· above three

· 2-building new construction with renovated field house

· stop gap

HMFH Contract – David reported that HMFH and the contract sub-group had come to agreement on a fee for the Feasibility Study/Schematic Design. The fee is within the amount allowed through the recent appropriation at Town Meeting. The contract is the standard designer contract required by MSBA.

Motion: A motion was made by Joe Lewin and seconded by Cindy Lombardo to recommend to the Wayland School Committee approval of the contract and fee for Feasibility Study/Schematic Design services by HMFH Architects in the amount of $768,700.

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

The HMFH contract will be presented to the School Committee on April 27^th. An addendum reducing KVA’s fee by $10,000 (from $180,395 to $170,395) will also be presented. Both consultants worked very hard to stay within the limits set by the appropriation at Town Meeting. The HSBC expressed its appreciation.

Option Comparison – David presented an option comparison tool for the group to consider when it is time to compare various design scenarios. Suggestions for changing the criteria and weighting were made. The group agreed to think about the form and talk about it again. David will send out a revised chart based on the comments he has received.

Next steps (items from KVA’s 2-week look ahead):

1-week April 30

· Continued review of alternative options

· Review estimated cost premium of renovating all buildings

· Review estimated cost premium of renovating admin/media center building

· Continued discussion of options comparison chart

· Recommend approval of Feasibility Study Agreement to School Committee

2-week May 7

· Continued review of alternative options

· Finalize option comparison chart

[Week of May 4 – Meet with town departments]

Schedule of meetings

April 27 – School Committee meeting – HSBC update

April 30 – HSBC meeting

May 7 – HSBC meeting

May 14 – HSBC meeting

May 19 – Public Forum (rescheduled)

May 21 – HSBC meeting

Motion: A motion was made by Mary Lentz and seconded by Josh Bekenstein to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #69 held on April 16, 2009.

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

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

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

Observers: Sam DiSavino, Ken Isaacson

Comments: Consider using Math/English building for community use such as senior center, if it is not part of the project.