High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #71 Minutes

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Wayland Town Building

School Committee Conference Room

Attendees

HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein, Dianne Bladon, Brian Chase, Jim Howard, David Lash, Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo, Eric Sheffels, Jennifer Steel

Absent: Fred Knight, Joe Lewin

HMFH Team: George Metzger, Steve Millington

KVA Team: David Saindon

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

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.

Update on 4/27 School Committee meeting

• Wayland School Committee (WSC) approved the contract and fee for HMFH Architects.
• WSC approved the addendum to KVA’s contract reducing their fee by $10,000.
• WSC was briefed on the 4/23 MSBA meeting on the ed spec.
• WSC was briefed on the revised schedule. 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, the HSBC has determined it cannot make the early May submission of a selected option for the May 27 board meeting. The HSBC will proceed with refining the ed spec and analysis of options, continue to meet weekly with MSBA, and come to a joint understanding of a preferred option by the end of May. Schematic design will begin prior to board approval which will not occur until July 29. The HSBC and MSBA are trying to stay on schedule for a September project scope and budget agreement and November vote.

Analysis of Options

Steve Millington reported that he had met with Allyson Mizoguchi and Scott Parseghian on the athletics program. His initial analysis is that there is room for most parts of the program in the field house with the exception of team rooms. Steve was asked to look at cost effectiveness of renovating the sub-grade field house space. He was also advised to think about using as much of the field house as possible. He expects to report on the athletic program on May 7.

1. Steve presented a single building evolution from the 2-building/2-phase scheme that was shown previously. This option includes an academic wing that organizes the space according to the Futures study. It is a two-story wing with 2 pods per floor centered on the library. A second single story wing includes music, auditorium, food service, etc. There is a significant courtyard. This design requires the initial demolition of the admin/media center building. Discussion ensued:

• This requires 2-phase approach with relocation of admin, guidance, library, WayCam during construction.
• We could save admin building while academic wing is built.
• Is there space around building for an access road for public safety?
• There is space for a future gym.
• Do we think the cost difference between this and a single phase is 10%? It is likely to be less. KVA will analyze during cost estimating.
• This is a better building – worth the extra cost over 50 years.
• The beauty of a single phase project was that we wouldn’t have to deal with the cost and inconvenience of trailers.
• Is there a way to move elements, such as the auditorium to get back to a one-phase project?

The consensus of the group was that this was an elegant design with benefits of the two-building approach in terms of daylight and useful outdoor space, but that Steve should try to make this a one-phase project that does not require early demolition of the admin building.

2. Steve also showed a single building (“triangle”) that was monolithic, single-phase. The consensus was that this concept was less elegant, had less opportunity for natural light with many interior spaces. The cost differential between this approach and the one above needs to be understood. This concept will be sent to David who will begin cost estimating.

3. Steve showed a renovation/new construction mix that takes a different approach from the 2004 version. The commons, administration/media center, arts, and math/English buildings would be renovated. The history, language building, and science building would be demolished and a new academic building would be built in the middle of the campus. Parking would stay where it is.

4. The full renovation project includes an addition to the arts building.

Direction to HMFH and KVA - Continue to work on five alternatives:

· All renovation

· Combination renovation/new

· New construction – single building double-wing (“serpentine”)

· New construction – single building monolithic (“triangle”)

· Stop-gap

Feasibility Study Agreement Update –

• David reported that the MSBA needs to see the Locker report before accepting the cost of the study. Gary agreed to call Frank.
• David reviewed the Feasibility Study Budget (Exhibit A) which shows the eligible reimbursable total from MSBA at $1,084,812. This number is derived from adding $1,026,000 to the eligible amount of the 2004 study ($45,000) and funds left over from the 2004 study ($13,812). There was discussion about the confusion caused by mixing gross costs with net costs. Josh offered to work with David on presenting the numbers.

The group discussed the importance of getting feedback from the MSBA on the ed spec. The HSBC and School Committee will have to make decisions on either recommending reductions for elements that are not reimbursable, or recommending including them and pay 100%. We can continue with option development and cost estimates because the relative costs won’t change based on changing the ed spec by a few thousand square feet. We should present the ed spec at the forum, including the dilemmas we face. We might get feedback that surprises us.

David reported that he is scheduled to meet with some town department heads on Tuesday. It was suggested that Jennifer Steel accompany David to Conservation. David will call Jennifer. Lea will work on a master list of departments who have to approve the project.

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

1-week May 7

· Continued review of alternative options

· First pass review of costs for estimated alternatives

· Finalize ed spec and report

· Continued discussion of options comparison chart

· Recommend approval of Feasibility Study Agreement to School Committee

2-week May 14

· Continued review and analysis of alternative options

· Finalize option comparison chart

Schedule of meetings

May 7 – HSBC meeting

May 11 – School Committee – Feasibility Study Agreement

May 14 – HSBC meeting

May 19 – Public Forum

May 21 – HSBC meeting – continue review and analysis of alternatives

May 28 – HSBC meeting – select alternative

Motion: A motion was made by Josh Bekenstein and seconded by Cindy Lombardo to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #70 held on April 23, 2009.

Vote: The motion was approved – 11 in favor, 0 opposed. (Jennifer Steel left early.)

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

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

Observers: Lori Frieling, Ken Isaacson, Cecily Kiefer

Comments:

• WayCam will present information to the HSBC on high school curriculum connected to TV production and computer science.
• Moving WayCam on a temporary basis is a problem. If we keep the Admin. building, WayCam would be happy to stay where it is.