High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #72 Minutes

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Wayland Town Building

School Committee Conference Room

Attendees

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

Absent: Fred Knight, David Lash, Cindy Lombardo

HMFH Team: Steve Millington

KVA Team: David Saindon, Frank Vanzler

Ex Officio members: Louis Jurist, Allyson Mizoguchi

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

Update on Meetings with Town Departments on 5/5

David Saindon reported that he and Steve Millington met with Dan Bennett, Building Inspector, Brian Monahan, Conservation (Jennifer Steel joined this meeting), Jack Mitchell, Water Department, and John Moynihan, Facilities Director. David also spoke briefly with Alf Berry, Town Surveyor. David reported the following:

Building Inspector and Conservation

• Site plan review will be required.
• 124 foot contour line marks the flood plain.
• Building on the parking lot is potentially permittable.

Water Department

• Sees nothing major.
• DEP requires drainage work in rear parking lot; David pointed out that this might be a field in the future.

Facilities

• John Moynihan is ex officio on the HSBC. He is especially interested in being involved during materials selection.

David and possibly Steve will meet with Health, Police, Fire, and Planning Departments next week. It was suggested that David also meet with Park and Rec. and Roads. (Check on timing of DPW transition.)

Analysis of Options

1. Steve Millington presented a revised conceptual design of two buildings in a single phase in response to last week’s feedback This option does not require the demolition of the admin building during construction. It includes an academic building that organizes the space according to the Futures study. It is a two-story building with 2 classroom clusters per floor centered on the library. A second mostly single story building includes administration, art, music, auditorium, food service, etc. There is a significant courtyard between the buildings. Discussion ensued:

• This is very close to what we developed in 2004, but smaller, single phase, and in front of the school.
• Can we move things to avoid crossing the buffer line?
• Distance between the buildings is 50’. Building is 28’ high.
• Do we like kids going outside? Ans. Yes, this is very important to the culture of the school and the recommendations of the Futures Team.
• Are we losing an opportunity to place the commons near the field house to use it during sporting events?
• This is on the right track. Is there any feel for efficiency? This is 158,000 s.f. (gross).
• This concept matches the program.

2. Steve discussed the mostly renovation option. He was asked to spend time analyzing the program fit. The HSBC questioned whether space of about 122,000 s.f. (gross) plus a new auditorium accommodates the educational program.

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

4. Steve again showed a single building that was monolithic, single-phase. The cost differential between this new construction approach and the two-building scheme needs to be understood.

Frank Vanzler reminded the group that details about where things go can be addressed later. The important thing to do now is get the concepts down so that cost estimating can be done. He said that site work is assumed to be the same for each scheme. The field house will not be factored in yet.

The group discussed the need to prioritize and rank the different approaches.

Steve was asked to provide qualitative information for comparing concepts.

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

· All renovation

· Combination renovation/new

· New construction – double building/single phase

· New construction – single building monolithic

· Stop-gap

Ed Spec Update

Athletics: Steve reported that he has received information on athletic team numbers. The preliminary estimate for lockers (280 boys; 170 girls) seems high for boys. Discussion ensued:

• Is it possible to have uneven numbers for girls and boys?
• We should find out the trend in shower usage at other schools. Very few students use showers at Wayland. Is it because of the conditions or do kids just prefer to shower at home?
• Try to get the program into the field house. Program works today. It will be expensive to bring lockers or showers out of the building.

Steve will continue to work on the athletic program and report next week.

Locker Report: The HSBC requested a copy of the Locker report for each member to review. The report will be labeled draft, but the only part that will possibly change is the ed spec matrix. Steve will send these to David and to Lea for distribution to the HSBC. David will send a copy to the MSBA.

Feasibility Study Agreement Update – David reported that he asked John Jumpe about grossing up the uncommitted funds left over from the previous study. John said that we cannot use MSBA reimbursement as a funding source.

Planning for Public Forum - Dianne Bladon presented a draft outline for the forum on May 19. She suggested that no more than one hour should be spent on presentations so that there will be plenty of time for public feedback and questions. Topics to be presented are:

• Welcome and introduction
• Futures Team results
• Wayland’s needs vs. state guidelines
• Concept designs
• Cost drivers
• Decisions and next steps
• Input from the public

Suggestions from the committee included:

· Make this simple and broad-based

· Highlight ways this differs from 2004 (smaller size, assured state funding, etc.)

· Frame differences between state regulations and Wayland in terms of percentages

· Focus on Futures Committee work both in terms of wide ranging input and educational vision

· Spend time on phasing costs and other cost drivers

· Communicate that the HSBC is working hard to develop the most efficient, cost-effective plan

· Share criteria we will use to make decision

· Talk about what is ineligible for reimbursement to set expectations; this is not totally clear yet. (Things such as demolition can be included if it is part of the most cost effective option. Some part of waste water will probably be covered, but MSBA is still trying to figure out what.)

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

May 14 HSBC Meeting

· Continued review of alternative options

· Review of costs for estimated alternatives

· Finalize ed spec and report. Recommend approval of ed spec to School Committee

· Prepare for public forum

· Continued discussion of options comparison chart

May 19 Public Forum

May 21 HSBC Meeting

· Continued review and analysis of alternative options

May 28 HSBC Meeting

· Select an alternative

Two critical issues that the HSBC wants to understand for next week’s meeting are:

1. athletic program (does it fit in field house? if not, what is left over?)

2. programmatically equivalent schemes across four options so that cost estimating compares apples to apples

Motion: A motion was made by Jim Howard and seconded by Mary Lentz to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #71 held on April 30, 2009.

Vote: The motion was approved – 8 in favor, 1 abstention

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Next meeting – Thursday, May 14 at 7:30 pm in the School Committee conference room

Observers: Lori Frieling, Ken Isaacson