High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #74 Minutes

Thursday, May 28, 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: George Metzger, Steve Millington

KVA Team: David Saindon, Frank Vanzler

Ex Officio members: Gary Burton

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.

Update on MSBA meeting and tour

David Saindon and Lea reported the following from their meeting with MSBA on May 18^th.

· David presented a draft analysis of options. He asked if our approach on field house renovation was appropriate (fitting as much as possible into field house and comparing to cost to build 25,000 s.f. new space).

Answer: yes.

· MSBA contacted Wayland’s Town Clerk to get official vote language.

· John Jumpe will send a Feasibility Study Agreement for signature.

· Two Wayland employees (Joy Buhler and Mike DiPietro) and two from KVA will be trained on pro pay process.

· Room utilization information was very helpful. Science looks good for 2 extra classrooms.

· MSBA is looking at teacher planning, art, music, and athletics.

· John Jumpe will visit WHS to see firsthand the space issues and reno options.

· HMFH was asked to provide updated MSBA template. (It has been sent.)

· MSBA asked to discuss schedule at a future meeting.

· John indicated that he would write a response to Wayland’s ed spec after the tour.

Mary Pichetti and John Jumpe visited WHS on May 21^st. They were shown the facility by Pat Tutwiler, Allyson Mizoguchi, David Saindon, Steve Millington, and Lea Anderson. They toured the commons, arts building, language, science, math/English, field house, and admin/library. Mary and John were very interested in the use of the music and art rooms, commons, and library. They asked to see Special Education spaces and teacher planning space. Lea reported that the commons, library, music rooms, and classrooms were very active during the tour. Wayland students presented themselves very well.

Allyson has prepared a commons utilization matrix that David will send to MSBA.

Analysis of Options

Steve Millington presented the options that the committee is considering:

Two-building, single phase
One-building, single phase
Half renovation (five existing buildings) half new construction (replacing language, social studies, science buildings in the middle of the campus with a new two-story academic building, plus a new auditorium off the arts building.)
All renovation with addition to arts building

Comments from the group were:

Show areas to be built in the future (gym) with hatch marks.
Consider saving the math/English building (16,000 s.f.) for future use by condensing parking
If math/English building is demolished, consider paving area for bus parking. It is well protected by the hill.
We are assuming 500 parking spaces. Check with fire department about number required.

Steve reported that the all renovation option really does include the entire program. The net to gross factor is way under 1.5. It is much more efficient because of narrow corridors, very low mechanical space, and outdoor circulation.

He said that changing net to gross multiplier from 1.5 to 1.45 can add 5,000 square feet. Wellesley started out being 23,000 gross square feet over the MSBA guideline, and ended up only 3,000 net square feet over. Wellesley also reduced classroom space to 800 s.f. It was suggested that Wayland consider this as a way to save program space.

Relative cost analysis

David and Frank presented a comparative options analysis for the four options being considered. It was pointed out that this was not a budget, but a tool for comparing options. KVA used the actual square footage from HMFH’s drawings. Frank said that KVA tried to be very realistic in analyzing costs. The conclusion of the analysis is that the two new construction options are about equal in cost, while the reno/new option is about 3% higher and the all reno option is about 7 % higher. Frank and David made additional points and responded to questions:

Anticipated construction duration varied significantly from 30 months for new construction to 42 months for the all-renovation option.
Renovation schemes require mid-year moves and much coordination and challenge.
The estimates have backup of 200 line items.

What is the reason for such high renovation costs?

- Ratio of exterior wall to interior with so many buildings

- Code upgrades are not just handicap accessibility. For example, seismic codes (earth quake and wind) were updated in March and compliance issues are huge . It requires bracing frames laterally, tying foundations and walls, etc.

- Elevators are much more expensive in old buildings. We have to expand hoist-ways and shafts.

- Need individual systems for each building, interconnection for communications

We will pay a premium to keep these buildings.
Circulation space is cheap, but density of stuff inside drives costs up. There is less cheap space and relatively more expensive space.
MSBA has a preference for renovation. How do we convince them of what we are seeing in this analysis?

- People are working longer and that costs more money.

- KVA tried to be very fair. We challenged ourselves on reno costs and ended up adding money.

- Every window has to be replaced, the existing masonry including overhangs have to be fixed. There is more roof than floor space in these buildings.

- We will present lots of back-up material.

How do you determine costs with a changing market?

- We used today’s costs, with escalation at 4% per annum.

- For example, structural steel is $3,200/ton in May 2009, way down from a year earlier.

In 2007 the industry was anticipating 6-8% escalation. Costs are down 8%. This is a 15% swing. The projection is for the market to come back in 2010. It is highly volatile.
How is MSBA going to make assumptions on cost? Are they starting to establish a data base of real costs?
Hanover project at 60% estimate is $305 for construction costs including site work.
Show assumptions to be able to compare later on.
Benefits to new construction are less time, less risk, meets Futures Team recommendations, lower operating costs, better situation relative to town wells.

Frank pointed out that the only real negative for the new construction options is the need for a temporary parking lot and access road. The negatives for renovation are:

time
modular classrooms
infrastructure – keeping buildings working
higher relocation and moving of classrooms and computers
higher contingency value due to more risk and typically more change orders

More discussion ensued:

Two-building and single building options are very close in cost, when you might expect the single building to be less expensive. This is probably due to lower square footage of two-building option with better circulation.
Site work on reno option might be understated if parking lots need significant remediation.
We have two new schemes with essentially identical cost. The two-building scheme meets Futures recommendation better.
What questions do we have about new schemes?:

1. How do we accommodate future expansion? (Steve will look at this.)

2. Does the Land Use Committee have comments on options? (Steve and David will ask to meet.)

Direction: The committee was in unanimous agreement that, based on the comparative cost information presented tonight and the fit with the ed program work of the Futures Team, it is choosing a direction of new construction with a renovated field house to discuss with MSBA and the Land Use Committee.

Brian Chase offered to attend the MSBA meeting on Monday at 10 am with Dr. Burton, David Saindon and Steve Millinton. They will present KVA’s analysis and ask for feedback on the ed spec. David will clean up the analysis and show costs that vary from scheme to scheme, but not show costs for items that do not change depending on the scheme. Feedback on the ed spec regarding the commons and music and art is necessary to begin the schematic. The question about reducing the square footage of some classrooms to 800 s.f. will be vetted with the administration and also asked of the MSBA.

Jennifer Steel offered to attend the Land Use Committee meeting with Steve and David to solicit feedback on the location of structures relative to set backs.

KVA and HMFH were asked to fill out the options comparison chart for discussion next time.

Update on test pits – Steve reported that four test pits were dug on the hill behind the arts building with DEP oversight. Two holes perked well while two others had silt. They concluded that it is the right site for leaching field, but they have to dig more holes. There are currently three leach fields: on the hill, near the lacrosse field (for field house and math/English building), and a very small one for the concession stand.

Schedule: David will work on a detailed schedule leading to a November vote. Concern was expressed about the tight schedule and the need for HMFH to have three months to produce the schematic design. If they are given the go ahead to start design in the first week of June, they should be able to submit documentation to MSBA for the September meeting. This will be discussed with MSBA.

Motion: A motion was made by Jim Howard and seconded by Jennifer Steel to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #73 held on May 14, 2009 and the public forum on May 19, 2009.

Vote: The motion was approved – 9 in favor; 0 opposed.

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

Next meeting – Thursday, June 4 at 7:30 pm in the School Committee conference room

Observers: Malcolm Astley, Sam DiSavino, Lori Frieling, Cecily Kiefer, Molly Upton

Comments: The location of school bus parking has been an irritant to the neighbors with fumes, noise from idling buses and anti-theft alarms. I am looking forward to the process of finding a different location, off-site to meet the town’s and neighborhood’s needs. There will be two big projects (pool and school) going on at once. This will have an impact on the neighborhood.