Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wayland Town Building
School Committee Conference Room
Attendees
HSBC members:
Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein. Dianne Bladon,
Jim Howard, Fred Knight, David Lash, Mary Lentz, Joe Lewin,
Cindy Lombardo, Jennifer Steel
Absent: Brian
Chase, Eric Sheffels
HMFH Team:
George Metzger, Steve Millington
KVA Team:
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 7:40 p.m.
Update on MSBA meeting
Gary Burton and Steve
Millington reported on the meeting with MSBA on June 1st. Attendees were Gary, Steve, Brian
Chase, David Saindon, John Jumpe,
Katie Decristofaro, and Carl Brown (MSBA
architect). Gary and Steve
reported that the meeting went very well:
á
David reviewed
the four options with comparative cost analysis and back-up detail.
á
David reviewed
the need for space in art, music, and the commons.
á
If we can make
an argument for additional space, MSBA seems open to considering.
á
John Jumpe indicated that the case has been made for two
additional science rooms and is open to further discussion in other areas.
á
MSBA needs
confirmation that Wayland can support a third art teacher.
Gary explained that the
Futures Team defined an enhanced arts program with a course requirement in the
future. This is really the only
enhancement to the program in the ed spec. Lea reported that MSBA wants assurance that space will be
flexible if the program changes.
Questions and comments
from committee members followed:
á
Was MSBA
familiar with renovation being more expensive than new construction? Ans: yes
á
Was there any
concern expressed about WaylandÕs lower SPED and Voc/Tech numbers? Ans: the Department
of Education requires a detailed program description for SPED. Gary and Marlene
Dodyk are working on writing the narrative and Steve
will provide drawings of SPED space for approval.
á
Natick chose a
model school because of the larger space allowance for athletics and
commons. As the MSBA sees more
high school ed specs, they see that one size does not satisfy all programs.
á
It is wise that
we did not compromise the program by making more space cuts before presenting
our case.
á
We outgrew the
middle school almost as soon as the reno/addition was
completed.
á
What about the
commons? Ans. We are providing
numbers to back up our request.
When MSBA visited, they saw first-hand that the commons is used for
productive student work throughout the day.
á
We are meeting
with Brian Monahan of Conservation on June 9 to present our selected option and
request feedback.
Athletics – The
athletics program discussion was kicked off by Dianne Bladon who reminded the
group that the MSBA space guideline supports an in-school physical education
and wellness program, but not after-school athletic programs. She suggested that the discussion
around athletics will be focused on cost, not square footage. The cost of the 19,800 net s.f. allowed by MSBA is the upper limit. If the cost of renovating the field
house and adding a small amount of new construction to meet the program is less
than the upper limit, MSBA seems willing to support this. The current proposal fits most parts of
the program into the field house with the exception of 3,200 s.f as follows:
á
cardio/weight
room (2,400 s.f.)
á
training room
(500 s.f.)
á
laundry room
(100 s.f.)
á
athletic
directorÕs office (200 s.f.)
Our program is about
1,000 s.f. under in locker room space.
Dianne presented a chart
that compares existing program space with the 2004 proposal, the current
proposal, and the MSBA guideline.
The current proposal is about 14,000 s.f. less
than the 2004 study, mostly due to the gym being removed. David has provided a cost estimate for
19,800 s.f. of new physical education/wellness space
(MSBA guideline) at $7.36 million.
Steve thinks that the field house renovation would be much less. He reported that the current fitness
room is a home-made addition that would cost a lot to bring up to code. He recommends using it for storage and
building the cardio/weight room new.
Discussion followed:
á
We want to have
a project that is as low cost as possible.
á
MSBA wonÕt let
us trade savings for ed space.
á
We need an
estimate on renovation of the field house, even if it is within $500k for now.
á
Continue
working on creative ways to put as much program in the field house as possible.
á
All athletics
storage is planned to be in the field house.
á
We need cost
estimates that allow us to look at a range of options from the most program in
the field house with minimal new construction to less renovation and more new.
á
Private fund
raising for a gym is possible in the future. We should know how much a gym would cost.
Action item: David will provide a cost estimate for
a renovated field house and 3,200 s.f new space as
proposed. He will also do a cost
estimate for a gym.
School Committee meeting update: Dianne attended the June 1st WSC meeting and reported the
following:
á
HSBC is advised
to keep encroachment on conservation areas as little as possible.
á
The WSC
re-emphasized priorities of academics first, co-curriculars
second, and extra-curriculars last.
á
We were asked
to work on communication of the major decisions being made, possibly through
another forum before the end of the school year.
Steve reported that the
preliminary survey is back with a new 100 foot buffer around bordering
vegetation wetlands. The new
construction options encroach less on the new buffer area. Steve said that it is not helpful to
get every bit of building out of the buffer, because there will be work in the
200-foot riverfront area, and so the project will be within Conservation
jurisdiction. He also reported
that the resource area has been mapped, but not identified. These issues will be discussed on Tuesday, June 9 with Conservation.
The HSBC discussed
communicating the decisions made since the forum two weeks ago. Some members felt that it is important
to have another forum before the end of school. Others expressed concern that there is not enough time to
pull together another forum so quickly and that we communicate regularly
through WayCam, meeting minutes, articles, web site,
list serve, and library. It was
suggested that a short presentation and extended public comment as part of a
regular MSBA meeting would suffice.
Many members seemed to like this idea. Lea will get back to the committee with a plan for
communicating in the short term.
She and Dianne will work on a longer term communications plan through
November.
Lea reviewed the
four options under consideration over the past few weeks:
The HSBC
reviewed the comparison worksheet that George, Steve, Frank, and David were
asked to fill out on the four options on a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (highly advantageous) across seven
weighted criteria: cost
efficiency, program space efficiency, operations & maintenance costs, ideal
educational environment, meeting Futures Team vision, minimum impact to educational
program during construction, and risk to construction schedule/risk to ed
program. The results were
consistent with all four consultants ranking the options in the same
order. The aggregate scores were:
The HSBC
reviewed the comparative options analysis from KVA that showed comparative
costs across the four options. The
one and two-building new construction options were essentially the same, while
the part reno/part new was 5% higher and all
renovation was 9% higher.
The HSBC reviewed a memo
from Frank Vanzler recommending the 2-building, new
construction, single phase approach as in the very best interest of the Wayland
community. His reasons were:
1.
Based on KVAÕs detailed analysis, this is the least cost solution
(along with the one-building scheme).
2.
The two
building design is more efficient in terms of square footage compared with the
one building scheme, and this square footage efficiency will give us better
opportunity to get MSBA to endorse any programmatic square footage overages.
3.
The two
building scheme appears to give more flexibility should we need to adjust the
positioning of the buildings on the site to satisfy ConCom
requirements.
4.
The new
construction scheme has far less construction change order risk than the
renovation options.
5.
The new
construction scheme is the best approach to minimize disruption to the ongoing
educational environment at WHS during the construction period.
6.
The new
construction approach has the shortest construction duration time.
7.
New
construction is easily understandable and will be a more attractive project for
General Contractors and Subcontractors to bid. This will create better competition and bids with less
contingency than a complicated, multi-phased renovation project.
8.
New
construction will not have design constraints which are inherent with
renovations options (low ceilings, existing structural geometry, wheelchair
accessibility issues, etc.)
9.
The two
building scheme seems to be the most responsive to the conclusions of the
Wayland Futures Team.
10. Based upon our meeting on Monday, MSBA appears to
agree that new construction is the preferred choice as opposed to renovation.
Discussion followed:
á
2-building
option is more flexible and less square footage
á
What is the
difference in operations and maintenance costs for two buildings vs. one?
á
2-building
scheme has better natural day light; 1-building has more interior space which
will require cooling.
á
LetÕs do a
long-term energy and maintenance cost analysis so that we understand it. Would it ever be enough to tip the cost
analyses (and so our decision) one way or another?
á
We have raised
three issues:
i. expandability – same for both options
ii. conservation restrictions – working with ConCom
iii. operations and maintenance costs – Steve will
look at this before end of month
Motion: A motion was made
by Cindy Lombardo and seconded by Josh Bekenstein to
adopt the 2-building new construction, single phase project as the preferred
alternative.
Vote: The motion was
approved unanimously – 10 in favor, 0 opposed.
Schedule: The HSBC
reviewed the updated schedule.
Steve said that he has two major tasks relating to site and developing
the preferred plan into more detail.
He will engage consultants to work on landscape issues, WWTP location,
temporary parking, etc. He will
engage WHS department heads to get feedback on more detailed design.
Fact Sheet: Dianne
presented a draft Fact Sheet on option selection for discussion. There were many suggestions about
format and level of detail. The
HSBC struggled with what level of detail to present on the cost analysis as the
costs are comparative and do not constitute a budget. Some members preferred showing total numbers that include
all aspects of the project, while others thought that leaving out the field
house renovation cost and waste water treatment plant numbers, which will be
the same for all options, makes sense until our consultants have had a chance
to do these cost estimates. Dianne
agreed to work on the fact sheet and send an updated draft to the committee for
review prior to the next meeting.
Motion: A motion was made
by Jim Howard and seconded by David Lash to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting
#74 held on May 28, 2009.
Vote: The motion was approved – 9 in favor; 1 abstention.
Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Next meeting – Thursday, June 18 at 7:30 pm in the
School Committee conference room
Observers:
Betsy Brigham, Sam DiSavino, Mary Beth Finch,
Barb Fletcher, Cecily Kiefer, Ken Isaacson, Joe Karbowski,
Heather Pineault, Doug Sacra, Karen Vachon, Gloria Villari
Comments from the public: