High School Building Committee (HSBC) Meeting #76 Minutes

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Wayland Town Building

School Committee Conference Room

Attendees

HSBC members: Lea Anderson, Josh Bekenstein. Dianne Bladon, Jim Howard, Fred Knight, Mary Lentz, Cindy Lombardo

Absent: Brian Chase, David Lash, Joe Lewin, Eric Sheffels, Jennifer Steel

HMFH Team: Steve Millington

KVA Team: David Saindon, Frank Vanzler

Ex Officio members: Gary Burton, Louis Jurist, John Moynihan, Pat Tutwiler

Call to order – HSBC Chairman, Lea Anderson, called the HSBC meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

Presentation on Option Selection and Extended Public Comment - Lea made a short presentation on the selected option and opened up the floor for an extended comment period from the public. Comments are at the end of the minutes.

General Project Update - David Saindon, Project Manager, reviewed the activity of the past two weeks:

• Wayland project team members are continuing to meet weekly with MSBA.
• Steve Millington brought project consultants to the field house to develop a cost model estimate for renovation.
• Mike DePietro and Joy Buhler from Wayland and David Saindon and Michele from KVA were trained on June 12^th by MSBA on their pro pay system.
• Feasibility Study Agreement has been received from MSBA (sent to Fred Turkington). The FSA is being executed by the School Committee under the advisement of Town Counsel.
• A second meeting with Brian Monahan of Conservation was held on June 9^th with HMFH, KVA, civil engineers, landscape designer, and Jennifer Steel to understand expectations for site protection.
• Steve is continuing to meet with administrators and high school department heads on the ed spec.
• Steve has engaged all consulting engineers: landscape architects (looking at elevations, parking, tree conservation); hazardous materials (hazmat); geo-tech (phase 1 environmental history, test pits and borings, soil conditions); mechanical (energy, cooling and heating); civil engineer (ConCom filings).
• Steve has started analysis on energy costs with 3-D models of both buildings. The mechanical engineer’s first impression is that cost of mechanical equipment is cost neutral between one and two building approach. A single building might have a larger cooling load. A two-building design has day-lighting advantage. A single building needs a larger floor plate. A two–building scheme is more flexible, might not need spray-on fire protection.
• David and Steve indicated that the two building scheme provides better design flexibility during the schematic design phase, allowing the ability to add additional square footage if the grossing factor proves to be lower than 1.5.

Update on June 8^th meeting with MSBA - David reported that Gary Burton, Lea Anderson, Steve Millington, Rep. Tom Conroy, and he met with John Jumpe , Mary Pichetti, Katie DeCristofaro, Carl Brown, and Brian McLaughlin of MSBA. David thought that there was a significant change from the positive discussion on June 1. The MSBA is having difficulty responding to Wayland’s ed spec in areas that do not correspond to their model. Wayland has provided back-up data on science, art and music, and commons as requested. MSBA is looking for trade-offs in other areas to get closer to the MSBA square footage.

David reported that in a subsequent discussion with John Jumpe he learned that MSBA has hired an independent cost estimator to validate our cost estimates. The estimator is expected to report back to MSBA this week (or next?). In the meantime, we have been told not to expect any response on the ed spec. David thinks that the ed spec discussion might go in the direction of taking 20,000 s.f. (physical education) off the MSBA total of 171,000 s.f. and letting Wayland fit its program (excluding the field house) in 151,000 s.f.

Discussion followed:

• How can MSBA check costs without a final ed spec? Ans. This is a comparative exercise to make sure cost comparison between the one and two building approach was fair. It is not a budget.
• Steve thinks that the ed spec will not be final until close to the end of schematic design.
• Approval from MSBA at its July 29^th board meeting allows Wayland to proceed with an approach. The ed spec will continue to evolve.
• As long as we can do athletics at a lower cost than 20,000 s.f. of new space, our athletics plans should be acceptable to MSBA.
• Allow flexibility to “lop off” spaces.
• How is it fair that model schools have much larger spaces? Not every community has a site that can accommodate a model school. MSBA thinks model schools will save money. That is probably true for elementary schools, but high schools have very different programs from each other and need modification.

Stop Gap Update – David presented a first pass “stop-gap” analysis. Stop-gap was a term used during the 2004 study to define a project to bring the buildings up to all health, safety, accessibility, and building codes, and add minimal space to accommodate the enrollment. David’s assumptions in this updated study are that no classrooms would be reconfigured or enlarged and that three classrooms would be added. Science labs would be replaced. The recommendations of the Futures Team would not be incorporated. The current analysis does not include the field house or waste water treatment plant yet. These will be added as data becomes available. The issue of reimbursement on a stop-gap project is not clear yet. The question will be asked of MSBA.

Field House Scope/Estimate Update – Steve reported that he met with his estimator and MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) engineers to look at the Field House. The bottom line cost model/conceptual estimate for renovating the Field House is $130/square foot for a total project cost of $5.3 million. The renovation includes a new roof with greatly enhanced insulation, new doors, skylights, rebuilt locker rooms, a real elevator, scoreboard, new electric service, hazmat removal, etc. In response to a question about the increase in cost since the 2004 study, it was pointed out that there were no locker rooms planned in the renovated Field House last time and that we are dealing with five additional years of escalation. We will look at this more closely. The privately funded renovations done this past year will be protected. It was pointed out that this estimate if very conceptual at this point and all scope will need to be further defined and cost-estimated.

Ed Spec – Steve reported that he has been working with Gary, Pat, and Allyson to see if there are ways to reduce the square footage of the ed spec to fit within the MSBA bottom line number. He is very frustrated with the lack of feedback from MSBA on the 5,000 to 6,000 gross square footage overage. He does not want to have to revise design down the road. He has backed out 20,000 s.f. from the 171,000 s.f. total and is working to fit all the new design in 151,000 s.f. Working with the administration, the program reductions being suggested are to eliminate the third art room and green house. Both spaces are at the edge of the building and can be added back. Steve explained that some of the other space can be multi-purpose and pick up some of the program. For example, the graphics/multi-media lab and fabrications (formerly called robotics) can serve art as well. It should be designed into a “central” location so that the space can be multi-purpose in the future.

A spirited discussion ensued:

• What is the effect on the program? Gary Burton responded that they made the least painful cuts. He would like to see Wayland push for the program in the larger ed spec and look at this new effort as a “plan B” in case we have to reduce more.
• Why would we ask the town to pay more when we can show that compromises were made to fit within the MSBA total?
• Wellesley crammed more into their project with an efficient net to gross design. Steve responded that if efficiencies can be made, we can put more in. This will be determined as design progresses.
• Frank Vanzler said that he always wants to challenge owners to look at ways of saving space.
• Eric was right. It all comes down to the bottom line.
• Say “thank you” to Steve.
• It is important for Wayland to have control over its program and make these decisions.
• What about music space? Ensemble room might not be big enough. Pat responded that he thinks it is okay. He said that they tried to protect what came out of the Futures Team.
• How can the Art and Music programs be satisfied if the ed spec is lower than the current space? We need a crisp explanation of how elements of the program will be satisfied.
• Do we have flexibility to add space back on some of the smaller cuts as we speak with department heads and staff? Ans. Yes.
• How does MSBA handle the television studio? Steve said that MSBA will approve space that is part of the high school program and will not fund space for community use.
• It has been shown that 100 students participate in the WayCam program. Many other schools have a television studio.
• Is 1200 s.f. enough space for the ed spec and WayCam? (Ken Isaacson from WayCam responded that it is sufficient.)
• Does it make sense to have a separate article for WayCam funded at 100% by the town?
• The current ed spec accommodates the program. It is technology based and is compatible with the Futures Team. The School Committee and WayCam will have to come to agreement on how to handle future space needs should the high school want to use the space for another purpose. It is high school owned space.
• Steve said that the television studio could be on an outside wall for separate access.

Schedule Update – David presented a detailed updated schedule that includes :

• 6/22/09 – Land Use Committee to meet with HMFH, KVA
• 6/29/09 – Feasibility Study Packet to be submitted to MSBA
• 7/2/09 – Next HSBC meeting
• 7/29/09 – MSBA Board Meeting to vote on Wayland preferred alternative
• 8/31/09 – Wayland submits schematics package to MSBA
• 9/30/09 – MSBA Board votes on Wayland project scope and budget
• 11/?/09 – Town Election and Special Town Meeting

Other action items

Parking - David requested information on school parking needs during construction so that planning can begin on temporary parking. He asked for the administration to find a site to park buses off the high school property during construction. Steve said that the official occupancy number for the Field House is 1,875 which results in 625 parking spaces required by code.

Fact Sheets – The group agreed that the updated Fact Sheet on option selection was close to being ready to post. Dianne will make a few more changes and then post it to the web site. As we reach other milestones, more of these summary documents will be developed and handed out at information sessions.

Motion: A motion was made by Cindy Lombardo and seconded by Josh Bekenstein to approve the minutes to HSBC meeting #75 held on June 4, 2009.

Vote: The motion was approved unanimously – 7 in favor; 0 opposed.

Adjournment – The HSBC adjourned at 10:07 p.m.

Next meeting – Thursday, July 2 at 7:30 pm in the School Committee conference room

Observers: Malcolm Astley, Tom Donaldson, Mary Beth Finch, Barb Fletcher, Lori Frieling, Cecily Kiefer, Ken Isaacson, Cynthia Lavenson, Linda Segal, Tom Sciacca, Karen Vachon, Phil Whaley

Comments from the public:

• Please try to move drainage to the north of the site. Anything that winds up in the brook, ends up in the wells.
• Consider retaining and leaving some remnant of the original buildings as a museum. (Field House will be retained, as well as student murals, if possible.)
• This is a much better project than the one proposed five years ago.
• The School Committee should present an overall budget that takes into account this project.
• At the last meeting the HSBC discussed studying long term maintenance costs. I look forward to this.
• Could we save the Math/English building for future community use?
• Where will the waste water treatment plant go? (Ans. Near the M/E building or behind the Field House.)
• Consider pumping it up to the Greenways property. Steve Kalichman might suggest this.
• Have you considered using Raytheon building? (Ans. yes, we looked at it in 2004 both as a potential high school and also as a rental during construction. Due to the use restrictions relative to digging and having children on site, due to contamination, we did not pursue it. We have also since learned that MSBA will not reimburse for land cost.)
• Owners are trying to renegotiate terms relating to restrictions.
• When will townspeople know financial viability relative to other projects?
• Continuity with old buildings is valuable. (We will consider saving murals and student generated projects.)
• Regarding the field house renovation, are soft costs in this yet? Has it been determined that renovating the field house is less expensive than building new athletics space? (We are beyond comparing options. We have looked at the costs and think that this plan has a cost advantage and offers less risk for Wayland. There is still a space held for a future gym should the community decide to fund it at some point.)
• Consider adding a timeline to the Fact Sheet.
• Permeable paving should be considered.
• Robotics were a fad. It is nice to see that we are thinking about flexibility and multi-purpose in that space by calling it “fabrications”.
• It might be useful for Steve to meet with the Energy Taskforce in town. John Moynihan is the staff member on that task force.
• Please do not lose site of the fact that we are building for 50 years. Do not be “penny-wise and pound-foolish when making these cuts.