 |
1. Call to Order: The meeting of the Jackson School Facilities Committee was called to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were:
Bob Thompson Vicki Hill
Bill Kelley Bob Stevenson
Dee McClave Dick Badger
Mike Weeder Jon Edgerly
Jerry Dougherty, School Board Member
Dr. Carl Nelson, Ex officio member
Anne Kebler, Ex officio member
George Bordash, Consultant
There were two members of the public present.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by Mr. Stevenson, second by Mr. Weeder and carried by unanimous vote, that the Minutes of the May 29th meeting be approved as circulated.
Motion by Mr. Kelley, second by Mr. Weeder and carried by unanimous vote, that the Minutes of the June 19th meeting be approved as circulated.
2. Citizen’s Comments: None
3. Update on Cost Estimate for Current One-Floor Plan – Mike Weeder:
Mr. Weeder provided memo from Couture Construction reflecting a cost of $142. per square foot to construct a 3,000 sf addition to Jackson School – building only, (using floor plan put together by the Footprint Committee). The quote was broken down as follows: Building cost - $425,000, Site Cost - $180,000 (with notation that it could be as little as $60,000), Renovations to existing school - $200,000, Design & Engineering - $100,000, and Contingency - $200,000, for a total of $1,105,000. It was Mr. Weeder’s opinion that the number was somewhat “foggy,” citing the $142 psf, site costs that “could be as little as $60,000,” and $100,000 for design and engineering. Dr. Nelson noted the cost for dismantling of the Trickey Barn would be about $30,000. Mr. Kelley
pointed out if some of those costs were removed, like Clerk of the Works, the numbers are still nearly the same – by bringing in everything that was previously done by other committees, the numbers are very close to one another. Mr. Thompson stated the difference seems to be the square footage cost. Mr. Weeder stated the $142 looks reasonable as compared to $420 psf for one of the other plans. Mr. Thompson noted that new construction cost is a little over 1/3 of the total number. Mr. Stevenson said if we look at just building cost, plus renovation, we are looking at 56% with 44% as slush. Mr. Badger questioned additional square footage coming out of the contingency such as shelving. Mr. Kelley noted net square footage is 2300, but the architect based it on one and one-half times that, adding in closet space, corridor space, shelving, etc. - this helps us, but we really need to know what we are going to build, what the specifications
are.
4. Update on Option #4 – 12/07/05 as Requested by Bill Kelley – Carl Nelson: Dr. Nelson provided site plan and footprint, noting that this plan takes into account moving of the road. Mr. Kelley noted originally the figure was $1,816,000, but with a $270,000 mistake it became $1,546,600 for this plan – the architect’s proposed option cost for that plan included site work, contingency, engineering costs, renovations to existing building, fire alarm updates, testing, Clerk of the Works, insurance, administrative costs – complete project costs.
4575 sf is close and would include hallways, closets, etc.; it provided a small multi-purpose room, library, kitchen, necessary rooms that the staff developed, and kept classrooms intact all on a single floor within the footprint, but with the condition that we were going to move the road. Mr. Kelley noted that at that time the entire committee was in favor of pursuing moving that road. They met with the State and it was determined that, provided it was a shared project between the town and the State, it would be a cost to the town of about $60,000 to move the road; however, for some reason it “went cold.” Mr. Edgerly stated it went cold because line of site was an issue. Ms. Harding commented that the DOT has a reputation of working with towns and we could be more forceful with them. Mr. Thompson
said he was under the impression that someone recommended not doing that. Mr. Dougherty noted the State did say the line of site issue could be taken care of. Mr. Thompson questioned whether anyone sees it as a feasible option at this time if the road does not move? Mr. Badger said he does not think so, that politically we have to bring the cost down to less than $1 million.
Mr. Weeder said he feels the separation of the multi-purpose room is the best feature of the plan. Mr. Kelley said at $1,546,600, there is a $20,000 contingency built in for site cost, architects and engineering fees of $110,000, administration costs of $40,000, construction testing allowance of $15,000, Clerk of the Works $40,000. It was his opinion that those numbers could be tightened; for instance, regarding the Clerk of the Works, we have people who could help with that.
Mr. Dougherty said the important thing as regards the number, is to identify exactly what needs to be done. Mr. Thompson said we have had the same conversation about what Mr. Weeder brought to the table. He questioned again as regards this floor plan, whether anyone feels it is feasible without moving the road. It was noted this floor plan is in the parking lot and may be over the septic. Mr. Thompson stated when talking about meeting student needs and reaching consensus on the type of plan we want to go forward with, we agree we are all not necessarily going to get everything that we want - do we want to pursue this plan? (4A).
Ms. McClave questioned whether the school is required to observe setback regulations. Mr. Thompson said neither setback nor height restrictions, noting the Whitney Center proposal that was before the voters in March had us at about 2’ from the property line. He said the first plan (designated as A2.01 dated 11/27/06) was put before the town in the public forums as an example of ways to meet all student needs without the Whitney Center.
Mr. Edgerly noted that plan interferes with playground space. Mr. Bordash said the history of that plan is the consensus of the Footprint Committee, it evolved to this plan. He said it was thought if the bond issue failed, this would be a good place to start. It included all the needs that were projected in the other plan without the Whitney Center. Mr. Thompson said the question for the Committee is “do you want to take this plan further or have Banwell come up with another floor plan?” Mr. Weeder questioned whether we need to wait to see what the School Board’s decision will be with the Whitney Center? Mr. Thompson told him no, the Board is looking for this Committee to work on that one-floor plan. He said he feels confident that there will be a moving of the town hall, or a
Whitney Center.
Mr. Dougherty stated in June he will push that we either break ground for this project, or put a temporary portable outside by June of 2008. Mr. Kelley said we are addressing educational needs for the Jackson School right now; we need to solve that problem for next year. He said if down the road that other entity comes back into play, so be it. He suggests that we take the two plans that are on the table (A2.01 & 4A) and work on the two of them, listing the pros and cons and how we can tighten them up – it would be a benefit to bring a plan and a budget forward.
It was Mr. Badger’s feeling that we should be going forward just with Plan A2.01, noting we have to keep the dollars down, it answers the needs of the school. He suggested if the kitchen is really a question it can be tacked on to the end. He said as regards the sound, we may have to enhance the exterior walls and the wall in this room, including cutting through the ceiling so we will have no acoustical transmission between the two. This room will have to function as the school library as well as a music room.
Motion was made by Mr. Badger, seconded by Mr. Stevenson, that this Committee select plan A2.01 dated 11/27/06, as a basis for discussion, planning, and pricing.
5. Architect Needs: Mr. Thompson said he feels it might be appropriate to get David Laurin of Banwell back in, express to him our existing concerns, have him tell us what we can do. Ms. Hill stated when she looks at this as a person who tries to function in this building and she finds stuff that does not make sense, it could be so much better if we moved things around, i.e. the space she would be working in would be very far away from all of the classrooms and would be wasting time going back and forth. She said by having the Principal’s office as the first room a person goes to when entering the building she would not get anything done – the Assistant’s office should be closer to the door. As regards the kitchen, having it be that size does not make
sense, also with medical needs being such a private piece she questions having the nurses’ office right in the middle of traffic.
Mr. Badger felt with all these issues there is a lot of work to do before we spend money on an architect, that we need to decide first exactly where we want the Principal’s office, the kitchen, nurses’ office, etc. Dr. Nelson said anything on here is interchangeable; the issue is, is this the square footage you want? Mr. Weeder stated we almost need the architect to develop that – it is part of the process – putting these ideas on paper, otherwise we are going back to the “what if” scenario. Dr. Nelson pointed out also that that plan does not have space for a library and there is the issue of outside recreation; also there will have to be an area for food. Ms. Kebler said regarding the nurses’ office, it was designed to be there because there is not a full time nurse so there
needs to be an opportunity for either Ms. Bennett or the Principal to monitor someone with a medical problem in the nurses’ office. Ms. Kebler stated the functionality of Plan 4A provides a better functioning building for the school. There was question of the square footage difference between the two plans. Mr. Edgerly said his concern is about how much playground space we would be losing versus parking. Mr. Dougherty stated it will involve some engineering costs as far as the play space is concerned, but felt that can be dealt with for not a lot of money.
Ms. Kebler wished to clarify that when they were designing the Whitney Center the area for art and music was off of the multi-purpose room, off the recreation center piece. Mr. Thompson said we are not looking at creating a recreational center. Ms. Kebler questioned whether there will be a place for recreational needs for the kids. Mr. Thompson said the Board was clear they wanted us to focus on the educational needs piece with an option somewhere for recreational purposes (nothing to do with this Committee). Voting proceeded on Mr. Badger’s motion with the following result: Yes – 4 (Thompson, McClave, Badger, Stevenson; No – 4 (Weeder, Kelley, Hill, Edgerly)
Mr. Kelley said he feels the kitchen and library are too important and that plan is not big enough. Mr. Thompson suggested we should get David Laurin in here as he indicated those were adequate sizes for those rooms. Mr. Edgerly said the problem he has is the kitchen and occupational therapy/speech space are inadequate. Mr. Weeder agreed it is a starting place, but he is still not convinced that it is big enough, and has an issue with the sound. He does not feel we are ready to move forward with anything yet. He is in favor of bringing the architect in. Ms. Hill said she is hesitant toward something that is that small. Her concern is what we are trying to offer our kids, she does not want to do a “half-baked” job and is not convinced this is the “bee’s knees” plan.
She is more comfortable with trying to use the two plans and see what we really want to do. Mr. Thompson questioned bringing in the architect with the two plans, and have discussion with him on the concerns expressed tonight. Ms. Hill said if construction people are saying this is the time to go to an architect, she would agree because that is their area of expertise. Mr. Badger said until you are resolved on what we want for a library and kitchen, until we can give him the size of it, we are wasting our time. He said his concern is trying to get the Committee to focus and go forward in an orderly manner.
Mr. Kelley noted that last year the School Board authorized the use of funds for architectural assistance and questioned, with no real project, do we have that ability this year? Mr. Thompson said the motion was not specific about granting authority for an architect, it was just seeing the necessity, and it was done.
Mr. Edgerly suggested we should lay out room by room what we need and then say “are we at that point?, or has it happened?, and can we get things moving along?” He said the problem with the 4A plan is if we move the road, what about a place to hold physical education? Mr. Stevenson commented we are looking at a major change from the original plan - an additional 50%. Mr. Kelley suggested spending some time working on the A2.01 plan that eliminates some of the complications, for instance, squaring off the back corner adds another 300 sf, then possibly restructuring the front as regards office space – spend some time, get a more defined space need, and then go to the architect. He said the square footage may be enough, but he does not feel that it is. He suggested spending some time and seeing if
we can make it work first and then bring in the architect. Mr. Thompson said that might mean we may be spinning our wheels here. Mr. Badger agreed we should determine the function we need and the size for that function, then go to the architect. Mr. Thompson questioned if we are the best people to determine the size that we need without an architect in the room; we are trying to come to terms on changing square footage around, we need an expert for that in this room right now.
Motion was made by Mr. Kelley, seconded by Mr. Weeder, that this Committee hold a work session within two weeks to take plan A2.01 and modify it to our best abilities to answer everybody’s questions and concerns for presentation to Banwell in one month for consultation and future work. Carried by unanimous vote.
6. Citizens Comments: None.
7. New Business: None.
8. Next Meeting Date: Work Session July 25th at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Badger said we keep skirting the political issue, we will have to pare it down to something people can live with, and he suggests under $1 million. Mr. Weeder pointed out that 50% of the people voted for $4 million, so he feels if we come back with a good number and a good plan, we will be fine. Ms. Hill stated a lot of people said the vote failed because of the confusion – if we have a good plan with a lot of information, it might work out.
9. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gail T. Currier, Recording Secretary
| |
