NEWTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING

NEWTON NORTH HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT

EDUCATION CENTER, FRAZIER ROOM, AUGUST 19, 2003, 5:00 P.M.

 

 

PRESENT:               Chairperson Anne Larner, Vice-Chairperson Susan Albright, Marc Laredo, Dori Zaleznik, Mayor David Cohen

 

ABSENT:                 Gail Glick, Patty Kellogg, Nancy Levine

 

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Chairperson Anne Larner called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.  She announced that tonight's meeting will begin with a short update on the feasibility study, followed by School Committee discussion on the matrix, and concluding with a discussion on the schedule.

 

Dick Amster, Turner Construction, reported that they are still on schedule to have the draft of the study completed by 9/1.  The design and construction schedules for each option are being fine-tuned, as well as the associated budgets.  They have met with the demolition subcontractor to discuss the work involved in dividing Main St., as well as the stadium area.

 

Carl Franceschi, DRA, indicated that Options A, B and C-1 are morphing into one option, which may ultimately result in two options and the new school hybrid.  In looking at the schemes in conjunction with the program, the building in Options A and B became fairly long, which has a negative impact on the playing fields.  Therefore, they began to work with designs that were more parallel to the existing building, similar to Option C.  Each schematic demolishes the Lowell Ave. side of Main St. and retains the current Main St. with new construction, additional space, and a new facade. The designs call for a three-story building to take advantage of natural light and existing height.  In Option C2, Main St. is demolished all the way back to the face of the auditorium, cafeteria and library and a new Main St. is recreated on the athletic field side of the building.  The new building option is larger than the existing footprint and will have an impact on green space and/or parking.

 

Marc Laredo asked about the possibility of reconfiguring the stadium.

 

Carl Franceschi replied that in one of the options reconfiguring the stadium becomes a requirement because they would be overlapping a corner of the existing track and football field.  The most efficient design seems to be placing bleachers where the current stadium is, to take advantage of the hillside topography.

 

 

Marc Laredo commented that the 1994 report on Dickinson Stadium indicates the unacceptable condition of the facility even at that date.

 

Dick Amster replied that they will identify the cost to demolish and replace the bleachers, as well as the cost for shifting the field.

 

Susan Albright asked why the square footage is smaller in the new school option but the footprint is larger.

 

Carl Franceschi responded that there is more one-story space in the new option and the plans are to keep it at three stories at its highest, to accommodate the aesthetics of the neighborhood and for ease of travel.  In addition, in order to make certain that all classrooms have access to windows for natural light, the building is less densely packed, which expands the footprint. 

 

Dori Zaleznik reiterated the importance of the heating, ventilation and other systems working in conjunction with the new construction.  She wondered about the idea of stacked parking and asked if they could investigate this concept.

 

Leslie Schneider asked about spaces for students to congregate.

 

Carl Franceschi noted that there are activity and common rooms in the design that are not full rooms but meant to be part of the space that circulates students through Main St.

 

Dick Amster added that they have allocated four such spaces of 800 square feet each, which have yet to be specifically defined.

 

Leslie Schneider asked about the structural integrity of the old building.

 

Carl Franceschi stated that this is one of the reasons they had the demolition contractor inspect the premises and the finding will be included in the report.

 

Marc Laredo asked if the report will indicate their ability to keep all students in the existing building safely during renovation.

 

Carl Franceschi replied that the report will account for the implications of that decision, with regard to any compromise in program and scheduling that may be necessary.  The options that provide more new construction will have less impact on the schedule or program because there will be more flexibility for housing students in finished areas. 

 

Marc Laredo stressed the importance of this because it will be a major factor in determining the design that is ultimately chosen.  He then asked if they had investigated underground parking.

 

Carl Franceschi stated that they will calculate some parking options for the study that will either involve underground and/or a structured deck.

 

Marc Laredo asked where they envision the front entrance.

 

Carl Franceschi replied that the hybrid has an option of entering on Lowell Ave., where the parking area will be located.  The new construction has consideration being given to an entrance from Elm Rd., similar to what is in place today.

 

Dori Zaleznik asked about obtaining student input on Main St. before this process is complete.

 

Superintendent Jeffrey Young stated that it would be easier to get a focus group together after the opening of school, but if it is essential to the work for the feasibility report, they could attempt to reach some students over the summer.

 

Carl Franceschi stated that they certainly understand the importance of student input, but there is still room for this in the next phase.  There will be flexibility in the plans to explore options for Main St. 

 

Dick Amster added that the 9/1 report will only be in draft form, so there is time for additional input. 

 

Jeff Young stated that at this point they are trying to distill the general principles of what makes Main St. work rather than trying to tailor the function to the building.  The more time they have to talk about Main St. with both students and staff, the more perspectives and information they will obtain, which will give rise to the correct solution.

 

Mayor Cohen asked if the total square footage is reimbursable under the School Building Assistance Program (SBAP).

 

Carl Franceschi noted that the new program exceeds the square footage number that was used previously.  They are working on whether it falls within the maximum reimbursement and will confirm that in the report.

 

Mayor Cohen asked if a reconstructed stadium would be reimbursable.

 

Carl Franceschi admitted that the definition of a stadium is somewhat ambiguous in the SBAP guidelines.  They have constructed bleachers and fields in other projects that have not been challenged. 

 

Mayor Cohen asked the same question about a parking structure.

 

Carl Franceschi replied that they have not constructed a parking structure in a school project.  However, he would not be surprised if that were excluded in the

 

guidelines.  He is fairly certain the renovations to the pool would be reimbursable, because it is considered existing space and they are only redoing the mechanical system.

 

Mayor Cohen asked about utilizing green technology.

 

Carl Franceschi stated that this would not be reimbursable from the State.  However, there are limited grant funds available from a separate source.

 

Susan Albright expressed concern about the area between the old and new structures.

 

Carl Franceschi explained that this is a design challenge for the next phase.  In one scheme, the area would become part of the new Main St.  In another option, it becomes a courtyard, which could be landscaped, paved, or used as an outdoor classroom.  One of the new improvements they have made in this area is in not placing classrooms above that space and making it double the height that is currently there, but not so high that the natural light would not flow in easily.

 

Marc Laredo likes the idea of comparing and evaluating items under each option, but believes that trying to weigh the various factors may not be as productive.

 

Mayor Cohen agreed that the matrix is a useful evaluation tool.  His only suggestion would be to be sure that every criterion is listed so that they have the broadest amount of information from which to work.

 

Anne Larner mentioned that some of the items lend themselves more easily to a narrative/descriptive format.  While weighing may not be the most productive method, she wondered about ranking.  She used traffic as an example. 

 

Marc Laredo feels that even attempting a ranking system is going to be very difficult.

 

Dori Zaleznik believes that the experts can address the issue of weighing criteria with the input they receive from the School Committee and staff.  While some people would rank parking and traffic differently than others, the professionals can provide a sense of how these items fit into the whole design.  She thinks a graph of the options might be beneficial. 

 

Anne Larner is hearing that Committee members would prefer not to use the matrix in a manner that weighs and measures items, but rather compares the categories in each option with descriptions and costs.

 

Jeff Young agreed and noted that the rankings tend to limit conversation, while descriptors can give rise to better deliberations.  He mentioned security as one item that should be included.

 

Carl Franceschi is happy to use the matrix in whatever fashion best suits the Committee.  The important point is making sure every issue that needs to be addressed is raised.

 

Anne Larner mentioned the impact on the community and being sure that is added to the information.  The matrix may be used in one manner initially for facilitating discussion and then perhaps utilizing some ranking later in the process.

 

Dori Zaleznik asked if they could be sure to include handicap accessibility.  Also, she would like to make certain that all costs are included.  Sometimes, after a project is completed, there are furnishings or equipment that we not factored into the scope of the original work.  She would like to avoid this scenario where possible.

 

Susan Albright believes the Committee needs to do more work on defining some of the educational program in order to be clearer with the criteria in which they will be using for comparison purposes.

 

Marc Laredo would like to be sure that the entrance point to the building is included in the matrix because that will have an impact on community accessibility into areas such as the pool and gym.

 

Leslie Schneider asked if they had an opportunity to evaluate smaller learning communities in other school systems.

 

Carl Franceschi stated that they have not included that in this matrix.  However, conversations they have had around this issue with staff and the School Committee have indicated that this is not necessarily a physical attribute, but may be more of an organizational/curriculum driven approach.

 

Jeff Young mentioned that this could be captured in the flexibility of the configuration of educational spaces.

 

Leslie Schneider will forward some information around this subject that may be helpful to others.

 

Dick Amster noted that there are a number of spaces across the disciplines that could be used for smaller instructional space, based on the scheduling and organization of the building.  However, the specifics will not be in the early draft version.

 

Dori Zaleznik would like to see information on the stadium, but separate from the other athletic items, because it may be a totally separate project with a different timeframe.

 

Carl Franceschi noted that the option that requires relocating the stadium would not allow it to be separate out into a different project.  He asked if this would be a negative factor.

 

Dori Zaleznik believes it would.

 

Anne Larner agreed that that while they need to consider it as part of the options, given all the issues that are involved, it would also be helpful to have it separated. 

 

Marc Laredo does not have any problem with looking at it as a separate item, but noted that it would be good if they can use this opportunity to improve the stadium. 

 

Dick Amster stated that the option that impacts on the stadium is part of the cost of the project, but the particulars can be broken out, defined, and readjusted, if necessary.  The other option that repairs the stadium by removing the concrete and installing bleachers will show separate costs.  They can discuss all of these issues and then adjust the final report accordingly.  

 

Marc Laredo would like to reach out to the community for input in discussions around the public facilities. 

 

The Committee then moved onto a discussion of the schedule.  It was decided to begin with a joint public meeting with the Board of Aldermen on the presentation of the draft of the feasibility study and to invite members of the Design Review Committee.  Following this, they will most likely need at least a couple of School Committee meetings at minimum for discussion and then some public interaction.  They will also require some time devoted to an informal meeting with parents whose children are in the Newton North feeder school districts.  It was suggested that some of these meetings be held at Newton North.  There was further discussion about the input from these meetings needing to be fed back to the architects, which might impact the timeline for the final report.  It was decided that if it were possible to get an updated report after the draft but before the final document, that could be useful in seeing the progress and outlining the schedule.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.