MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
PRESENT: Chairperson Anne Larner,
Vice-Chairperson Dori Zaleznik,
Gail Glick, Susan Heyman, Patricia Kellogg, Marc
Laredo, Nancy Levine, Reenie Murphy, Mayor David
Cohen
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Anne Larner called the
meeting to order at
PUBLIC COMMENT – LIMITED TO
TOPIC OF
There were no members of the public who wished to address
the Committee at this time.
ACTION
ITEMS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION/VOTE ON
Superintendent Jeffrey
Young outlined the work that has occurred since the last meeting, in which they
have been meeting with staff to compare the space for an 1850 vs. 1950 pupil
school, as requested by the Committee.
Tonight’s materials include the two models. The 1850 enrollment has a total square
footage of 404,860 at a cost of $104,512,000.
The 1950 enrollment has a total square footage of 411,550 at a cost of
$106,040,000. In reviewing the slightly
smaller scaled back project, they feel confident that the academic and
extracurricular programs will be kept intact.
Several staff members are in attendance this evening to discuss the
details or answer any questions Committee members may pose. He has said in the past and will reemphasize
now that all the square footage numbers need to be thought of in the
aggregate. When they reach the design
phase, finer distinctions will be incorporated, with extensive conversations
with staff, who will be the ultimate users of those areas.
Marc Laredo asked if the
site limits a possible extension on the building in the future.
Carl Franceschi, architect, admitted that the site is fairly
tight, but expandability is more a product of the design phase. In taking a
conservative approach, in the 1850 enrollment model, with 118 teaching spaces
and an average class size of 20, there is a utilization rate of less than
80%. If that were increased to 85%, the building
could house 2,000 students and, at 93%, which has existed at certain times,
enrollment could reach 2,200. In peak
enrollment years the class size variable could be changed to 21/22 per class,
which would allow them to reach a total of 2,400 students, albeit this is
certainly not ideal.
Marc Laredo noted that
they are serving fewer students than 30 years ago, yet needing more space
because of the changing needs of the programs.
He wondered about the future requirements for technology, special education
programs, etc. and how that could impact on space.
Carl Franceschi
agreed that as schools evolve there are more specialists and specialized spaces
required and the square footage per student has seen an increasing trend. However, they have taken this into account in
their plan, which they believe is conservative.
Dori Zaleznik noted that the
State was asking them to build a school for a 1750 enrollment, which she feels
would be too tight. The extra 100 gives
them capacity for shifting, where necessary.
She noted, however, that the 5% reduction remains intact in many areas
in the 1950 program.
Carl Franceschi
replied that the intent was to try and only restore spaces that would be
directly affected by the number of students.
The other more individualized areas would have the same number of
students unless there was a change in average class size. The circulation spaces increase proportionally.
Dori Zaleznik asked the
Superintendent if the staff is comfortable with the modifications should there
be more students.
Jeff Young responded that
they did not speak as much about the incremental number of students, but rather
focused on the priorities in the programs and how to best allocate space. It is difficult to quantify some of this,
particularly in an area such as
Susie Heyman
asked if was possible to build for an 1850 program, but designate space for the
addition of classrooms and science labs that would get them to a 1950 program
in the future.
Carl Franceschi
replied that they could direct the designer to ensure for this allowance in the
site planning, but he would envision it to be a slightly larger piece of
building than just a few classrooms.
Susie Heyman
noted that if there is one thing they can guaranty it is that in 20 years the
high school program will have changed in ways that they cannot imagine at this
time, so there may be space they will be using now that will be used in another
manner in the future. Therefore,
aggregate space and flexibility for changing that space is key.
Carl
Franceschi noted that for the purely academic high
school, the
Marc Laredo asked if Carl
could clarify his earlier response on pre-planning for additional space in the
current design.
Carl Franceschi
stated that the designer could allocate a certain area on the site for future
expansion, but would not do any actual building.
Marc Laredo asked about
the feasibility and cost to essentially build just the shell of that space.
Carl Franceschi
responded that building the shell is not as economical as one might assume,
because the space still needs to be heated and sprinklers installed. All they would be saving basically are
finishes and it is rare to see this being done in school planning. In terms of expandability, the design could
include placement for a future addition on part of the site that would be the
least disruptive in terms of interference with roads, drop-off service, and
utilities areas.
Patty Kellogg asked about
disruptions with regard to tying in services such as heating and plumbing in future
years.
Carl Franceschi
used Newton South as an example. Tying
into the new wing was somewhat complicated from a site viewpoint because of the
ledge, but there was minimal disruption to the program in that the ongoing
school activities could continue. Generally the new construction is wired and plumbing
is installed so that all it requires is shutting down the school for a few days
to tie it all together. The heating and
ventilation systems can be sized for future expansion.
Dori Zaleznik fears
overbuilding on a small site could compromise other important aspects such as
field spacing. She feels that to design
up to the 1950 model is strapping the system financially without a demonstrated
need.
Reenie Murphy is comfortable with the 1850 model, but
does feel they should think about potential expansion, especially in light of
church closings and their pending sales and how that may impact on housing
stock.
Dori Zaleznik did not mean to
imply that they should disregard the possibility of future expansion, but just
not lock themselves into anything specific.
Gail Glick asked if they
are equipped to staff to higher utilization percentages and if there is a
deficit to the programs by being at capacity.
Jeff Young admitted that
scheduling to capacity means sharing space for teachers and more movement. While it not ideal, it certainly is not
uncommon in
Marc Laredo continues to
remain concerned about projections and utilization. He asked how an increase in special education
numbers might impact the program.
Carl Franceschi
replied that it could mean higher utilization or sharing of space.
Jeff Young added that
presumably a certain number of those students would be part of the inclusion
program, which would be filtered through the regular classrooms.
Marc Laredo asked about
the current utilization rate at Newton North.
Jeff Young replied that it
is approximately 90%.
Marc Laredo commented that
at this percentage they are finding crowded situations.
Jeff Young agreed and
noted that there is certainly a risk involved in supporting the 1850 vs. 1950
program. However, he explained that this
is why they have been meeting with staff around needs and, in particular, the
reclaiming of some of the library space, as well as investigating other
scheduling techniques.
Mayor Cohen stated that
there will be an element of risk involved in any decision that is made. He believes that the planned utilization of
78% in standard classrooms and less than 85% in the specialty areas provides a
cushion for the unknown. Adding extra
space is not necessarily going to be appropriate for the needs of the
future. All they can do is build a
topnotch facility for the current program, with a reasonable amount of
flexibility, which they are targeting at 10-20%.
Susie Heyman
noted that Newton South had to schedule for more than 85% capacity for a number
of years and one of the problems was that teachers had no place to go while
their classrooms were being used by another staff member. They have been very conscious of that in the
renovation plans for both high schools.
Another lesson learned from the Newton South project has to do with
where to make cuts in attempting to save money.
At South, they cut back on the core facilities and shrunk the
library. In her opinion, classrooms can
be added, but core facilities are key to support the
program. She is comfortable that the
plan addresses this issue. However, she
would like to be assured that if they were to end up at a 1950 enrollment, that
the facilities would support the larger population
Carl Franceschi
replied in the affirmative.
Dori Zaleznik asked if the
indoor track is regulation size, to allow for appropriate meets/records.
Carl Franceschi
stated that it recreates the current facilities, which are regulation, but
tightens the room size.
Patty Kellogg asked if the
pool will have a gallery area.
Carl Franceschi
stated that it does not have a dedicated space for a spectator’s area. However, through design an upper
level/corridor can be placed adjacent as an overlook, which is probably
preferable.
Jeff Young noted that
seating was restored in the gym after discussions with staff.
Carl Franceschi
added that they will continue to use the gym for simultaneous games and practices,
by means of a dividing wall.
Anne Larner
commented that the changes in the athletic and library programs since the last
iteration of the plan demonstrate that modifications can be made throughout the
design phase within the same square footage, as they continue to discuss
program needs in more depth.
Patty Kellogg asked if the
5% contingency is because it is a new vs. renovated building.
Carl Franceschi
replied in the affirmative.
Patty Kellogg asked if the
contingency is adequate for handling whatever may be found underground.
Carl Franceschi
believes the contingency is adequate. A
more detailed investigation will be conducted around the nature of the soil and
water table, as well as the old foundations and tunnels, which they assume contain
remnants that will need to be removed.
This would be handled similar to the way ledge and rock
were handled at Newton South.
MOTION: It was
moved to support the building of a new
school
for
(
Discussion:
Reenie Murphy noted that she did not originally favor a
new school, but has watched this process evolve and has listened and learned
over the past six months and become convinced that this is what is best for
Vote on motion to support
new school: unanimous
MOTION: It was
moved that the
approve
the
Space Program, for a new facility
of 404,860 square
feet
designed for an enrollment of 1,850 and
forward
that program to the Mayor, with the request
that he
take the necessary actions to implement the
program
including a request to the Board of
Aldermen to appropriate the funds
to begin the
design
work.
(Zaleznik – Heyman)
Discussion:
Marc Laredo stated that
while he continues to remain concerned about future planning, because this is
such an important issue and in order to speak with unanimity, he will support
this motion.
Vote on motion to support
space program: unanimous
Dori Zaleznik stated that the
educational plans list square footage and anticipated program, but she would
like to have further discussion about specific interests and things they would
like to see conceptually as part of the design process. Of particular interest to her is the need to
build flexibility into the way classrooms are configured, in order to account
for future program change, as well as expansion potential. In addition, the importance of space for
intermingling of students and faculty, and the library as a central area with
easy access, are other items she would like to transmit to the design team.
Nancy Levine agreed that
it is important to have these discussions.
She would like to see a design approach that is sensitive to the
neighborhood, which does not sit on the road looking like the current monolith.
Susie Heyman suggesting placing some motions on the floor to
address these issues. She would start by requesting that a
provision be made in the design for potential future expansion.
MOTION: It was
moved that provision be made in
the
design for potential future expansion.
(Heyman – Mayor Cohen)
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Marc Laredo
requested a friendly amendment to add future renovations
or alterations
to
accommodate unforeseen enrollment or program changes.
The friendly amendment was
accepted.
MOTION WITH FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT READS:
It was moved that provision for
potential future
expansion,
renovation, or alteration of the facility
to
accommodate unforeseen enrollment or program
changes
be incorporated into the design of Newton North.
Vote on motion: unanimous
Gail Glick would like to
be assured that the core spaces are sufficiently designed to maximize the
utilization of the space.
Reenie Murphy would like the main entrance to be welcoming
and safer than what is currently in place, with a strong presence of
administration.
Susie Heyman
wants to be sure that the design of the building contains all of the necessary
educational programs, including athletics, with reasonable parking and sensitivity
to the neighborhood, and a process that would guaranty neighborhood
involvement.
MOTION: It was
moved that to the degree practicable, the
full
educational and athletic program for
North be accommodated at the
Walnut St.-Lowell
Ave. site and that the design for
the site be sensitive
to the
bordering neighborhoods, with an early
opportunity
through an iterative process for neighbors
and the
public to have input regarding traffic, parking
and siting issues.
(Levine
– Zaleznik)
unanimous
The Committee agreed to
postpone a more specific list until the fall.
VOTE TO ACCEPT GRANT
Jeff Young apologized for
the last minute nature of this item, but notification was only received yesterday. This is a grant from the U.S. Dept. of
Education, of which the total amount will be shared with three partner school
districts who helped prepare the grant -- Canton, Quincy, and Randolph -- as
well as Suffolk University, Boston Public Library, the Adams National
Historical Park, and Primary Source. The
basic goal is to strengthen teachers’ knowledge of and capacity to teach
traditional American history in the context of the wider world. This is a wonderful opportunity for
Reenie Murphy asked if this is school specific.
Jeff Young replied that it
is for all teachers in grades 5, 8, 10 and 11 and not school specific.
MOTION: It was moved to accept the “The World in
outlined
in the
(
8 – 0 – 1
Absent
for vote: Mayor Cohen
PUBLIC COMMENT – LIMITED TO
TOPIC OF
Anatol Zuckerman,
Anne Larner
explained that this is an opportunity to hear from the public about issues,
concerns, and questions and is not set-up to be a dialogue.
Vasilios Vilayas,
Alderman Marcia Johnson
stated that one of the concerns people need to keep in mind as they go through
the process is the suitability of the architectural design. The outward appearance of the
of the building should fit and blend into the site.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: At
in executive
session, for the purpose of discussing
strategy
related to collective bargaining. The Committee
will not
reconvene in open session.
(Zaleznik –
Glick)
8 – 0 – 1
Absent
for vote: Mayor Cohen
ROLL CALL VOTE BY WARD:
Ward I, "yes" (Glick); Ward II, "yes" (Murphy);
Ward III, "yes" (Larner); Ward IV,
"yes" (Levine); Ward V, “yes” (Heyman);
Ward VI, "yes" (Kellogg); Ward VII, "yes" (