REVISED
The
High School Facilities Project Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of Education of
the
Also
in attendance for this meeting were Superintendent Swartz, Board President
Krause, Abie Khatchadourian and Scott Kramer of Plunkett, Raysich Architects,
LLP, Craig Uhlenbrauck and David Schaetz of Miron Construction Co., Inc, Doug
Beilke of Maas Brothers Construction Co., Inc. and Brian Brewer of R.W. Baird &
Co.
Approval of Previous Minutes: A motion to approve the minutes from the August
20, 2009 meeting as presented was made by Mr. Buth, seconded by Mr. Thompson. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
High
School Facility Needs and Referendum Planning:
Review of
Drawings from Plunkett Raysich Architects: Scott Kramer explained that his firm
started the process by examining the existing high school plan, reviewing the
options that were offered through the April 2008 referendum and November 2008
referendum, and considering the Board’s priority list. They estimated that the cost to repair the
current building problems would be $20 million.
A less expensive option compared to the
two previous referendums for potential changes to the high school was presented
and discussed. This option addresses the
need for a new academic wing, a secured entrance, a new pool, and new roofing
for the entire building. One item this
proposal does not address is a new gymnasium.
The cost for this proposal is estimated at $26 million.
There
are additional building components that were not in included in the $26 million
price. Those items included
Replacing the HVAC in the balance of the school with either
conventional or geothermal
Two station gymnasium and locker rooms
Remaining part of school that does not have any work being done to it
New tennis courts
Track improvements
Concession/storage building
It was noted that the configuration of
this option is not conducive to a “phased” construction plan.
Review of
Costing Information Provided by Miron/Maas Construction: A cost breakdown by area was provided and
discussed. The differences between the
areas of no remodeling, light remodeling, heavy remodeling, and new
construction were detailed. Two alternatives
were provided for the replacement of the buildings’ HVAC system – conventional
and geothermal.
As a reference, if the April 2008 or
November 2008 referendum projects were completed today, the costs would be 4-6%
less expensive. A breakdown of these
projects in today’s dollars was provided.
Discussion included:
§
A
retention pond is still necessary
§
This
option is 40,000 sq. ft. smaller than the previous referendum option
§
Cafeteria
seating can accommodate 350-370 students; students could be served in two lunch
seatings
Review of
Mill Rates Provided by R.W. Baird & Co.: Brian Brewer explained the potential tax
impact of a 2010 referendum financing.
He noted that with the many American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) funding options, it is a good time to finance a building project. If the district were to approve a building
referendum in February of 2010, it could apply for Qualified Tax Credit Bonds
(QTCB’s) through the Department of Public Instruction to ease the cost of a
project. Any QTCB funding dollars must be allocated and spent prior to
12/31/2010.
Mr. Buth asked if the QTCB funding is the
stimulus money that President Obama has been referring to in the news. Mr. Brewer responded that, yes it is.
Discussion
of Building Priorities: Committee members were pleased that the option presented
addresses the need for a new academic wing.
Mr. Swartz began the discussion on the
consideration of a concession/storage/maintenance building. If it is such a good time to borrow money,
why not include such a building at this time so that the district does not need
to go to referendum in the future.
Energy savings sources briefly discussed
included:
Geothermal
Solar
Ice storage tanks
Discussion
of Video Meetings vs. On-Site Meetings: Everyone agreed that there will not be enough
meetings in the future to necessitate the videoconferencing.
Next Steps:
Development
of a site plan
A
February referendum will require adoption of a Board Resolution on or before
1/1/2010
Marketing
Community
informational meetings
Referendum
question(s)
Next
meeting – 6:00 on Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Discussion of Possible
Topics for Future Meetings
Site
plan
One
or two referendum questions
Public
input
A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Buth, seconded by Mrs. Pupanek. The motion passed on a voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:12 p.m.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Secretary,
Pati Fitzgerald