The
High School Facilities Project Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of Education of
the
Also
in attendance for this meeting were Superintendent Swartz, Scott Kramer of
Plunkett, Raysich Architects, LLP, Craig Uhlenbrauck, John Schneider, and David
Schaetz of Miron Construction Co., Inc, and Doug Beilke of Maas Brothers
Construction Co., Inc.
Approval of Previous
Minutes: The minutes from the October 1, 2009 meeting were
reviewed and the following revisions were suggested:
-
The minutes should reflect that both Mr. Swartz and Mr. Krause were in
attendance.
-
Committee members asked if files (.pdf, .ppt, .doc) of the drawings
could be ‘attached’ to the minutes.
-
The following language will be added:
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
-
The sentence referencing a less expensive option will be changed to “A
less expensive option compared to the two
previous referendums for potential changes to the high school was presented
and discussed.”
-
This sentence will be added to the R.W. Baird & Co. paragraph “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.”
The
revised minutes will be presented for approval at the next meeting of this
committee.
Review of Drawings from
Plunkett Raysich Architects: Scott Kramer presented the site and building
plans that have been modified slightly.
Items
reviewed on the site plan included:
Storm
water management and location of a retention/detention pond
o
The
pond is drawn along the south and west sides of the football field along
o
Right
field of the JV/Freshman baseball diamond should not be affected by this pond.
o
Pond
could be located where the tennis courts currently exist.
Parking
areas and number of stalls
Concessions
and toilets – location is not set in stone
Bus
traffic flow
Expansion
of track from 6 to 8 lanes and its impact on the location of the retention/detention
pond
It
was emphasized that this site plan as presented is a concept only. Many more revisions and refinements will be
made in the future.
Items
discussed on the building plan included:
The
rooms have been renamed to accurately reflect subjects
A
distance learning lab is included on this plan.
If JEDI is phased out by the time a building is built, this room could become
a computer lab
There
are locker rooms adjoining the pool, and will be labeled
Discussion
on the building roof followed. It was
noted that the flat roof has a quarter inch per foot pitch to provide
drainage. The roof drains are internal
and will all tie back to the retention pond.
The current roof drainage is not sufficient to drain in a timely fashion. Any project will include a new roof for the
entire building.
Review of Costing
Information from Miron/Maas Construction: Craig Uhlenbrauck reviewed
the project costs. He noted that the changes
to the previous figures included:
o
The
square footage of the “renovate remainder of existing high school” was amended
to 56,705 from 76,705 – as the higher figure included auditorium space that
won’t be renovated
o
Two
line items were added
§
Concession
building
§
Auditorium
enhancements
Discussion
turned to the building’s HVAC system – geothermal vs. conventional. The total cost for a building-wide geothermal
system is approximately $900,000. As
presented, the cost for HVAC options is confusing; this will be simplified.
Review of Mill Rate
Information from R.W. Baird & Co.: The information related to financing options presented
at the October 1, 2009 committee meeting has not changed. Without a final project proposal with an
associated cost, the potential tax impact is still an unknown. Mr. Swartz shared an email he received from
Brian Brewer of R.W. Baird & Co. explaining tax impact scenarios using
various allocations of Qualified School Construction Bond (QSCB) funds.
The
district could apply for some Federal stimulus (QSCB) dollars if a project were
ready to go to referendum by April, 2010.
Not
only is the timing of a referendum crucial to be eligible for any stimulus
funding, but the public should be made aware that construction costs are
greater for winter work, the level of student disruption during construction depends
on when the work is done, and bond rates are currently low.
Discussion of Building
Priorities: Mr.
Thompson reviewed the lists of each committee member’s building
priorities. Everything has been
addressed in the most recent concept drawing except the technology education
areas, additional gymnasium space, and HVAC in the “no remodeling” areas of the
building.
Emphasis
was made on the following:
Any
renovated/new areas of the building will be wired for technology, but the cost
estimates as provided do not include hardware, computers, whiteboards, etc.
Classrooms
will have some built in cabinetry, which is included in the cost estimate
The
entire building will receive a new roof
Committee
members discussed a rough construction timeline based on a February 16, 2010 approved
referendum:
o
August
2010 – drawings complete and bidding can begin
o
Summer
of 2010 – summer school can be held as is
o
August
15, 2011 – academic wing and new pool could be completed
o
A
new academic wing could be student-occupied for the 2011-2012 school year
o
Renovations
would take place during the summer of 2011, so summer school would need to
relocate
o
Additional
renovations could be completed during the summer of 2012
o
Project
completion by Fall of 2012
An April 6, 2010 referendum will push this
schedule back by at least eight weeks, and the students would not be in the new
academic wing for the 2011-2012 school year.
A
more defined construction schedule can be drawn up once the project direction
is known.
All
three committee members agreed that the School Board has an obligation to
attempt to take advantage of available stimulus dollars for this project, which
means a referendum by April, 2010 at the latest. They also believe that the Board should
strive for the least amount of student disruption during construction, which
would be accomplished by a February 2010 referendum.
Discussion on Committee
Recommendation to the Full Board: Mr. Thompson reminded the committee that in
order to go to referendum in February, a formal Board resolution must be
adopted by January 1, 2010.
The
architects will ‘clean up’ the drawings and revised cost figures will be
provided based on:
Tennis
court location across
Retention/detention
pond to be located in tennis courts’ current location
Outdoor
toilets/storage moved
Language
denoting that all drawings are conceptual and subject to change will be
included
Pool
locker rooms labeled
Event
entrance labeled near pool
Names
removed from second floor English and Art classrooms
Access
to technology area noted
Discussion
on the potential for several referendum questions followed. The board could break the project down into
three sections for a true phased approach.
base
project at a cost of $28,550,000
renovate
balance of school and enhance auditorium at a cost of $3,475,000
athletic
improvements (track & gymnasium) at a cost of $4,685,000
Revised
cost estimates will be provided using these three ‘phases’ as discussed. The entire building will include a sprinkler
system and fire coding.
Discussion
of training for district maintenance staff for the new building systems followed. As with any new system, manuals, training,
and a maintenance schedule will be provided.
Future Meeting Date(s): No dates for future
committee meetings were scheduled. The
full Board will meet on Monday, October 26, 2009 and this committee will provide
a report. A Special meeting of the full
Board will be scheduled with this as the sole topic of discussion.
Discussion of Possible
Topics for Future Meetings
Written
timeline - synopsis of February referendum vs. April referendum
A motion to adjourn was made by Mrs. Pupanek, seconded by Mr. Buth. The motion passed on a voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:16 p.m.
BOARD OF
EDUCATION
Secretary,
Pati Fitzgerald