Mountview School Building Committee
Public Hearing Meeting Minutes
August 28, 2012
6PM Mountview School
Present: Chairman Paul Challenger, David White, Gary Kaczmarek, Margaret Watson, Nancy Galkowski, Erik Githmark, Chris Lucchesi, Mike Sherman, Jacquie Kelly
Absent: Tom Pandiscio
Others Present: Mike Pagano, LPA, Bill Senecal, LPA, Joel Wolk, OPM Consultant, Elizabeth Helder, Recording Secretary, Alan Berg, FinCom, Don Mancini, FinCom, Karl Makela, FinCom, Jim Dunn, Fin Com, Anthony Renzoni, Selectman, Steve Hammond, Ken Mills, Wachusett Regional School Committee Representatives
1. Project Update
Chairman Paul Challenger said the public hearing was being held to update the community and receive input from the public. The meeting will discuss the current project status and the next steps being taken by the Committee. He said the Committee is considering three building options: 1. Renovating the existing building, 2. Building new on the current site and 3. Building new on an alternate site. Each option must meet MSBA guidelines, reflect the Wachusett educational program, and produce a 50-year building for 800 students. No other option will be approved by the MSBA. He asked all in attendance to sign in on the sign-in sheet. He encouraged anyone interested in helping out with the project to indicate it on the sign-in sheet.
The PSR will be filed with the MSBA on September 27th. The MSBA will vote on the Committees’ proposed solution on November 4, 2012. The State will reimburse 52.9% and some factors can increase final reimbursement including adopting green building standard and measures. The exact reimbursement rate will not be approved until the final project is approved by the MSBA until March 2013. There are currently 764 students enrolled in the 96,000 sq. foot building.
Mr. Dave White presented a summary of the renovation/addition option. This option will add 53,000 square feet behind the school to the North to create a 147,000 sq.ft building. It will take a minimum of three school years to complete and will include a significant amount of haz-mat remediation. This option is the lowest cost to Holden (by about $2.0M) and will use the current structure. Drawbacks include a significant impact on students, temporary classrooms (modulars), higher contingencies, a longer, more complicated project schedule, some teaching spaces will be substandard, and will incur higher operating costs. Preliminary cost estimates are between $51 - $54M, the town’s share will be $34M-$35M, and will impact the taxpayer by about $20/month over a 20-year period.
Ms. Julie Currier asked how efficient the new school would be. Mr. White said that all of the building options include more efficient lighting, heating, and teaching areas.
Mr. Ben Woodbury asked about the final cost impact to taxpayers. Mr. White said that the numbers being presented were only rough estimates and that the final impact to taxpayers could not be determined yet.
Ms. Julie Toll inquired about changes to the flow of traffic on to the site. Mr. White said that traffic studies are being considered and will be improved.
Ms. Sandy Kartono inquired how much more the town would be reimbursed for a renovation option. Mr. Pagano said the MSBA allows for the project to achieve additional percentage points towards a reimbursement. Points are awarded on a 1-5 scale. The maximum 5 points are awarded for a renovation project that does not include an addition. An addition of the size being proposed for Mountview might earn the Town an additional 1 or 2 points towards the final reimbursement. The percentage will not be known until March 2013. Right now, the building is just a thought on a piece of paper. Mr. White said that no building plans were available for the public to view. Plans are still in development.
Ms. Dineen Barkley inquired if the renovation would allow the building to be upgraded – wireless, new science labs, new technology and resources. All of the building options will allow for all new educational upgrades to the building.
This addition/renovation project would be on a similar scale that LPA conducted at Leominster High School.
Mr. Challenger presented the option of building a new building on an alternative site. A new 128,000 square foot building is being considered on Town owned land behind Mayo school off Malden Street. It has sufficient acreage, but contains wetlands. The current Mountview site and building would remain town property. The advantages include optimal building design for education, lower risk of unforeseen conditions, no construction impact on students, lower on going operating cost (smaller building, modern materials/technologies), relieves traffic on Shrewsbury Street, shortest construction timeline, and preservation of the Mountview building and site for alternate uses. Drawbacks include the most expensive option ($38/year more than reno/add, more costly site development), wetlands pose permitting obstacles and
an uncertain schedule, increases traffic on Malden Street, no reimbursement for haz-mat at Mountview or for Mountview demolition. Total cost would be $59-$62M (does not include haz-mat/demo), the town’s share would be $28-$29M, and the annual cost to the average house would be $267 to $276. Construction is anticipated to be 36 months.
Mr. Karl Makela, Finance Committee, suggested that if the MSBC decides on the Malden Street option, the Mountview School would be a good site to house all of the Town offices.
Mr. Alan Berg, Finance Committee said that someone should come up with costs associated with maintaining the Mountview School on a long term basis and these numbers should be presented to taxpayers prior to a vote at Town Meeting. He said he was not impressed with the Malden Street site because of issues with wetlands and site excavation and the unknown costs associated with the development of this site. Mr. White commented that the State will only reimburse for 8% of the site work and the Town will end up spending 3-4M to develop the site. Mr. Challenger said that if this option were chosen, many of these unknown costs would not be known until early in 2013.
Mr. White presented the option of building new on the existing site. It would be a 128,000 sq foot building situated on the north of the property. The existing building would remain during construction. The site would be reimbursed for remediation of haz-mat, it would be an optimal building design for education, lower cost than new site ($19) have the least risk for unforeseen conditions, a simpler schedule than an add/reno, have lower on going operating costs (smaller building), use the current site, the neighborhood is used to the school, and there would be no change in traffic patterns. Drawbacks include some impact on students, construction working around school operations (longer than Malden Street), and loss of playing fields during construction. Total costs would be $56-$58M, Town’s share would be
$26-$28M, $248-$257 to taxpayers annuall
Mr. Berg commented that taxpayers should be made aware of costs to demo the building and costs to continue to maintain it. Mr. Berg said it would be a shame to destroy the school. Mr. White commented that it has been estimated that is will cost over 1M in haz-mat remediation.
Mr. Makela concurred with Mr. Berg. He suggested that a new school be built in the back and Mountview should be kept for municipal use. Mr. White said that he did not think that would work. He said the DPW should not be working on the same site as children and playing field space would have to be used for parking for teachers and employees. Additionally, removing Town offices from the center of town would not work well for residents. Mr. Berg said he felt that practicality should prevail and that the current town offices were undersized and outdated and that real estate was a premium.
Don Mancini, Finance Committee, inquired what the commercial appraisal/value of the Mountview School was for resale purposes. Would this be something the Town should consider? Mr. White said these were all things to consider. The Committee only consideration is what the best option for the students and residents is; not what is in the best interest of the municipal employees.
Mr. White shared that Holden Youth Sports had the Malden Street site evaluated for playing fields and determined that the property would be too costly to develop due to the wetlands and topography.
Ms. Julie Currier said she was concerned hearing that the Town might consider using the site for commercial/municipal space. She said as an abutter/neighbor to the property, she did not want to see it commercially developed nor could she see spending money upgrading the building for this purpose. She felt the meeting was losing its focus.
Mr. White concurred agreeing that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss what the three best educational options are for the Town.
Mr. Lucchesi said is there a way to set up the design of the building to expand in the future to accept an additional 200 students. Mr. White said the MSBA set the student population figure, and that they are only going to reimburse a building for 800 students, and approve a plan for 800 students. The building cannot be built larger to accommodate more students down the road in a partnership with the MSBA. The cafeteria/gym would have to be built for 1000 students now to accommodate this possibility and the MSBA will not reimburse the project for this plan.
Ms. Dineen Barkley asked if the entire building would be renovated and if the building options (reno/add and new) are essentially apples to apples. Mr. White said essentially yes; however, the add/reno will be more costly and longer.
The Committee will meet on Wednesday, September 5th at 6PM in the cafeteria at Mountview and on Tuesday, September 11th at 6PM at HMLD.
The meeting ended at 7:14PM.
| 
