South Windsor Public Building Commission
Minutes – Regular Meeting – April 17, 2014
Members Present: Howard (Hap) Fitts, Kenneth Jeski, Carol Kelley, Charlie Lyons, Tim Wentzell and Edward O’Connell, Keith Yagaloff
Also Present: BOE Representatives, David Joy, Chris Chemerka, and Patrick Hankard
Chairman Fitts called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Mr. Lyons, seconded by Mr. Jeski to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2014 meeting. Motion approved unanimously.
Chairman Fitts noted, in response to commission member questions at prior meetings, he asked if the board and superintendent could provide a presentation to bring the commission up to date on the project. He also advised that he had discussions with the town manager regarding the town attorney attending a future commission meeting for guidance.
Mr. Joy noted encouraged commission members to visit the board’s website which contains a lot of chronological information regarding what the board discussed with regard to the project. He encouraged the members to watch the October 29, 2014 video of the meeting at which Mr. Galligan explained the role of the PBC and at which the board adopted the resolution for the project.
Dr. Carter provided a review of the ten-year timeline for the project, noting that the stakes for phase one, with the first phase being the most important thing for phases two and three. She reviewed the plan noting that it calls for the district to close Wapping Elemnetary School and operate four elementary schools. With regard to the closure of Wapping, she reviewed the community outreach with the Wapping community, including the PTO, families and Wapping staff, indicating that there was less resistance due, in part, to undeniable enrollment numbers.
The new Orchard Hill will house 564 students which will include 125 redistricted to Orchard Hill, Philip R. Smith and Pleasant Valley. Dr. Carter drew their attention to the back cover of the 10-year timeline noting that enrollment numbers, state reimbursement, among other factors could change this plan. She stated that the document would be be refreshed annually, as shifts in enrollment can change capacity and districts can only build to their maximum 8-year enrollment. The fluctuation in enrollment may require the necessity to make changes in Phases 2 and 3.
She reviewed the additional phases of the plan, which will encompass building a new school the Eli Terry campus and Renovate-like-New the Philip R. Smith School in phase 2, with Orchard Hill serving as swing space. In phase 3, Pleasant Valley will be a Renovate—like-New construction. She summarized that the recommendations were based on the expertise of architects and the best thinking at the time for the decision of either build or renovate-like-new.
In response to a questions posed by Mr. OConnell regarding whether or not the architect had looked at the placement on the site or the town’s use for the land on the OH site, Dr. Carter responded that there was no decision about the site. Mr. Hankard responded that the size of the building is enrollment driven with 564 students as the state maximum. He anticipated that they would be constructing a single story building and that it would fit on the Orchard Hill site. Currently Mr. Hankard anticipates that the school would need one-third of the Orchard Hill land, noting that the parcel is approximately 35 acres and the school would require 8. In addition, Mr. O’Connell questioned whether or not utility or gas service representatives have been out to the site, which Patrick
indicated they have not, but noted there is enough room to do something as innovative as geothermal.
Commission reviewed several area maps made available by Mr. Fitts.
In response to questions posed by Mr. Wentzell and Mr. O’Connell regarding the gym size planned as well as the allowances taken into account for community to use the gym, Mr. Hankard noted that the plan does not envision a universal high school court. Dr. Carter noted that she met with many community groups to consider the needs for the community at large, including Parks & Recreation and that she was aware of their needs, noting that Parks and Rec would have wished the gym were larger. She also noted that in the new building, due to the use of the Parks and Recreation department, the plans will be much more thoughtful about the 6PM picks up in order to provide for additional safety and security. Mr. Hankard noting that with the availablilty of Orchard Hill in the plan, the
town will be acquiring an additional gym whtin the plan. Dr. Carter noted that they envision creating the conditions for Parks and Rec to move into Wapping and believe that has been well received.
Mr. Wentzell noted that as plans change and evolve, there may be a usefulness for Orchard Hill when the school is complete and that Orchard Hill may have many other uses. Mr. Joy indicated that at this time we do not anticipate having the need for Orchard Hill, so at the end of the time it serves as swing space for Pleasant Valley, the district would anticipate giving the building back to the town. Dr. Carter drew the commissions attention to the last block of the document which states that “Orchard Hill School no longer needed for swing space”, advising that she wa purposeful in the wording and did not say that we would not need it, as there is the possibility of alternative education program and/or pre-k program.
Mr. Wentzell noted that in a number of new schools, the traffic layout was very congested.
Dr. Carter reviewed the work to-date in engaging the PBC in the project, including meetings with members and extending the opportunity for members to meet with Friar Associates.
Mr. Fitts noted that the commission will need an architect soon and noted that the commission should make a decision regarding the assistance that could be provided by the two companies who visited the commission at its last meeting.
Mr. Wentzell questioned whether the board had retained one of the firms for their purposes, to which it was noted that they had. He noted that he reviewed their rate chart and thought that it made sense to hire them.
Dr. Carter noted her understanding that the PBC would hire the firm for an extremely narrow scope of work, to assist with the architect selection, which should not be confused with the larger scope of work to be provided by an owner’s representative which would require an RFP process.
A motion was made by Mr. Wentzell, seconded by Mr. Jeski to retain Strategic Building Solutions to help prepare the RFP for the architect and to prepare a Phase One timeline. Motion passed unanimously.
The committee agreed to meet on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM.
There being no other business to come before the meeting, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann M. Walsh
Clerk
| 
