LITCHFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION

SPECIAL MEETING

OCTOBER 9, 2003

 

A special meeting of the Litchfield Board of Education was held on Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Intermediate School Library.

Present were: Mrs. Knox, Chairperson; Messrs. Falcetti and Waugh; Dr. Tindall-Gibson; Mrs. Perusse, the public and the press.

A special meeting of the Litchfield Building Committee was held on Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Intermediate School Library.

Present were: Mr. Healy, Chairperson; Mrs. Chapman; Mrs. Kavle; Messrs. Bramley, Buckley, Gilyard, Sapiro, Waugh and Zullo; the public and the press.

Public Participation

Mr. Creed, Democratic candidate for First Selectman, thanked the Committee for their hard work and dedication to something so vitally important to the town; and if he is elected he will be committed to that end and campaign to lead the charge.

Communication

Committee members received the following:

    • A Design & Build Pamphlet from the State Department announcing a training session to take place. The fee is $130.00 to attend.
    • An opportunity for a local architect, Tom Babbitt, to attend a meeting to share his comments and expertise.
    • A request to include the Board of Finance members and Town Treasurer and candidates to attend the meeting this evening and future evenings.
    • A response from the Board of Finance Vice-Chairperson noting that members will try to attend.

Discussion about EDO 49 R Submission

O&G and Herbert S. Newman and Partners Updates

Richard Mundy and Tim Callahan distributed copies of a Structural Condition Survey of Litchfield High School completed by Szewczak Associates Consulting Engineers; an outline of Existing Condition and Life Expectancy Summary; and outline of Targeted Alterations; drawings of Litchfield Intermediate School Plan, Litchfield M.S./H.S. Plan and Proposed Site Plan. These plans present diagrams that address the schools fundamental educational requirements and improvements to the site in general. With recommendations this evening, the Committee needs to prioritize the priorities as early as possible. Mr. Mundy noted that the high school building life expectancy ranges from 5 – 25 years depending on the use.

Committee members discussed the following: whether the engineers looked at the high school report that was done previously; the February 25th Jepson Report was reviewed and did note that there may be problems with the structural deck, roof deck and wood below the decking; replacement of beams; getting a copy of the roofing report from Bob Waslek; roofing problems, leaks and ponding; auditorium roof needs and issues and possible movement of the auditorium away from the building.

Mr. Callahan reviewed the Targeted Alteration Draft Outline including: Litchfield Intermediate School – architectural targeted alterations, (exterior wall, exterior window, exterior doors, roof, ceiling, walls, flooring, furniture fixture and equipment); mechanical targeted alterations, (boilers, unit ventilators, roof top units, fin tube radiation); electrical targeted alterations, (main electrical service, electrical distribution, lighting); plumbing targeted alterations, (domestic water piping, heating piping, roof drainage, fire sprinkler system); technology targeted alterations, (technology wiring, server and head end room); security/fire alarm targeted alterations, (security system, fire alarm system). Litchfield Middle School/High School – architectural targeted alterations, (exterior window, exterior doors, roof, ceiling, walls, flooring, furniture fixture and equipment); structural targeted alterations, (roof decking); mechanical targeted alterations, (boilers, unit ventilators, roof top units); electrical targeted alterations, (main electrical service, electrical distribution, lighting); plumbing targeted alterations, (domestic water piping, heating piping, roof drainage, fire sprinkler system); technology targeted alterations, (technology wiring, server and head end room); security/fire alarm targeted alterations, ( security system, fire alarm system, mechanical upgrades, alterations); site and civil construction, (parking and traffic, athletic fields). Targeted items are ineligible for reimbursement but are eligible if they are under renovate as new.

Mr. Blazek arrived at 7:40 p.m.

Committee members discussed the following: codes for replacing windows; energy efficiency of windows; efficiency worth expenditures; windows and roofs as separate projects; big ticketed items as an alternate; life cycle cost analysis and payback time; community reactions to projects brought up at a later date; payback information to share with the public; soundness of windows; target windows with problems to replace; analysis of window costs with low e rating; items that can last 20 – 30 years should be kept to save money to use on curriculum needs; philosophical questions; public disconnect; budget constraints; leaving 40 year old windows does not meet state of the art criteria; keep all options open; dollar amount the town is ready to pay; allocating enough for two schools; option to keep piping; water system affect on the pipes; boiler maintenance schedule; renovate as new more cost effective than targeting alterations; O&G will provide figures for both renovate as new and targeting alterations; renovate as new must be in compliance; some program renovations will become eligible for reimbursement; accessibility issues; State requirements for renovate as new; future State mandates that could be covered if renovate as new; if additions are made the existing building does not have to be brought to code; calculations can’t exceed 33 million so reimbursement is not an issue; learning environment scenario; allocation of dollar amount to go to the high school; determine educational needs for two buildings; maximize creativity; reimbursement for disturbed ceilings; need to find the town engineers assessment of the roofs; clogged drains are dangerous conditions for roofs; roofs are well maintained; air conditioning put in the server room; traffic issues; topography; the less site disturbance the less cost; issues regarding bus drop off and parent drop off; reimbursement for roof if it is the right age; Capital Project allocations on hold pending building project; include everything in the project so no more requests will be made to the community; capital investments in the B and C category get continually pushed out; current budget has 2 portable classrooms included; where the money allocated for an outside consultant to check the roofs went to since the town engineer completed the study; program alterations since different than previous plan and former site plan.

Mr. Callahan reviewed the drawings of the Intermediate School Plan including new construction, program alterations, and alterations.

  • 5,000-sq. ft. needed at the I.S.
  • café and library added
  • 18 classrooms
  • no new classrooms
  • 3,000 sq. ft. in auditorium space
  • café and library on second floor
  • present library becomes administration offices
  • program alterations are eligible for reimbursement
  • issue of accessibility to auditorium
  • previous scheme for auditorium
  • configuration grades 4-6
  • science labs

Committee members discussed the following: concerns about no new classrooms; use

existing gym as it; no longer have an enrichment program; staffing based on student population no on building size; issues with closing in the courtyard; additions on ends of buildings; possible future expansion is in the design; confidence in population numbers; room for programs to be added; Center School overcrowded immediately after renovations were complete; need to get programs back that were lost; add capacity now rather than down the road; modernize science space; can change gym into the café and add a new gym instead; create space for rooms that can be modified later; community does not want to see empty classrooms; K population figures are being gathered now; bubble moving into the high school and will peak 2006; and room sizes.

Mr. Callahan reviewed plans for the M.S., H.S, and site plan including new construction, program alterations and alterations:

  • 35,000 sq. ft.
  • tech ed
  • world language
  • science labs
  • administration area
  • guidance
  • special education
  • some demolition
  • bus drop
  • parent drop off

Committee members discussed the following: discrepancy in square footage numbers from previous presentations; need to meet with Principals and Superintendent to review Ed Specs; timing of presentation; need for evaluation of concept from O&G in both renovate as new and alterations; more new construction you provide the less you spend on renovations; square footage needs to satisfy the Ed Specs; can quantify square footage; educational programming in Ed Specs fundamentally means square footage; new construction @ $180.00/sq. ft.; $130.00/sq. ft. for renovation costs; and building the EDO 49 R into the two buildings.

Committee and Board of Education Discussion about Project Components

Dr. Tindall-Gibson noted that the last project took the Ed Specs and fit them into the I.S. with a large addition. Now we are taking the programs to the high school building so there are different spaces. Further discussion is needed to change the program needs back to the high school facility. After this analysis, the Board of Education needs to make sure the Ed Specs are being met.

Board and Committee members discussed the following: commit ourselves to both schools; possible renovate as new at the I.S. and do less renovation at the H.S. but more construction there; renovate heavy can’t benefit the programs; tax driven not dollar driven; need to show the tax increase; need for treasurer and finance people to be here; could borrow more than 20 years; need to finance better; $33 million at a lower rate could be less than 3 mills; possibly use $30 million with a 10% allowance for increase; and need to send a clear message to the community.

MOTION made by Mr. Buckley and seconded by Mr. Bramley: to approve the EDO 49 R should have a total cost of 30 million dollars.

Committee members discussed the following: town charge is clear; be realistic and honest; clear message at 30 million dollars with a possible 10% increase; Board of Ed represents the community; need to get what we can get for the dollar amount; address issues and work together; premature motion; need to sit with O&G and Herbert Newman to get figures to determine total amount; February referendum will give all the facts; limits now will defeat the purpose; attempt to keep at 30 million will impress the community; question whether 10% amount qualifies for reimbursement; need for flexibility; need to sell plan to the town, could be the last chance; and discomfort in setting a cap.

MOTION failed. All votes were in the negative. Mr. Buckley and Mr. Gillyard were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Committee members discussed issues regarding project components including: what is inside the buildings is far more important than what is outside; parking issues and safety traffic issues are a concern; forgo fields; possibly pursue corporate partnerships for fields; community members are concerned about fields; importance of fixing roof leaks; new construction on the science wings; present auditorium difficult to use for performances; library/media/tech center; functional classroom space as opposed to aesthetics; athletics are an extension of curriculum; high school café issues; need for band and music practice rooms; fine arts facility for the middle school students; use of auditorium beyond the school use; can’t have a reasonably good concert anywhere in the high school; art space needs expansion; difficulty in getting instruments from the high school to the I. S. auditorium; need to price out new flooring and slope in the auditorium; and need to allow space for auditorium at the high school.

Discussion about David Wedge Communication

MOTION made by Mr. Buckley and seconded by Mr. Blazek: to table the discussion to the next meeting.

MOTION carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Schedule Discussion

Committee members agreed to put forth more effort to communicate.

Financial Discussion

Mr. Zullo reported that the First Selectman said that the Committee cannot have a separate account. More details will be forthcoming.

Mr. Zullo distributed a draft of a budget outline for the Committee totaling $50,000.

MOTION made by Mr. Bramley and seconded by Mr. Waugh: to approve the budget outline with the following corrections; use a different term than "Brochure Publication" for greater flexibility and include $1,000.00 for Richard Mundy.

MOTION carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

RFQ Status

Mrs. Perusse reported that the ads will be in the paper on Friday with responses back by the 23rd. Also it was mailed to everyone who responded last time.

Discussion about Post-Election Committee Make-Up

Committee members discussed the need for each Board to select and have a representative on this Committee. The question is the election process in November and whether that representative is reelected to their Board. The Selectmen believe that changes can be made. The three Boards have to iron the issue out. The representative reports everything this Committee does to the Boards. There is no recall provision. Since this is the Boards’ issue, this Committee should not have to discuss this problem. Further input will be forthcoming from the town council.

MOTION made by Mr. Bramley and seconded by Mr. Buckley: to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.

MOTION carried. All votes were in the affirmative. There were no abstentions.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald Falcetti, Secretary

Joanne Bertrand, Recording Secretary