TSBC Meeting Minutes – 10/20/2020

---

10/20/2020
Tisbury School Building Committee
in Joint Meeting with Tisbury Select Board, Tisbury School Committee, Tisbury Finance and Advisory Committee, Parent Teacher Organization
Meeting Minutes

2020-10-20_TSBC_MeetingMinutes

---

Tisbury School Building Committee
2019-2020
5:30PM, Monday, October 20, 2020
by Zoom Cloud Conference due to Covid-19 Restrictions

Present: TSBC	Chair Harold Chapdelaine, John Custer, Sean DeBettencourt, Peter Gearhart, Rita Jeffers, Reade Milne, Rachel Orr, Jim Rogers, Michael Watts
Select Board:	Chair Jeff Kristal, Larry Gomez, Jim Rogers
School Committee:	Chair Amy Houghton, Jen Cutrer, Michael Watts
Finance Committee:	Chair Nancy Gilfoy, Jynell Kristal, Mary Ellen Larsen, Kelly Metell, Allen Rogers, India Rose, Laura Rose, Sarah York
PTO:	Co-President – Siobhan Mullin
Others:	Anna Edey, Angie Francis, Marie Laursen, Melinda Loberg, Lynne, Dan Seidman Recorder – Marni Lipke Daedalus Projects – Richard Marks, Christina Opper, Amanda Sawyer Tappé Architects – Chris Blessen New Vista – David Stephens
Schools:	Deb Conroy, Catherine Coogan, Whitney Burke, Supt. Matt D’Andrea, Sean DeBettencourt, MVPS Interim Business Administrator Mark Friedman, Rita Jeffers, Natalie Krauthammer, John Mode, Melissa Ogden, Nicole Shirley, Asst. Supt. Richie Smith, Jane Taylor
Town:	Town Administrator – Jay Grande Treasurer – Jonathan Snyder Planning Bd. – Cheryl Doble, Ben Robinson BOH – Maura Valley Ambulance – Tracy Jones Town Moderator – Deb Medders
MVC:	Sewer Advisory – Josh Goldstein, Dan Doyle
Press:	MV Times – Rich Saltzberg Vineyard Gazette – Louisa Hufstader MVTV – Kelly Marolf
	* TSBC members late arrivals or early departures.

1. Call To Order & Virtual Meeting Reminders

The Tisbury School Building Committee 2019-2020 (TSBC) meeting was called to order at 5:33PM.

• The Tisbury School Committee (TSC) was called to order at 5:34PM.
• The Tisbury Select Board (SB) was called to order at 5:34PM.
• The Tisbury Finance and Advisory Committee (FinCom) was called to order at 5:35PM.
  • (Recorder’s note: Discussions are summarized and grouped for clarity and brevity.)
• Chair Harold Chapdelaine reviewed the protocol for remote meetings occasioned by the pandemic. The meeting was being recorded for posting, along with all background
  documents, on the Project website http://www.tisbury-school-project.com. All participants were welcome. In order to facilitate the technology he asked that:
  • microphones be muted to reduce background noise,
  • participants raise hands either by Zoom option or on video;
  • non-TSBC members turn off their video so members could be more easily identified.

2 . Attendance – each committee called attendance with each member introducing themselves. The project professional team also introduced themselves:

• Daedalus Projects Owner’s Project Manager (PM) Mr. Richard Marks, who hoped to oversee design and construction
  and Project Managers Ms. Christina Opper and Ms. Amanda Sawyer;
• Mr. Chris Blessen of Tappé Architects, and Mr. David Stephens of New Vista Design.

a. Tisbury School Building Committee (TSBC)
d . Tisbury School Committee (TSC) C,
b. Select Board (SB)
c. Finance Committee (inCom)
e. Parent Teacher Organization (PTO)

3 . Review Progress of Tisbury School Project

a. Review of Project Progress and Timeline

• Thanks went to initial TSBC Chair Ms. Rachel Orr who set the project on the road.
• In June 2019 the Town voted to design a renovation/addition with $400,000 for a study and schematic designs, in accordance with the Education Plan, without Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) oversight or funds and subsequently a 9 member TSBC was formed. In September 2019 the Daedalus Projects OPM and Tappé Architects were hired.
• A series of community visioning forums (general public, students, staff, etc.) facilitated by Mr. David Stephens of New Vistas elicited the following six guiding principals:
  • retaining the nurturing small school feeling,
  • sense of personalization and ownership by students,
  • promoting community and collaboration
  • adding adaptable spaces,
  • environmentally sustainable and healthy,
  • outdoor movement and connections.
• In keeping with its charge, the TSBC worked diligently for 15 months on a facility that: fulfilled the Education Plan based on universal, inclusive, project-based learning, accommodated space needs, preserved the original school in a dominantly aesthetic way, incorporated sustainability, and increased community use. Starting with multiple options the TSBC offered suggestions, took public input and once it had decided on a concept, scaled back size, increased daylight options and promoted efficiencies. The current design:
  • increased community accessibility by sinking the gym to the parking lot level;
  • enlarged the gym to a full basketball court, with a full stage and bleachers;
  • maintained the current playgrounds and parking lots;
  • allowed for emergency shelter space and storage;
  • enlarged the cafeteria and included a full kitchen;
  • increased outdoor learning space;
  • added 21st Century media learning/library commons;
  • improved industrial arts and music spaces.

b . Review of TSBC Recommended Schematic Design (SD)
Mr. Chris Blessen of Tappé Architects described the proposed project and the challenge of how to take advantage of site.

• Sinking the gym to the level of the parking lot was a major decision that essentially created another level of the school for community entry, a large enough space (segregated from the school) for performances, Town Meetings, etc. without the need to negotiate stairs. This level also included: band/chorus/music rooms, storage for emergency services, changing rooms, bathrooms, and mechanical/custodial spaces.
  • The gym would accommodate a junior high sized basketball court to Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) standards. North facing translucent glass
    would reduce or eliminate the need for electric lighting during the day.
  • It was emphasized that the decision to demolish the existing gym was driven by several factors:
    • having the lowest energy value it would be expensive and unattractive to fix and would further reduce the available space;
    • there was strong support for a standard sized court; and for
    • better community access by sinking the elevation.
• Moving up to the first floor, on a level with the building as it was situated today, plans showed the second story of the gym and music rooms as well as the unified and industrial arts classrooms. – The multipurpose cafeteria could seat 1/3 of the school population, dramatically freeing up the school day schedule, and now including a full kitchen with a receiving
  dock. It was designed to minimize the need for electric lighting with clerestory windows, and views of the neighborhood.
  • To the west, a wing housed Project Headway, administration and the nurse’s office with secure entry (requiring visitors to stop at the office) once the school day started.
  • It also allowed easy access for first and second grades classrooms on this level this level, along with kindergarten classes which would remain in the same location but be
    renovated.
• In keeping with Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) guidelines Special Education services were better integrated into the core of the building on every floor.
  • Also on every floor was a large media/center breakout zone that could accommodate ebb and flow with movable walls, flexible furniture, shelving low enough to give clear lines of sight, and biophilia plantings to clear the air and connect the interior to nature. The media zones would function as hubs to create cohesive learning neighborhoods. All
    floors had similar layouts to engender a sense of familiarity.
  • A central staircase with elevator was another point of organization, with ancillary stairs on the east and west.
  • Natural light was enhanced with north facing windows, sloped skylights and indirect light wells.
• The second floor housed grades three through five. Art/studio, foreign language and health classrooms were also here. Windows looked out on roofs, much of which would be solar panel ready to bring the building at or close to net zero.
  • Responding to staff feedback on bottlenecking and traffic flow within the building, the second floor was opened up by a bridge over the cafeteria.
• The sixth through eighth grades were on the third floor, with the same layout (core located Special Education, stairs, media room, etc.).
• As noted, the exterior showcased the original building with the additions in the background and trees in the same positions. However the entire school would be outfitted with new systems: fire protection, electricity, heating/ ventilation/air conditioning, lighting, internet, insulation…
• Warner Larson Landscaping proposed maximizing outdoor learning and sustainability, with rain gardens, landscape seating, small courtyards, better play areas and strategies for managing soils, rain water, etc.

c. Review of SD Cost Estimate and Daft Project Budget
Mr. Richard Marks of Daedalus Projects introduced the financial estimate by reiterating the high cost of working on the Island. Two independent estimates were within 2% of
each other, and the proposed estimate was averaged between them.

• Construction costs were projected at $41,150,000.
• “Soft” or ancillary costs were:
  • Administration (legal, advertising, printing, etc.) $203,500;
  • OPM including an on-site representative $1,312,000;
  • architecture and design (including engineering) $4,345,000;
  • miscellaneous (temporary facility with: utilities, permitting, moving, inspections/tests, etc.) $2,900,000;
  • modest furniture, fixtures, equipment (including building technology) $675,000;
  • construction and owners contingency (further contingency built into design) $2,600,000 (5%).

For a total project estimate of $53,185,000, which was about $4,000,000 down from the previous estimates and below the $55,000,000 target.

• This did not include the current $400,000 design contract, or $1,640,000 for large scale photovoltaic installation—which could be financed through a number of options.
  • The TSBC noted that this design was originally closer to $57,000,000 and had been repeatedly tweaked to reduce it to the current price.

4 . Comments from Joint Meeting Board & Committee Members

• This was a worthy project that would be built to last 50-75 years. It met the educational goals and Town needs while keeping costs low—without cheapening it. For example: the TSBC eliminated one concept as not including enough PV and the current design did not to contain an additional classroom in case of population bubbles — assuming other spaces could be used.
• The Board and Committees explored the pricing and options for temporary quarters for students and staff during construction phase which would last 18-24 months — essentially two academic years. There was considerable resistance to splitting the school again which would also required multiple nurses, transportation, Special Education issues—complex logistical problems carrying hidden costs.
  • The Select Board was working to purchase the Educomp building as a new Town Hall and suggested it first be used as a base for a temporary school, with improvements to the property as part of more permanent work, and expansion onto Veterans field for additional temporary classrooms. This would be a good solution for the school and the project, allowing construction free range over the existing site, locating the school in the more convenient center of town and creating efficiencies in Town capital spending. A small subcommittee to explore the feasibility of the proposal was suggested (see below: Actions).
• The next task was to approach finances to minimize its impact on taxpayers (borrowing rates were currently very low) and to put it before the voters for approval.
  • The Select Board emphasized their support; and the long, hard task of presenting it to taxpayers, noting the lack of $15,000,000 in State funding and the serious consequences,
    both educationally and monetarily, if further delay was occasioned by another failed vote.
  • Public forums were being planned and people were welcome to post emails on the website—which was checked regularly.
• Tisbury School alumnae, Principal John Custer, expressed his pleasure and support of the project after a 10 year effort to improve the building for its students and its community. He spoke to the evolution of education and the universal desire for a campus to be proud of.
• In closing, the team thanked Mr. Blessen for his work and patience, commended the TSBC for their unity, creativity, perseverance and diligence; the Select Board for “thinking outside the box” and noted the sense of the whole project coming together after a long process.

5 . Public Comments

Mr. Josh Goldstein, as an abutter to Educomp, fully supported the temporary school/town hall proposal and remarked that former owner, the late Pat Gregory would have loved this solution.

6 . Other Topics Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair Within 48 Hours of the Meeting – None

Adjournment

• The PTO ended its meeting at 7:17PM.
• Mr. Jeff Kristal moved and Mr. Larry Gomez seconded a motion to adjourn at 7:17PM, which passed unanimously: Mr. Kristal—aye, Mr. Gomez—aye, Mr. Jim Rogers—aye.
• SARAH YORK MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 7:18PM; LAURA ROSE SECONDED; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: 8 AYES, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTENTIONS; JYNELL KRISTAL—AYE, MARY ELLEN LARSEN—AYE, ALLEN ROGERS—AYE, INDIA ROSE —AYE, LAURA ROSE—AYE, SARAH YORK—AYE, KELLEY METELL—AYE, NANCY GILFOY—AYE.
• ON A MOTION DULY MADE BY MS. JEN CUTRER AND SECONDED BY MR. MICHAEL WATTS THE TISBURY SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED AT 7:19PM: MS. CUTRER—AYE, MR. WATTS— AYE, MS. HOUGHTON—AYE.
• ON A MOTION DULY MADE BY PRIN. JOHN CUSTER AND SECONDED BY MS. READE MILNE THE TISBURY SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING UNANIMOUSLY ADJOURNED AT 7:20PM: 9 AYES, 0 NAYS, 0 ABSTENTIONS: PRIN. CUSTER—AYE, MS. MILNE—AYE, MS. RITA JEFFERS—AYE, MR. PETER GEARHART—AYE, MS. ORR—AYE, MR. SEAN DEBETTENCOURT—AYE, MR. WATTS—AYE, MR. JIM ROGERS—AYE, MR. CHAPDELAINE—AYE.

Appendix A: Meetings/Events:

• TSBC – TBD

Appendix B: Actions

TSC/TSBC/SB/FinCom/PTO – appoint representative to Educomp/Veterans Field temporary school feasibility subcommittee.

Appendix C: Documents on File: Available at :
http://www.tisbury.mvyps.org / click on Tisbury School Project
(Official archive hard copies on file at Tisbury Town Hall & Tisbury School):

• Agenda 10/20/20
• Tisbury School, School Building Committee Meeting October 20, 2020 (19 p.)

Minutes respectfully submitted by Office On Call/Marni Lipke.