[ad_1]
The district’s facilities improvement project – specifically the timeline for design and construction – was the focus of a special meeting of the school board on Wednesday, Jan. 24.
The board also approved an advisory committee that will explore aspects of the project’s design related to environmental efficiency and sustainability, as well as a contract with Ruetschle Architects — the firm that worked with the district before it was approved by voters last year. A master plan for the facility project was developed. November—Served as the professional designer for the project.
Facility Project Timeline
As The News has reported in the past, preliminary master plans for facilities improvement projects include renovations to Mills Lawn Elementary School, as well as renovations and new construction at McKinney Middle School and Yellow Springs High School.
Mills Lawn will be transformed into a Pre-K to Grade 4 school, with upgrades that will include restoration of the building’s exterior and complete system replacement; deep refurbishment of some classroom and restroom facilities; and renovations to create new offices and security at the school’s entrance anteroom. The modular band room will be demolished; when the fifth and sixth grades move to the East Enon Road campus (as specified in the master plan) it will no longer be needed at the elementary school as the local band program begins in fifth grade.
Grades 5 to 12 will be held at the East Enon Road campus, where the junior high school and high school are currently located. The school’s current band room, modular middle school wing and the current three-story “tower” portion of the facility will be demolished.
A new secure front entrance and offices are planned, as well as a new band room; two new building sections serve as the middle school (grades 5-8) and high school (grades 9-12) wings, anchored by the current media center and self-service restaurant connection; and a new, larger gymnasium for the middle and high schools. The campus’s original 1963 gymnasium and surrounding classrooms will be renovated. The gymnasium will be used for physical education classes for fifth and sixth grade students and will serve as a performance auditorium. There are also plans to strengthen the walls of the gymnasium so that it can be used as a shelter. In addition, parking areas and pick-up and drop-off locations on campus will be updated.
Mike Ruetschle of Ruetschle Architects said at the meeting that planning for the next year by the district and the contractors it hires will focus on refining the preliminary master plan and finalizing elements of the facilities project design. According to the timeline set by Ruetschle, construction will begin in 2025 and be completed by July 2026, in time for the 2026-27 school year.
Ruetschle also noted that the school board in nearby Fairborn recently completed construction of new elementary and high school facilities and approved construction of a new middle school last month.
“We recommend leaving early [Fairborn],” Ruchler said. “We have a similar pool of contractors bidding, and the quicker we can find them, it will help with the selection and competition for the project.”
With that in mind, Ruetschle also recommended implementing asbestos abatement work this summer before the 2024-25 school year while students are not in school, which he said would give the district a “head start” in building the program. Additionally, he recommended that the district put out a bid this spring for a modular building for middle school students, while demolishing the modular middle school wing on the East Enon Road campus. A spring tender will ensure the modular buildings are ready and in place by January 2025, when demolition and construction is expected to begin.
“This allows students to move into the modular units during winter break, which gives us the space to begin renovating the building immediately,” Ruetschle said.
He added that the Mills Lawn and East Enon Road campuses will be undergoing renovations and construction at the same time using the same contractors.
Rebecca Potter, vice president of the board of trustees, noted that under Ruetschle’s timeline, feedback from students and faculty on key design elements of the project — such as the overall layout, number and placement of classrooms, which Ruetschle called the project’s “big move” — will be needed Completed before March 29th.
“Is two months and eight weeks enough?” Porter asked.
“Yes,” District Director Terri Holden responded. “We have very capable and skilled principals who have been closely involved.”
Holden added that the YS Education Association, the district’s teachers union, made a formal request that day for feedback on the design process.
“They were definitely picky at the negotiating table,” she said.
Porter also asked whether the two months allotted would be enough time for community members to weigh in on public-facing aspects of the design, including a secure front lobby and sports and performing arts spaces.
“Can you complete the planning phase in the second half of 2024?” she asked.
Ruetschle responded that the district would need to hire a construction manager at risk (CMR) to work with the design firm before it becomes clear; the district will receive an application for qualifications from the CMR firm by February 2.
Board President Judith Hempfling asked whether another two months of input from the community, as well as students and district staff, on design elements would delay the design firm’s “next steps.”
“Development has been ongoing for several months so far,” Ruetschle responded. “That’s what gives me confidence in the schedule. … But if someone wants to extend that front end, that’s not a deal-breaker.”
“How confident are you in the schedule you drafted that you presented today?” asked board member Dorothée Bouquet.
“One hundred percent,” Ruchler replied.
Facilities Advisory Committee
The board also addressed the Facilities Advisory Committee, which was later unanimously approved, with the purpose of providing information on “energy efficient systems, direct costs compared to life cycle costs; renewable energy sources and innovative ways the project could become an integral part of local renewable energy systems.” part; part [and] Ask the architectural and design teams questions about this aspect of the project. ”
Subject to Board approval, the committee will include Lisa Abel, Robert Brecha and Kim Reichelderfer, as well as board member Amy Bailey and Potter, who will serve as committee chair. Abel and Reichelderfer are both engineers, and Brecha is a professor in the field of renewable energy.
Until the committee is approved, Bouquet asked committee members not to communicate directly with the architect, CMR or “any third-party vendor or service provider,” but instead to communicate through the district administrator. Bouquet cited an experience with the Facilities Committee, which advises the school board during the facilities tax preparation phase, in which a member of the committee made a request directly to the district’s Maintenance Program Advisor (MPA), which she said changed the report submitted by the MPA nature.
“So the first report we received [from the MPA] This is not what we expected,” Bouquet said. “We’re all disappointed. … I’m trying to provide a framework here so that we don’t have this problem and we have a smoother process.”
Porter responded that she expected board members to “trust each other” and communicate appropriately, and that she would agree to Bouquet’s request.
Bouquet also expressed concern that the advisory committee might duplicate work that would be performed by the design team, citing a project in Ruetschle’s contract services that included the possible design of a solar system or other renewable energy system.
“What’s going to happen? [committee] Isn’t this mentioned in the contract? asked Bouquet.
“I would say this [Ruetschle Architects] Great ideas will be brought to us – let’s use the expertise of the village to work on those ideas and provide feedback,” Porter responded. “I think it’s a win-win.”
Contract with Ruetschle approved
As the final order of business at the meeting, the board voted to approve the Ruetschle Architects construction contract negotiated by district administrators.
“This has been a long time coming,” Bouquet said of the district’s relationship with Ruechler so far.
Board members spoke of a good working relationship with Ruetschle and the quality of his proposal – however, the board’s approval of the proposal was cause for concern.
Before the board vote, Potter asked Ruetschle about the fee for his services compared to projects his company had worked on in the past and began recommending that the company reduce it by half a percentage point based on past projects. The proposal was discontinued when Superintendent Holden stated that she was uncomfortable negotiating the company’s contract “in a live board meeting,” especially after district administration had already negotiated with the design firm on behalf of the board.
After the board raised questions about the propriety of contract negotiations in public meetings, Ben Hyden of board legal advisory firm Bricker Graydon said the board was unable to convene an executive session to discuss further negotiations.
District Treasurer McGrath later added: “At our last regular board meeting, we passed a resolution authorizing the superintendent and our legal counsel to negotiate price with Ruetschle, which is what they did.”
Hempfling noted that the board was scheduled to vote on the contract with Ruetschle at a special meeting two days ago on Monday, Jan. 22, but postponed the vote because board members received documents regarding those negotiations that same day. A few hours before the meeting.
“People work, people go to school, they’re on the school board and they don’t have time to do our responsibility, which is oversight,” Hempflin said. “The impetus that we have to do our due diligence, I really appreciate it. I will say this: I plan to vote to hire Ruetschle Architects tonight.”
Porter declined to propose changes to the contract with Ruetschle Architects, but said she was concerned the board was “not just looking at speed. [of the project], but the financial costs, and doing our best to address those costs as aggressively as possible to get them as low as possible while still providing our children with the schools they deserve. ”
McGrath noted that he received no requests from board members for clarification on any part of the contract in the two days between the two special meetings, although Porter responded that she had contacted the superintendent that day. Hampflin called the board to order, shut down the discussion, said those in attendance had “enough discussion” and proposed a vote.
The board ultimately approved the contract with Ruetschle Architects in a 4-1 vote. Porter was the only person to cast a “no” vote, although she clarified that her vote was not a “reflection” [Ruetschle’s] proposal. ”
[ad_2]
Source link