Milton Facilities Advisory Community Team (Fact)

MILTON FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMUNITY TEAM (FACT)

FACT MEETING MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2016

MILTON HIGH SCHOOL LMC – ROOM 121

6:00 – 8:30 PM

ATTENDANCE

FACT Members Present: Jeff Adee, Mike Astin, Barry Brandt (co-chair), Michael Dorn, Gary Groelle, Lesley Hammer (co-chair), Dan Honold, Leo Johnson, Tina Keller, Brian Kvapil, Wilson Leong, Joe Martin, Bill O’Leary, Steve Quade, Jill Schuerman-Fons, Bonnie Stalker, Danielle Stivarius, Lucille Vickerman, Patrick Weberpal, Dan Weitzel

FACT Member Absent: Brendon Wilkinson

School Board Members Present: President Jon Cruzan, Shelly Crull-Hanke (Liaison to FACT), Betsy Lubke

Community Members Present: Lance Fena, Terri Fena, Bill Maas, Al Roehl, Chuck Jackson

Consultants Present: Scott Kramer, PRA; Kevin Hickman, Jeremy Shecterle, and David Baran, J.P.Cullen

School District of Milton (SDM) Staff and Administrators Present: Tim Schigur, Jerry Schuetz, Heather Slosarek, Jeremy Bilhorn, Tara Huber, Randy Bartels, Matt Biederwolf, Jennifer Cramer, Stephen Schantz, Susan Probst, Mary Ellen Van Valin, Brian Hammil, Nathan Pierce, Jennifer Wiczer

WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Lesley Hammer and Barry Brandt welcomed FACT members to the meeting.

The FACT Meeting Minutes from May 25th were discussed. Tina Keller asked PRA if the poolin a new high school would hold seating for 250 or 450 persons. Scott Kramer responded that there is seating planned for 450 persons; the current minutes state there is seating for 250 persons.

The minutes are now revised to indicate “seating for 450 persons” in two places. Please find the revised minutes under the SDM’s FACT website.

A motion was made by Lucille Vickerman and seconded by Tina Keller to approve the May 25th minutes with revised number of seats in the new pool area. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Two major handouts were identified as significant for tonight’s meeting – an updated PRA list of educational space needs for a new Milton High School and an updated PRA/Cullen packet on Building Options #1 and #3. Barry Brandt stressed that this meeting would specify presentations from PRA and Cullen regarding information based on last week’s FACT requests. The meeting would also include a question-and-answer discussion regarding the changes in square footage and pricing of a new high school and reworked pricing in all other existing schools, along with districtwide decreases in ADA/safety/maintenance needs.

SLIDE SAMPLES OF DIFFERENT BUILDING AREAS– SCOTT KRAMER

Scott Kramer introduced the meeting by showing and explaining slide illustrations as examples of what various building areas could/would look like in a new Milton High School. The slides were of recent additions and renovations to high schools in the southern Wisconsin area. A gymnasium was shown with “surge space” in front of the gym and four stations with wood and synthetic courts as well as bleacher space. An eight-lane pool was represented with an ADA entry ramp. Four libraries were viewed with scenes of different seating areas. Varieties of technology education areas were pictured with seating, machinery, and robotics. Lastly, flexible learning spaces were displayed with seating and furnishings for 1-1 and small group instruction.

Joe Martin asked if the libraries were designed with the digital age in mind, and Scott’s answer was affirmative in that there would be the same or more space for computers as well as shelving space for books.

Numerous questions were asked about the gymnasium space with Mr. Kramer’s replies.

Gary Groelle: How can different activities/events happen simultaneously in a four-station gym? Answer: The gym can be set up in different zones with flexible partitions as needed if this is built into the original plan.

Dan Weitzel: Could a gymnasium and auditorium be combined into one space? Answer: A gym and an auditorium serve two different functions. Lighting, seating, and acoustics are different for each space. In Brodhead, there is a cafeteria and auditorium (a cafetorium) which works better, but is still not the most practical.

Steve Quade: Can a gymnasium be built with materials other than brick and mortar? Answer: Yes, concrete blocks could be used; however, the longevity of such a gym might not be 50-100 years.

Gary Groelle: How does the “domes” configuration in Johnson Creek compare? Answer: This is no comparison to a brick and mortar gym. The “domes” has odd construction and probably will not be appreciated within five years. Dan Honold added that the Cullen YMCA constructionin Janesville of blocks/panels has a 50+ year life.

Gary Groelle: Isn’t gym size more important to look at than number of gym stations? Answer: The four-station gym planned for SDM fits the size for 1200 students and is expandable to 1400. Joe Martin also replied that a new four-station gym would actually give Milton eight stations.

Steve Quade: Could the gym stations also be used for band and choir activities? Answer: Yes.

Lucille Vickerman: What would the movement of people look like at large events (like indoor graduation), going out to a lobby area on one long end? Steve Quade added that the competition floor must be considered for how the bleachers are placed. Answers: There would be room for 900 people on the gym floor and 2,000 people on bleachers along one side. The current floor plan for the gym is the four practice courts with the bleachers parallel to the main competition court. The gym size is planned at 140’ by 250’.

Scott Kramer finalized this part of the discussion by displaying a large blueprint of the planned gymnasium.

PRA/CULLEN SITE FITS FOR NEW HIGH SCHOOL – TIM SCHIGUR

Tim Schigur next directed FACT members to view five different “site fits” for the new high school. The total area of the new building is a little over 353,000 square feet and fits the site adjacent to the existing high school. The first site plan depicts an enclosed walkway between the new and existing building. Parking is designed around three sides of the new building with two entry points. The second plan shows the lower level where the four-station gym, pool, and gymnastics/wrestling areas are housed along with lockers, faculty support, and commons. Classroom space runs along one outer side. The third plan, the first floor, portrays open space to the pool and gym below along with the Instructional Materials Center (Library) and classrooms which include the graphic and applied arts areas. All classrooms, wrapped around the outside of the new building, have natural light. The fourth and fifth plans show aerial views of the new and existing buildings from several different directions.

A question was asked about a kitchen area in the new high school. There are plans for a production and service kitchen to serve the new building only. The current kitchen, in the existing high school, will remain to serve all other district buildings.

PRA/CULLEN PACKET (REVISED) FOR BUILDING OPTIONS #1 AND #3 – FACT AND CONSULTANTS

Barry Brandt urged that FACT members next study the updated (6-1-16) PRA/Cullen packet on a new high school, renovations for all other district buildings, and the ADA, security and maintenance revisions. He conveyed that pp. 1-3 contains reduced square footage and pricing for Building Options #1 and #3, pp. 4-13 provide what was reduced in ADA, safety, and maintenance, and pp.14-18 specifies the new high school program reductions.

Before discussion on this packet ensued, Lucille Vickerman asked the repercussion of the newly passed law on minimum wage. Consultants from both companies observed that this law does not go into effect until 2017. At that time, the Workforce Development Department will no longer be required to follow prevailing wages; contractors may have to reduce their workers’ wages.This will impact all construction companies, butprevailing wage and union wage are very close. Scott Kramer reported that the effects of this law will not be known for a number of years after 2017, and Jeremy Shecterle concurred. Leo Johnson questioned what %age of the new building projects would be wages. Perhaps 30% was the answer. Jeff Adee wondered about the possible rising costs of building materials. Consultants determined that the building cost index has risen from 16.17 to 21.5%. About 3-4% is allowed for inflation. There are too many unknowns at this time.

ADA/SAFETY/MAINTANENCE CONCERNS (Under revised PRA/Cullen Packet)

In this revised packet, Tim Schigur and Stephen Schantz addressed the reduced price of ADA, safety, and maintenance costs from $25 million to almost $8 million. With the $25 million figure, Mr. Schigur indicated that “everything was going to be fixed, including aesthetics.” Now, with the reduction of these costs, Mr. Schantz declared that ADA requirements across the district would be equal; there would be the major mechanical renovations, and a few other maintenance odds and ends would be repaired.

Brian Kvapil commented that, according to FACT a few weeks ago, safety/security was a main concern, but now some security items have been excluded. Brian asked for a list of the items that have been cut. Tim Schigur will provide a list; he also responded that from $25 million, ADA, safety, and maintenance issues previously were reduced to $10-$11 million, but now the $3.3 million required for renovations to building entrances for added security have been cut. He also reported that secure entry to buildings has been addressed by training staff, and some safety measures are included within the existing building budgets. Barry Brandt disclosed that from the April 27th meeting, actually $31 million was allocated for ADA, safety, and maintenance work which was the same as in September 2015. Patrick Weberpal questioned how other districts handled entrance-to-building safety concerns. Scott Kramer stated that schools built in the last 5-10 year span have the “secure” entrances where people entering each building must first pass through the main office; however, existing buildings, he noted, use the buzzer/camera/check-in system. Mike Astin revealed he was the one who stated that safety should be #1 for SDM students, but he also emphasized that he would defer to the experts’ (consultants and administration) advice that the buzzer/camera system is a safe measure. Jill Schuerman-Fons agreed and supported the experts’ advice. Lucille Vickerman concluded that it is most unlikely to achieve a 100% level of security at all timesduring the school day and especially in the event of large crowds attending major programs and performances. Tim Schigur cited the importance of prioritizing in this area due to FACTs’ requests, and Stephen Schantz pointed out that all aesthetics came off the list first. Steve Quade expressed concern for safety in the back of the existing high school, that of the walkway between the main building and the technology/agriculture areas. He was assured this safety item is in the budget.

QUESTIONS FROM FACT ON OTHER BUILDINGS

Tina Keller asked whether or not the main entrance to East Elementary would be redone, and Tim Schigur disclosed that this is not in the reduced budget; the major concern for East is to construct an addition on the south side of the building to have existing classrooms from the basement removed.

Joe Martin asked what the plans are for the current middle school. Stephen Schantz responded that $1.3+million is allocated for renovations that would keep the building open for multiple grades. Stephen Schantz confirmed that ADA and mechanical renovations to the existing high school would remain on the list for it to be used as a middle school. He stipulated that not all bathrooms would be ADA compliant, but a bank of bathrooms on each level of the building would be. He added that this is true of every building in the district – not every bathroom will be ADA compliant, but a bank in each building would fulfill requirements.

Dan Weitzel asked consultants why restrooms cost so much to renovate. Scott Kramer stressed that existing bathrooms must be gutted for ADA requirements; major reconfiguration is needed for plumbing entry.

Barry Brandt interjected and wondered if the ADA/security/maintenance costs of this revised budget now meet the needs/wants of the Board of Education. President Jon Cruzan answered affirmatively.

Bonnie Stalker asked administrators to address the $200,000 needed for Harmony. Stephen Schantz stated that Harmony would still house the backup server for technology across the district so a new emergency generator and egress lighting is required. He noted that Rock Energy Cooperative is Harmony’s provider; whereas, all other district buildings use Alliant Energy for electric and gas usage.

A variety of questions was brought forth by FACT concerning the existing high school. Bonnie Stalker reminded consultants that the front entrance to this build requires the “secure” renovation because main office employees cannot see who is entering the building once the buzzer is sounded. This item is in the current revised budget.

Bill O’Leary questioned the need for 12 new tennis courts, and Tim Schigur informed FACT that 12 are required for Invitationals; there are currently eight. Brian Hammil stated seven matches occur at one time, but the district could possibly get by with ten courts without it getting dark for after school matches. The location of tennis courts and an ice rink were briefly discussed. Mr. Schigur indicated the need to work with the city because the location is city-owned land, but is maintained by the SDM. Mr. O’Leary also indicated the need for “fixing the track.”

The costs to the new high school have been reduced from $100 million to $84 million. Square footage has been reduced from 419,000 square feet to 353,000 square feet. The lunch area has been reduced from 10,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet, going to three lunch periods instead of two.

PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (BAND, MUSIC, THEATER AREA)

Nathan Pierce, Band Director, and Jennifer Wiczer, music teacher and Choir and Show Choir Director, were present at FACT to give input in regard to auditorium space. Nate and Jennifer verify that the music programs have the “single-most, largest” student participation in the SDM. After introductions, Barry Brandt questioned the number of students in the high school and middle school music programs. Mr. Pierce indicated 130 students in band at the high school, 100+ sixth graders, 100+ seventh graders, and 60+ eighth graders at middle school. Ms. Wiczer declared that numbers are up in choir as well at the middle school with 60-70 sixth graders, 60-70 seventh graders, and 70 eighth graders.

A question was asked if the existing high school auditorium, to become the middle school, could also be used for high school performances. Nate disclosed that auditorium space might be able to be shared by both high and middle school; however, Michael Dorn advocated for additional rehearsal space which might be put in the new high school plans. Separate areas are needed for band and choir to take away the current space difficulties, and more storage space would be good to eliminate moving equipment around. Band instruments such as large percussion would require storage space in the new building, and it seems appropriate to have more space due to growth in student participation in the music programs.

Mike Dorn, then, proposed a small auditorium in the new building with approximately 350 seats and a Black Box plan. This area could be used for some performances as well as class meetings and other flexible allowances. There would be less square footage, and this would not cost as much as a full auditorium. Mr. Dorn also discussed how new space wiring could provide cost savings over time. LED lights and a digital sound system would also allow students experience with modern equipment. The fieldhouse could be used for the marching band.

Steve Quade cited how hosting Show Choir competition brings in money to the district; it helps fund the program (5,000-6,000 people). He also expressed how staff and the community have gotten excellent results from the existing facilities.

NEXT STEPS

1. Bill O’Leary urged FACT that next steps require them, as community members, to sell their recommendations for a referendum to other voting residents. He stipulated the need for help and assistance from students to speak to the community. Could students from each SDM building be asked to convey needs from their specific school? Bill expressed the importance of contacting students now as this is the last week of school, and such momentum would be more meaningful if students speak. Principals Jeremy Bilhorn and Jennifer Cramer agreed that this could surely be arranged.
2. Jeremy Bilhorn then described the “shaded areas” on the PRA handout titled “Educational Space Needs” for a new high school. These areas were reduced in the revised 6-1-16 Options Plans.
3. The theater and support spaces were removed (25,000 square feet) and could possibly remain in the existing high school. However, the above conversations from Nate Pierce, Jennifer Wiczer, and Michael Dorn predicts some of that space to be added again.
4. Mr. Bilhorn divulged how the wrestling/gymnastics/storage areas are taken out of the new high school plans and remain at the existing high school. Also, he noted that team locker rooms be reduced in size. This reduction would be 20,000 square feet of the total area. Brian Hammil explained ideas for gymnastics to be held in the redone, old pool area and the current tech. ed. building might possibly be redone for wrestling use. (The tech. ed. building may not be practical for wrestling, though).
5. Again, Mr. Bilhorn submitted the idea of reducing cafeteria space and hold three lunch periods instead of two.
6. Tim Schigur, Jeremy Bilhorn, and consultants continued to discuss information regarding changes to the new high school proposal.
7. Could a new high school be expanded on the “site fits?”Answer: This could be accomplished, even adding an auditorium.
8. Opposite that, what if the total square footage was reduced more? Answer: This would cut into curriculum area (classroom) space.
9. Could the Library/IMC be reduced from 13,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet which is the size of the current high school LMC? Answer: The larger square footage does include a district server room and the Technology Department.
10. Further questions were brought forth by FACT members.
11. Michael Dorn: If we build minimum, can the building be designed in such a way to allow expansion? Steve Quade: Is the 1400 student-expansion projected for 25 years? Also, can the Greenhouse be moved? Tim Schigur: The Greenhouse can be moved and reconstructed in a new spot.
12. Lesley Hammer: If the Tech. Ed. building cannot be repurposed for wrestling, how can it be used? Tim Schigur: It could be used for theater storage.
13. Lucille Vickerman: Why include a new kitchen? Couldn’t the existing kitchen serve all buildings? Tim Schigur: With the additional kitchen, the high school could be more flexible with schedules.

CONCLUSIONS AND HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS: