MOUNT GREYLOCK REGIONAL SCHOOL Addition/Renovation
Summary Report
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Prepared by:
Mount Greylock Regional School District 1781 Cold Spring Road
Williamstown, MA 01267
Why do we need to replace or renovate Mt. Greylock’s building?
The 55-year-old facility continues to be a serious educational impediment and a significant financial drain on our communities. Building and infrastructure deficiencies, failing mechanical systems, substandard science labs, ADA non-compliance and the absence of fire suppression systems are only the most dramatic issues. The cost to the towns of repairing the building in full—meeting ADA requirements, installing fire suppression systems, replacing the ventilation system, installing insulation, replacing windows, etc.—is estimated at $58 million. All this would cost the towns more than the currently proposed project, as the Massachusetts School Building Authority would not reimburse a project that merely repaired the building and left it educationally deficient.
Summary of Deficiencies Mount Greylock Regional School is a 177,400 sq. ft. facility primary constructed in two phases: 1960 and 1968. The 1968 addition added a cafeteria and library to support the then growing student population. That population has since leveled off at significantly less, leaving the facility oversized. Although well maintained throughout its life, the primary infrastructure remains largely unchanged from its construction 47 and 55 years ago. As result, our school does not meet safety and accessibility code, hampers learning, and wastes money. It also contains high levels of hazardous materials since little abatement has been done over the years and the finishes are largely original. The major issues include:
• oversized structure---built for 1200 students, now serves under 600
• outdated, non-code compliant fire alarm system • very significant heat loss due to poor wall and roof
insulation • dysfunctional heating distribution and ventilation systems • age and poor layout that obstruct new uses of technology • inadequate space and infrastructure for science instruction
and labs • inadequate special education areas • non-code compliant building security and air quality • sprawling layout that impedes collaborative learning • original building materials found to be hazardous
MGRS’s SOI was accepted into MSBA program in October 2013
1
177,400 Square Foot Building Sprawl
Single story building Flat roof
Minimal insulation Average R-value
of walls: 2.4
Ponding occurring
Poorly Fitting Interior Storm Windows
80% of Exterior Walls Are Glass
Heat Escaping Through Windows & Walls
2
Pneumatic heating controls
Air compressors linked to heating controls
New Boilers Connected to Outdated Systems
Air Out Air
Outdated, Deficient Ventilation System
3
Poor Ventilation Water Disconnected Gas Disconnected Non-functional, Asbestos-lined Fume Hood Minimal Technology
Inadequate Science Labs
Corridor Ramps & Stairs to Gym Auditorium Slope & Meeting Room Steps Door Widths and Hardware make serving line & Restrooms Non-Accessible
Accessibility and Other Code Requirements
4
What’s the advantage of working with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA)?
In October 2013, the MSBA recognized Mt. Greylock’s serious building needs and brought the district into its highly competitive building program. In the case of Mt. Greylock, almost 60% of the costs will be reimbursed by MSBA. This amounts to as much as $32.4 million. It has taken a decade for our project to be accepted into the competitive MSBA pipeline. If we don’t take advantage of this opportunity now we’ll go back to the end of the MSBA waiting line.” We thus have a once-in-a-generation chance to use the tax money that we’ve already paid to help provide for our communities with a safe, efficient, and educationally supportive school building.
Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) • Uses 1% of State Tax to support municipal building projects • VERY Competitive Selection • Partners with accepted districts to guide them through the Design and Construction Process • Reimburses portion of cost: MSBA contribution for MGRS Project would be as much as $32.4 million -
almost 60% of eligible reimbursable costs
Does the MSBA reimburse for all project costs? No, some costs are not reimbursed. The $64.8 million figure includes an estimated $8 million that is non-reimbursable. Through careful scrutiny and extensive deliberations, the School Building Committee (SBC) has since August lowered the non-reimbursable costs from $16 million to $8 million, which directly reduced the local share of the cost. The SBC will continue to focus on reducing the local share as we move into the Design Development and Construction Document phases of the project. We will continue to explore avenues of “smart” Value Engineering to bring the costs down while maintaining the high level of educational program our kids deserve. These processes take place after the voters approve a project.
What financial role might Williams College play? Williams has said all along that it intends to be involved financially with the capital needs of the Mt. Greylock District. The focus has been on determining how to do that so that the full benefit accrues to the district and its member towns. We believe that that can now be worked out fairly soon.
What is the basis of the design?
The MSBA requires the design of a school building be driven by the district’s educational plan. School administrators, architects, education consultants, teachers, staff, students, and community members all helped to formulate the educational plan submitted to the MSBA on which this design is based. The MSBA has said that it’s extremely pleased with the district’s educational plan, as well as with how the building has been designed to meet the educational needs in a cost-effective manner.
How was the size of the building determined?
The MSBA determines the amount of square footage that it will reimburse based on detailed enrollment projections and its experience with projects across the state. The district then allocates the allotted square footage to the number of classrooms, labs, seminar rooms, locker rooms, etc., within the strict MSBA guidelines. The MSBA has approved all space proposals in Mt. Greylock’s schematic design
5
What was accomplished with the Feasibility Study that the towns funded?
At the annual town meetings in 2014, both towns overwhelmingly authorized the district to incur the $850,000 debt necessary to take the next steps with the MSBA. These included retaining an owner’s project manager (OPM) and a design firm. The team examined the existing building, commissioned studies of engineering, wetlands, hazardous materials, explored alternative designs, and developed a schematic design with a detailed cost estimate. At that time, the MSBA offered a reimbursement rate of 53.32% for this step. The result of all that work and of extensive input from the communities has been the development of a detailed design and of a budget that’s now ready for approval by the towns. On July 30, 2014, the MSBA invited Mount Greylock into the feasibility phase and set the projected enrollment at 535 students.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ASSESSMENT MAP LEGEND
Location deemed unfeasible
Location deemed feasible
1
2
3
4
5
PHASE 1 HAZMAT SURVEY- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND AVIATION TANK CIRCA 1947, COMPLETE-TANK AND SOILS REMEDIATED 2015 APPROXIMATE LOCATION/AREA OF FIREWORK LAUCHING 1989—92/ 1999-2003- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SCHOOL COMMITTEE UNDERGROUND FUEL OIL TANKS, TESTING OF EXISTING MONITORING WELLS- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY NEW PROJECT; FUNDS HAVE BEEN CARRIED TO DO SO. GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION DONE IN 2015 UNCOVERED AREA OF URBAN FILL- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SCHOOL COMMITTEE AIRPLANE RUNWAY/ RUNNING TRACK- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SCHOOL COMMITTEE WELLS 1, 2, 3- WELLS 1&2 NOT USED FOR DRINKING WATER, CURRENTLY OPEN & BEING MONITORED. W3-FULLY TESTED & FOUND TO BE FREE OF ANY CONTAMINANTS- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY NEW PROJECT; FUNDS HAVE BEEN CARRIED TO DO SO. SEWER DRAINAGE LINE CONNECTED IN 1984 TO RTE 7 LINE, PIPE POTENTIALLY ABANDONED IN PLACE, ACM POSSIBLE-MAY BE PARTIALLY ADDRESSED BY NEW PROJECT WHERE PIPE IS IN FOOTPRINT OF BULIDING FOUNDATIONS. BALANCE OF ABATEMENT BY SCHOOL COMMITTEE. VISIBLE INDICATION OF FLOOR TILE & OTHER DEBRIS AROUND PERIMETER OF AIRPLANE HANGER STRUCTURE, COMPLETE- BUILDING DEMOLISHED AND SITE REMEDIATED 2015
6
Evaluation of Options
Multiple options were considered throughout the Feasibility Study including Base Repair, Addition/Renovation Options as well as New Construction Options.
MOUNT GREYLOCK SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE GOALS
Well-Designed/Site Specific clear/inviting approach, orientation/views Supports the Educational Program proper zoning, location/adjacencies Creates Collaborative, Flexible Spaces for teams/departments/pull-out/planning Safe/Secure and Comfortable good visibility, one entry, simple circulation Aesthetically Pleasing new face, visible SE entry/approach Energy Efficient/Comfortable good orientation & three-story construction Fiscally Responsible & Supportable educationally-optimal/least expensive range Incorporate Durable, Low- Maintenance Materials Durable & energy conscience material choice Right-Sizing the School consolidated plan, efficient & flexible
CUST AUD
Base Repair (BR)
Addition + Renovation (R)
New Construction (N)
BR
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
N1 N2 N3 N4
R6 R7
7
What is the design that voters are being asked to support?
Based on extensive study and community input, the design chosen would combine renovation and new construction. The auditorium, the gym, and the surrounding support spaces would be renovated, ensuring they are code compliant, more efficient, and more useful. The academic wing would be removed and replaced with a new wing that would be energy efficient and would support the many ways that teaching and learning have changed since 1960.
Preferred Solution
The preferred solution keeps only the existing auditorium, mechanical/custodial wing, and gymnasium/locker wing, while building a new consolidated 3-story academic wing in front and a new cafeteria, media/technology and school administration areas between the existing auditorium and gymnasium. The new academic wing is angled for ideal solar orientation and to maximize daylight while improving energy efficiency. This also opens the building toward the approach—reinforcing visibility and way-finding and helps capture views—a priority among staff, students, and community. The new portion of the building is situated to minimize disruption with educational operations during construction.
The car loop and parking lot remain in their current locations, but are reconfigured to separate buses and cars, use trees to break up the parking mass and provide shading, and to incorporating an access road around the building and to athletic fields for safety, service, and maintenance
Reuse of the auditorium and gymnasium creates a separation of activity/community use spaces, while maintaining good zoning and lock-off ability. The cafeteria, located with the auditorium, serves as additional spill-out space with the kitchen nearby for potential catering opportunities. The gym takes advantage of the adjacent main lobby as foyer. Admin areas are positioned for natural supervision and control of the entry, and activity areas and the Media Center/Library and technology spaces are located within the same zone. The academic wing provide optimal educational flexibility with classroom clusters (neighborhoods) that can accommodate a department or team structure, while minimizing travel and congestion. The two middle school teaching teams could be located on one floor, while the other floors could be organized into four departments (math, English, social studies and foreign language) or four interdisciplinary teams. In either case, special education would be spread across all floors, and science would exist in pairs on each floor, connected vertically as a department.
AUD. GYM.
CAF. MEDIA/ LIBRARY
8
Educational Program/Preferred Solution The Preferred Solution meets the district’s Educational Program and was designed directly from the stated program, policies, and objectives. Some of the key components of the program that are infused into the design include:
Addressing the district’s space and configuration needs as a combined middle-high School by creating the potential for small learning ‘neighborhoods’ or teams as well as departmental structure;
- 2 teams or grades per floor (MS on one floor, HS on two)
- 2 departments per floor (5 CRs Each w/ SPED) - 6 Interdisciplinary teams (5 CRs Each w/ SPED) - SPED is Integrated in teams and departments - Science positioned for both team and department
integration - class size policies are built into the programming
calculations - 20 or fewer students in each math or english class - 22 or fewer students in science, social studies & world language
School scheduling methods are integral, such as 2 deliberate lunch periods, which alternate with directed study or science prep for all students (all 3 grades in one or other during those periods) - Cafeteria sized for an efficient 2 lunch seatings - Science programmed at 75% utilization (to accommodate prep periods)
Teaching methodology/structure (current and future) is accommodated by flexible classroom size, shape, visibility and connections to adjacent space - Supports inquiry/project based learning - Supports small group, project work & 1:1 pull out - Opportunities interdisciplinary work - Classrooms are contiguous and stacked vertically for flexibility of departments or teams to
expand or contract year to year Technology/media center/library, art/music, PE & SPED programs are sized, positioned and
connected per the program needs - Media center/Library, technology & art connected to allow for STEM opportunities, but also
flexibility for maker spaces to evolve - Integration of SPED (within each team/department) - Outdoor learning (linked to media center, art/tech spaces)
Key programmatic adjacencies are incorporated, as outlined - Planning/large group space near the cafeteria and connected to the media center (with video
production) to serve lunchtime cultural events and alternatives Addresses safety/security (at the planning level)
- Having a single main entry and limited exterior access points - Administration with visibility of approach and internal major spaces - Zoned for controlled public access and lock-off capabilities
9
Site Plan and Views
View Looking South (from new Lobby, Library & Cafeteria)
10
Enlarged Main Entry/Drop-Off
Enlarged Courtyard/Amphitheater
GYMNASIUM
AUDITORIUM
11
Floor Plans
12
Front Aerial (looking north/west)
Back Aerial (looking east)
13
Entry/Bus Approach (looking west)
Cafeteria/Main Entry Canopy (looking north)
14
MSBA 3011 SD Project Budget Sheet
What’s the total cost, and how much of it would be borne by the state and by the district? The total project cost is around $64.8 million dollars. The MSBA would use money that Massachusetts residents have paid in state sales tax to reimburse 59.68% of the reimbursable costs. The maximum facilities grant is currently estimated at $32.5-$33.3 million. The district share is estimated to be a minimum of $31.5 million and a maximum of $35.3 million. (Since the MSBA does not determine final reimbursement of contingency items until the end of the project, it is necessary to present a range at this time.) The current division of debt would be 32.3% to Lanesborough and 67.7% to Williamstown. If the number were $33.0 million, that would come to around $10.6 million for Lanesborough and $22.3 million for Williamstown.
Total Project Budget: $64,737,706 This is the amount that the towns will be asked to authorize
Maximum Total Facilities Grant: $33,267,903 This is the max that MSBA will reimburse – it is based on eligible costs & we may not receive the full amount depending on how much we actually spend
Potential District Share: Minimum Share: $31,469,803 Maximum Share: $35,360,463
Feasibility Study $850,000 included for reimbursement
• Estimates based on the schematic design • Budget and scope agreed to by the MSBA
15
MSBA Funding Calculation
How has the community been involved in this process?
The district has worked to make the process as inclusive and transparent as possible. The School Building Committee includes members of each town’s Select Board and Finance Committee. Other residents of both communities serve on task groups. Many public forums have been held in Lanesborough and Williamstown. All meetings of the School Building Committee have been open to the public. They’ve also been taped for access on both town’s cable TV and continue to be available online at WilliNet.org. A project page has been maintained on Facebook and on the Mt. Greylock website. And there’ve been numerous articles in The Berkshire Eagle, iBerkshires, and The Berkshire Courier detailing the decision-making process. Community feedback played a large role in the development of design options and in the selection of the project that went into schematic design. Town Officials, community members, faculty, students, administrators, and district officials have all participated in the following task groups:
• Educational Planning • Green School Design • Facilities & Maintenance • Finance & Bonding • Community Outreach
The School Building Committee conducted public forums in both towns to gain community input on project design. In addition, the Committee shared updates and collected feedback at over a dozen school and community events and meetings in both towns.
We welcome future participation!
Project Budget ($)
[Eligible Costs] X
[Reimbursement
District Share ($)
• MSBA limits eligible costs in an effort to more fairly distribute its funds – this is done with caps and exclusions
• Some ineligible costs include:
• Site costs > 8% of the construction costs
• Remediation costs associated with asbestos tile
• New construction costs greater than $299/sq-ft
• Legal fees
Total Project Budget $ 64,737,706
Construction Budget $ 52,310,706
Misc. Costs & FFE $ 2,252,000
Contingencies $ 2,200,000
Feasibility Study $ 850,000
Scope items exclude or ineligible (current) $ 8,035,557
This number was about $16M in August 2015
16
When would the new/renovated school be ready? If we stay on schedule with the votes, students would begin using the new academic wing in April 2018. The renovation of the auditorium/gym and demolition of the old academic wing is scheduled for completion by fall 2018. Delays in voting at this time could push the completion dates for these two phases by 6-12 months.
MARCH 2016 - DEBT EXCLUSION VOTES AUGUST 2016 - CONSTRUCTION BEGINS APRIL 2018- CLASSROOM WING COMPLETE- OPEN FALL 2018 - PROJECT COMPLETE - SCHOOL OPEN
Project Costs
approx. $64.8 MILLION PROJECT COST
approx. 59.68% REIMBURSEMENT of eligible costs from the MSBA
$31.5-$35.3 MILLION DISTRICT SHARE –
32.3% by Lanesborough and 67.7% by Williamstown
2015 2016 2017 2018
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Feasibility & Schematic Design Phase
Local Vote
Complete Design Documents / Bid
Early Classroom Building Packages & Long Lead Equipment
Phase 1 - Public Space (Cafeteria, Media, Auditorium, Art, Admin)
Phase 2 - New Classroom Wing
Phase 3 - Gym Renovation
Phase 4 - Demo & Sitework
Classroom Wing Complete Open April 2018 Project Complete
Open Fall 2018
Submit Schematic Design to
MSBA
Mt. Greylock Regional School District Regional
Town Debt Exclusion Vote
MSBA Board Vote
January 27, 2016
17
How would the debt affect my taxes? The Finance Task Group, composed of district and town officials, working with our bonding agent, recommends a series of bonds ranging from 27 to 29 years. In Lanesborough, residents could expect their tax bill to include $309-$393 per year for the building project over the life of the bond. This averages to $351 per year or $87.75 per quarter. In Williamstown, the impact would be closer to $394-$568, which averages to $481 or $120.25 per quarter. These tax impacts could shift over the life of the bond according to the five-year rolling average on capital apportionment agreed to by the towns in November and December 2015.
How would the debt exclusion vote work? The debt exclusion vote would be an election with a paper ballot. To save the towns money, Williamstown and possibly Lanesborough will hold the vote on March 1, the same day and in the same places as the presidential primary. Voters could choose to participate in one or both elections. Voters who chose to participate in both elections would sign in twice, receiving one ballot each time. Votes for school building projects are decided by simple majority, so 50% of the votes determines the outcome.
What are the next steps in the process? The School Committee voted on January 14, 2016 to appropriate the debt for the project. Since the School Committee voted to appropriate the debt contingent on the towns’ ability to exclude the debt (that is, to pass debt exclusion votes), town meetings are not necessary. Williamstown has decided not to call a special town meeting. Lanesborough will hold a Special Town Meeting on February 23. The towns will vote to exclude the debt cost from the Proposition 2 ½ limit on tax increases over the life of the bond. This vote will be held on March 1 in Williamstown—the same day as the state presidential primary. The vote in Lanesborough will be held on March 15.
What if one town votes to exclude the debt and the other doesn’t? In regional districts like Mt. Greylock, if any member town fails to pass the debt exclusion, then the project fails. In our case, if the project fails, we’ll have missed the chance to use money that our communities have already paid the state in taxes, will have not realized the full potential of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that both towns voted overwhelmingly to spend on the feasibility study, and will be stuck with the significantly higher cost of repairing a building (without any state reimbursement) that will still fail to meet the educational needs of our children. While the district can seek a second vote within six months, this could be a re-vote of the same project. If the district chooses to attempt a reduction in the scope of the project, this would be a costly process, requiring additional architectural services and delays in procurement of materials.
TIME is MONEY
The School Committee and School Building Committee have met every deadline that we and the MSBA have set to date. It is critical that we continue to stay on schedule. Delays in approvals could mean higher bond rates for taxpayers and season-long construction delays. These factors will cost our communities in real dollars.
SAMPLE
Williamstown Vote: Tuesday March 1
Lanesborough Vote: Tuesday March 15
18
Why is a March Debt Exclusion Vote Critical to the Towns? The current project is on a tight timeline to gain every possible efficiency and to reduce the overall project cost once it goes to bid. The construction schedule is based on many variables that were developed in the 18-month feasibility and schematic design phase, supported by the towns in spring 2014. If the project falls out of the current timeline, we will lose these built-in efficiencies and will need to reduce costs elsewhere to make up for the losses. A Debt Exclusion vote by mid-March is critical to meeting the schedule. A one/two-month delay in the town vote could impact several phasing sequences that could greatly impact the school operations and construction cost model. We are currently scheduled to break ground in August 2016, finish the academic wing by April 2018, and complete the full project by fall 2018. If delayed at the start, all final site improvements and landscaping would be pushed into Spring '19. This adds remobilization costs, labor rate increase, etc. It also pushes out the final MSBA audit and therefore the final reimbursement. The new classroom wing would open in Fall '18 instead of April '18. The gym would not be complete for use during Fall '17. While it is hard to quantify the costs for such a delay, we do know they will escalate quickly. Key cost drivers that would increase the current estimates are:
1. Subcontractor bidding increases: the nationwide cost index increased over 4% last year; in New England, it was around 5.5%.
2. An inefficient project is also likely to attract fewer bidders, decreasing our ability to keep down the costs. In many instances labor supply cannot keep up with labor demand. Subs are very selective and the further projects get pushed out the less interest subs have in them.
3. Phasing and sequencing of the work. The present schedule is efficient, aggressive, and designed to save the community money. The schedule works with the district’s educational program, allowing for minimal disruption to teaching and learning. Revisions to the schedule have far reaching impacts.
4. Increased schedule duration requires additional time on site, which costs money for all involved with the project; Contractor, designer, OPM, and other administrative and carrying costs.
5. Higher maintenance costs for the building. Resulting from the need to reduce the quality of materials to offset the delay. Materials that cost less but have higher maintenance costs do not actually save money.
6. Escalating interest rates for bonding the project. This estimate alone is $3-5 million.
Efforts to speed up the project to meet later deadlines could increase the following 1. Over-time pay for 2nd and 3rd shifts. 2. Tight delivery and set up timeframes for electrical and tech to get spaces ready for students. 3. Complaints from all sides that the project is not well thought out, inconvenient, or unsafe on site and
at school. Even though we will have a good plan under any circumstance, the more frantic / frenetic schemes tend to elicit more negative feedback and less trust of the team and process overall.
All cost for delays will be born solely by the District taxpayers in Lanesborough and Williamstown. The MSBA will not increase its grant to the District to offset increased project costs. We ask that you help us maintain an efficient effective process for this important
project. Remind people to vote!
19
