Selectmen Presentation 09-24-11

8/4/2019 Selectmen Presentation 09-24-11

1/52

Duxbury School Building

Committee

Duxbury Middle School

Duxbury High School


2/52

School Building Committee

Matt Ali

Barbara Bartlett

Shawn Dahlen Blake Dalton

Joe Grady

John Heinstadt

Neil Johnson

Lee Kennedy

Jon Lemieux

Elizabeth Lewis

Mickey McGonagle Susan Nauman

Gay Shanahan

Andrew Stephens

Dr. Ben Tantillo


3/52

Project History

1960 DMS constructed

1968 DHS constructed

March 2009 - TM approves funds forFeasibility study

Spring 2010 Study completed with optionsfor renovation, addition and newconstruction


4/52

Current state of DMS and DHS

(per 2010 Feasibility study and NEASC)

Failing systems and aged equipment:Boilers, heating, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and temperaturecontrols require replacement; no longer energy efficient or codecompliant

Deficient components:DMS roof leaks, majority of windows seals and door gaskets failed,insulation deficient, lighting poor

Buildings hinder curriculum and instruction:Classrooms undersized; spread out additions inefficient, can notdeliver AP science lab work; SPED space insufficient, noinfrastructure to support technology, team teaching at DMS not fullyimplemented


5/52


6/52


7/52


8/52


9/52

Repair

Repair work of more than 30% assessed value ofbuilding trigger upgrade for codes: ADA, seismic,fire protection, energy compliance

Requires continued requests for design and funding

Would be lengthy and disruptive

Future reimbursement by MSBA unknown

Does not provide improved educational program


10/52

Renovation

DMS estimated cost $46.8 million DHS estimated cost $70.5 million

TOTAL $117.3 million

Includes code upgrades and new finishes Improves science labs as structure allows Reimbursement may be less

Phasing, student disruption, modulars One school/one project limit 10 years of work MSBA does not support renovation for Duxbury


11/52

Post study

July 2010 MSBA invites Duxbury to modelschool program

March 2011 - TM approves schematic design

funds Spring 2011 OPM and Designer selected

August 2011 Schematic design packagesubmitted to MSBA

September 28, 2011 MSBA Board votes toapprove project for construction


12/52

Tasks completed

Educational plan for school and space summary

ADA and code reviews, special educationsubmission

Environmental assessment, traffic, geotechnical, sitesurvey completed

NSTAR memo of agreement executed

Two detailed cost estimates reconciled

Submitted comprehensive schematic design ofschool and field house to MSBA


13/52

Public Outreach Efforts

Numerous meetings with school departments

Held 15 public committee meetings since March

Met with SC, DRB, Highway Safety, Public Safety,DRT, Fin Com, Athletics and Rec Departments

SBC hosted 3 public forums: one in June, two in July

(exterior design and green features) and 3 plannedfor October

Attended school open houses


14/52

The Design


15/52

EXISTING SITE PLAN


16/52

SITE PLAN DURING CONSTRUCTION


17/52

SITE PLAN FINAL


18/52

SITE PLAN - OVERALL

EXISTING MIDDLESCHOOL

EXISTING HIGHSCHOOL


19/52

FIRST FLOOR PLAN


20/52

SECOND FLOOR PLAN


21/52

THIRD FLOOR PLAN


22/52


23/52

TYPICAL CLASSROOM RENDERING


24/52

LIBRARY RENDERING


25/52

EXTERIOR RENDERING - OVERALL


26/52


27/52

EXTERIOR RENDERING OVERALL MIDDLE SCHOOL


28/52

EXTERIOR RENDERING - MIDDLE SCHOOL ENTRANCE


29/52

TRAFFIC PRE-CONSTRUCTION


30/52

TRAFFIC PRELIMINARY POST CONSTRUCTION MS & HS


31/52

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING

HEATING

COOLING AREAS WITH AC

LIGHTING

ELECTRICAL

SECURITY

FIRE PROTECTION


32/52

GREEN/SUSTAINABLE FEATURES


33/52

EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL SITE


34/52

SITE PLAN - FORMER HIGH SCHOOL


35/52

Field House

Existing toilet rooms, locker rooms, maintenancearea and concessions required for continued use ofturf field

Evaluated using portions of existing high school

Cost prohibitive due to adjacencies, code upgradesand premium for selective demolition

Provided new building with utility court requestedby athletics/rec department for existing programs


36/52

FIELD HOUSE AND FIELDS OVERALL


37/52

FIELD HOUSE FLOOR PLAN


38/52


39/52

Educational Advantages

Allows for Team Teaching Interdisciplinary workfosters real life learning

Fosters Project Based Learning 21st Century Skills

Totally Wireless Allows for anytime/anywhere useof technology

Smart Classrooms Interactive hardware & software;flexible seating arrangements

Continuity of Instruction One set of supervisors forthe core subjects


40/52


Curriculum Alignment Teachers are enabled to meetwith their subject area colleagues on a regular and asneeded basis.

Placement of Teachers Upper level teachers areavailable for middle school students who can beaccelerated in their studies.

Instructional Technology Technology would be

housed in one area, additional services can beprovided such as sharing software and lab utilization.


41/52


Peer Tutoring High school students could tutormiddle school students as well as act as mentors.

Easier Transition to High School Because themiddle school students will have already been in the

building the transition fears to high school would belessened.

Guidance Services This would allow a betterunderstanding of each individual students needs as

they move through the grades.

Extra Curricular Programs Programs such asmusic and drama can incorporate students from alllevels in concerts and other performances.


42/52

Security Enhancements

New Telephone System VOIP in every room

Security Surveillance Inside and outside camerasavailable to police and fire departments

Security Cards Allows students and staff entry atcertain times. Can be used for library and cafeteriapayments

Alarm Systems Up to date systems for fire andsmoke

Entrances Unobstructed view of guests entering thebuilding


43/52

Budget

Estimated total project cost $128.4 million, including$1.55 million for schematic design funds

Includes all costs: school and field house, site, FFE,technology, utilities, design, demolition of 2 schoolswith haz mat removal, central office relocation, fieldhouse, testing, contingencies, escalation

Town portion estimated at $77 million, State grant$51.4 million

Value engineering will be undertaken


44/52

Soft Costs

Construction management, design oversight,OPM, peer review, CM at risk, filings, legal,insurance, moving

7.5% Design and price contingency

3% CM contingency

4% escalation


45/52

State Reimbursement

Base Points 31.0%

Property wealth factor 3.5%

Model school design 5%

Green school 2% Maintenance 1.71%

CM @ risk 1%

TOTAL 45.13%

(Rate of 43.42 cited in March 2011 TM)


46/52

Project Cost Breakdown

Eligible costs $113.9 million Ineligible costs, $ 14.5 millionalternate and exclusions

TOTAL COST $128.4 million

DISTRIBUTED Town portion $77 million

State grant $51.4 million

All costs could be lower if project costs decrease.


47/52

Ineligible costs

Central office relocation

Field house design and construction

Removal of ACM floor tile

Portion of AE design fees Overages on FFE and technology budget

Escalation

Legal fees

Peer reviews

Permitting costs


48/52

Tax Implications

Based on project cost to Town = $77 million

25 year term

Tax increase approximately 11%

Median home valued at $481k = $800/year

Tax increase to begin 2014


49/52

Schedule

Approval by 2/3 voters at Oct. 29th TM

Approval by 1/2 voters at ballot on Nov. 5th

Begin CM selection process in January 2012

Complete bid documents by May 2012 forbidding

Single phase begin construction June 2012

Two years to build schools open Fall 2014 Complete demolition and site work by

Summer 2015


50/52


51/52

Design Fulfills SBC Goals

Cost-effective, educationally sound

Minimizes disruption with single phase build

Separate academic areas for DMS, DHS

Maximizes efficiency with shared spaces(library, cafeteria, arts, athletics, mechanical)

Integrates PAC, preserves Train Field, fits withcampus

Maximizes reimbursement


52/52

Thank you

Documents

Selectmen Presentation 09-24-11