Duxbury School Building Committee Duxbury Middle School Duxbury High School

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

Project History
1960 DMS constructed 1968 DHS constructed March 2009 - TM approves funds for Feasibility study Spring 2010 Study completed with options for renovation, addition and new construction

Current state of DMS and DHS

(per 2010 Feasibility study and NEASC)

Failing systems and aged equipment:

Boilers, heating, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and temperature controls require replacement; no longer energy efficient or code compliant

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 not deliver AP science lab work; SPED space insufficient, no infrastructure to support technology, team teaching at DMS not fully implemented

Repair
Repair work of more than 30% assessed value of building 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

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

Post study
July 2010 MSBA invites Duxbury to model school program March 2011 - TM approves schematic design funds

Spring 2011 OPM and Designer selected August 2011 Schematic design package submitted to MSBA September 28, 2011 MSBA Board votes to approve project for construction

Tasks completed
Educational plan for school and space summary ADA and code reviews, special education submission Environmental assessment, traffic, geotechnical, site survey completed NSTAR memo of agreement executed Two detailed cost estimates reconciled Submitted comprehensive schematic design of school and field house to MSBA

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 planned for October Attended school open houses

The Design

EXISTING SITE PLAN

SITE PLAN DURING CONSTRUCTION

SITE PLAN FINAL

SITE PLAN - OVERALL

EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL

EXISTING MIDDLE SCHOOL

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

TYPICAL SCIENCE ROOM RENDERING

TYPICAL CLASSROOM RENDERING

LIBRARY RENDERING

EXTERIOR RENDERING - OVERALL

EXTERIOR RENDERING HIGH SCHOOL ENTRANCE

EXTERIOR RENDERING OVERALL MIDDLE SCHOOL

EXTERIOR RENDERING - MIDDLE SCHOOL ENTRANCE

TRAFFIC PRE-CONSTRUCTION

TRAFFIC PRELIMINARY POST CONSTRUCTION MS & HS

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING

HEATING COOLING AREAS WITH AC LIGHTING ELECTRICAL SECURITY FIRE PROTECTION

GREEN/SUSTAINABLE FEATURES

EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL SITE

SITE PLAN - FORMER HIGH SCHOOL

Field House
Existing toilet rooms, locker rooms, maintenance area and concessions required for continued use of turf field Evaluated using portions of existing high school Cost prohibitive due to adjacencies, code upgrades and premium for selective demolition Provided new building with utility court requested by athletics/rec department for existing programs

FIELD HOUSE AND FIELDS OVERALL

FIELD HOUSE FLOOR PLAN

FIELD HOUSE RENDERING

Educational Advantages
Allows for Team Teaching Interdisciplinary work fosters real life learning Fosters Project Based Learning 21st Century Skills Totally Wireless Allows for anytime/anywhere use of technology Smart Classrooms Interactive hardware & software; flexible seating arrangements Continuity of Instruction One set of supervisors for the core subjects

Educational Advantages
Curriculum Alignment Teachers are enabled to meet with their subject area colleagues on a regular and as needed basis. Placement of Teachers Upper level teachers are available for middle school students who can be accelerated in their studies. Instructional Technology Technology would be housed in one area, additional services can be provided such as sharing software and lab utilization.

Educational Advantages
Peer Tutoring High school students could tutor middle school students as well as act as mentors. Easier Transition to High School Because the middle school students will have already been in the building the transition fears to high school would be lessened. Guidance Services This would allow a better understanding of each individual students needs as they move through the grades. Extra Curricular Programs Programs such as music and drama can incorporate students from all levels in concerts and other performances.

Security Enhancements
New Telephone System VOIP in every room Security Surveillance Inside and outside cameras available to police and fire departments Security Cards Allows students and staff entry at certain times. Can be used for library and cafeteria payments Alarm Systems Up to date systems for fire and smoke Entrances Unobstructed view of guests entering the building

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 schools with haz mat removal, central office relocation, field house, testing, contingencies, escalation Town portion estimated at $77 million, State grant $51.4 million Value engineering will be undertaken

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

State Reimbursement
Base Points Property wealth factor Model school design Green school Maintenance CM @ risk TOTAL 31.0% 3.5% 5% 2% 1.71% 1% 45.13%

(Rate of 43.42 cited in March 2011 TM)

Project Cost Breakdown

Eligible costs Ineligible costs, alternate and exclusions TOTAL COST DISTRIBUTED Town portion State grant $113.9 million $ 14.5 million $128.4 million

$77 million $51.4 million

All costs could be lower if project costs decrease.

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

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

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 for bidding Single phase begin construction June 2012 Two years to build schools open Fall 2014 Complete demolition and site work by Summer 2015

If funding is not approved

MSBA requires approval of funding within 120 days of Board Approval expected September 28th State will not hold project funds Begin process over with one school, one project and full feasibility study Lose time, favorable construction market, favorable bond rates Increased costs to maintain failing roofs, windows, MEP systems

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 with campus Maximizes reimbursement

Thank you