Longmeadow High School Project. Public Forum April 08, 2010 LHS Cafeteria

Transcription

1 1

2 Longmeadow High School Project Public Forum April 08, 2010 LHS Cafeteria 2

3 Your School Building Committee* Bobby Barkett, Co-Chair - Select Board Christine Swanson, Co-Chair - School Committee Gwen Bruns - School Committee Peter Greenberg - Finance Committee Robin Crosbie - Town Manager Paul Pasterczyk - Chief Financial Officer Mike Wrabel - Dept of Public Works *As mandated by the MSBA Jahn Hart - Superintendent Larry Berte - LHS Principal Roland Joyal - Community Rep. - Chicopee High Principal Mark Sirulnik - Community Rep. - Architect Danielle Judge - Community Rep. - Engineer Paul Dunkerley - LHS Asst. Principal Richard Bistran - Alternate - Community Rep. & Engineer Ron Hirsch - Alternate - Retired Teacher 3

4 Project Goals and Values Involve all stakeholders Partnership with MSBA, OPM, Architect Maximize MSBA reimbursement Maintain NEASC accreditation Provide facilities that are supportive and accessible to the entire Longmeadow Community 4

5 Project Goals and Values Provide a sustainable, durable and economical solution for Longmeadow Transition from deferred maintenance to proactive maintenance Improve internal and external circulation and safety Support the Teaching and Learning Standards and Requirements for the 21st century through a flexible and adaptable building 5

6 The MSBA Process STEPS COMPLETED Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Step 7: Submit Statement of Interest to MSBA Receive Invitation from MSBA Form School Building Committee per MSBA guidelines Secure Funding for Feasibility Study Select Owner s Project Manager and Architect Feasibility Study Educational Visioning and Community Focus Groups Existing Conditions Analysis User Group Meetings and Space Programming Develop Alternative Approaches Select Preferred Alternative November 18, 2009 MSBA Board Approval to advance Preferred Alternative to Schematic Design Develop Schematic Design for February 12, 2010 submission to MSBA NEXT STEPS Step 8: Finalize scope and budget with MSBA (determine Town Share) Step 9: Town Meeting approval MAY Step 10: Debt Exclusion Vote JUNE Step 11: Complete Design and Construction Documents Step 12: Start Construction 6

7 Kaestle Boos Facility Study JLA/OMR Feasilibity Study Facility Study vs Feasibility Study Cost $25,000 $750,000 Date Completed Process Requested By Use Study completed in 2004 Report Filed with SC January 2005 Update added November 2007 Preliminary assessment of building, highlight deficiencies, code compliance, develop options. Work completed by Kaestle Boos. School Committee- To provide options to address needs. Final long term economical solution recommended was to build new. Provided the basis for the submission of the Statement of Interest Study completed in 2009 Report filed with SBC and MSBA In depth analysis of building and site condition, code deficiencies, educational delivery deficiencies, sustainability concerns and earlier reports. Developed and evaluated options with pros and cons and cost estimates. Analysis completed by 18 consulting firms utilizing 36 professionals/25 on site. MSBA-Mass School Building Authority due to insufficient data provided by Kaestle-Boos to determine long term, economical solution. Final recommendation-partial new and renovation. Provided the level of detail and analysis for the SBC and MSBA to make an informed decision on the LHS building needs and preferred alternative following State mandated guidelines and requirements. Recommended Solution New Construction Renovation/ Addition/ Demolition 7

8 Existing Conditions Building Analysis Basement Level Upper Level Main Level Positive Features Facilities Deficiencies Code Deficiencies Educational Deficiencies Existing core spaces have potential for renovation The 1971 wing is structurally in better shape and has a higher potential for minor renovations Roof is in satisfactory condition Except for the southern practice field, the track and fields are in good condition and drain well Pool systems are in good condition MEP Systems exceed useful life span Technology & Security Infrastructure Lack of energy efficiency Hazardous Materials Ongoing Deferred Maintenance Gymnasium Flooring Use of Basement as Student Space Corridors around PE spaces Structural: Seismic, lateral load, snow load Building Code MEP Codes Life Safety & Sprinklers Accessibility: Building, heights, reach, clearances, hardware, fields Ramps, Stairs & Elevator(s) Locker rooms Title 9 noncompliance Current arrangement of classrooms does not support interdisciplinary teaching and learning Classroom Sizes and Gymnasium space below MSBA Science Facilities outdated and undersized Administrative Control Distances and Adjacencies Existing courtyards unusable Open Classroom Space is underutilized 8

9 Feasibility Study Options Option 1 Renovation Option 2 Varying Degrees of Renovation / Demolition / Addition Option 3 All New Construction Option 4 - No Build 9

10 Common Questions CAN WE JUST RENOVATE? Renovation costs are about 1% more than new construction, largely due to phasing costs - All estimates available in the SD manual, on-line & at Storrs Library A renovation project could take up to 4.5 years vs years for new construction - Less disruption to students/ teachers, programs and community - Eliminates need for temporary trailers (non-reimbursable) New construction is immeasurably safer to students, teachers, and residents The existing building can not support a cost effective, energy efficient mechanical system due to the building envelope, height and structure Approximately 20% reduction in energy costs for new construction compared to the existing building New construction will have a life expectancy of 50 plus years The newest, most cost effective and programmatically appropriate portions of the existing building are being renovated 10

11 Schematic Design Site Plan Existing Russell Field Site Access Athletic Fields To Lockers Existing Town Tennis Courts Existing Football Field & Track Service Site Access Drop-off Main Entrance Parking Service Access District Office LCTV Entry Athletic Fields LCTV Entrance District Office Parking, Entry Car Queue Maintenance and Service Parking New Athletic Field Faculty, Visitor, and Student Parking Bus Queue Site Access Grassy Gutter Road Site Access 11

12 Schematic Design - First Floor Plan CAF LCTV BTC P.E. POOL GYMNASIUM AUDITORIUM MEDIA CTR MAIN OFFICE With control of entrance CORE SPACES For school and community use ACADEMIC WING Classroom clusters SEMINAR SPACES Flexible, open and interactive TEACHER CENTERS Integrated and central ARTS WING Ease of access to core facilities BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY Adjacent to LCTV LOCKER FACILITIES Ease of access to all athletics DISTRICT OFFICES Separate access OPTIONS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION Note: Mechanical space and outdoor storage for maintenance equipment below first floor. 12

13 Schematic Design Second Floor Plan SECOND FLOOR ACADEMIC WING Classroom clusters CONNECTIONS BETWEEN FLOORS Day lighting TEACHER CENTERS Integrated and central APPLIED LEARNING CENTERS One per floor COMPUTER LABS One per floor 13

14 Schematic Design Entrance Elevation 14

15 Schematic Design West Elevation South Elevation 15

16 Schematic Design East Elevation North Elevation 16

17 Schematic Design Day Lighting Monitors Exterior Sunshades Interior Light Shelves Operable Windows Partial South Elevation 17

18 Schematic Design Phasing Plan 1971 Wing Site Utilities Work (Summer 2010) Construction Fence Temporary Parking Existing School Relocate Town Service/Staff Maintenance Dept. Parking Demolish District Offices (Summer 2010) Tree Protection Fence District Office Parking Student/staff parking Temporary District Office Entrance Main Entrance Temporary Service Entrance Phase Existing 1 Preparation Site Prior & Partial to construction Demolition 18

19 Schematic Design Phasing Plan Construction Fence Egress 1971 Wing Renovate 3 Summers Site Utilities Work (Summer 2010) Build New High School ( ) Relocate Town Maintenance dept. Temporary Parking Existing School Demolish District Offices (Summer 2010) Tree Protection Fence Student/staff Parking Temporary District Office Entrance Main Entrance Temporary Service Entrance Phase 2 Construction 19

20 Schematic Design Phasing Plan Construction Fence Construction Fence 1971 Wing Renovate - 3 Summers Build New High School ( ) TEMPORARY PARKING Existing Demolish School Existing School Student/ Staff Parking Temporary District Office Entrance Main Entrance Temporary Service Main Entrance Phase 3 Occupy new, Demolish Existing 20

21 Schematic Design Phasing Plan 1971 Wing Renovate - 3 Summers Build New High School ( ) TEMPORARY New Athletic PARKING Field (Spring 2014) New Parking (Summer 2013) Existing School STUDENT/STA FF PARKING Temporary Service Entrance Phase 4 Parking & Fields 21

22 WHY BUILD NOW? Existing school building is over 50 years old Life expectancy for major systems has been exceeded Common Questions Existing school building does not meet current educational standards New facility will achieve parity with similar neighboring districts School system needs to continue to support home values Project will preserve Longmeadow as a desirable community This will be a state of the art facility for all to use Your State Sales Tax will come back to Longmeadow to address the largest public facility in Town Construction costs are better than they have been in years This high school project will create new jobs in Longmeadow The State is reimbursing Longmeadow up to $34 million, if you build this project now. 22

23 Common Questions WHAT ARE 21 ST CENTURY EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS? (Expectations from MSBA) New larger, energy efficient classrooms Greater flexibility and adaptability as educational delivery continues to develop and change over time Support for information, media and technology skills throughout the facility Classroom clusters with teaching centers and seminar / breakout space for better communication, collaboration and project based learning Modern, larger science facilities clustered with academics 23

24 Total Project Budget Total Project Budget $ 78,452,888 Less MSBA grant exclusions $ (12,857,483) Basis of MSBA Grant $ 65,595,405 Longmeadow Reimbursement Rate 51.84% Base Reimbursement Rate 47.84% Incentive for sustainable design 2.00% Incentive for CM at Risk 1.00% Incentive for Facility Maintenance 1.00% Total MSBA Grant $ 34,004,658 Town Share $ 44,448,230 24

25 Longmeadow Property Tax Impact Estimate The following charts are for illustrative purposes only and are based on a town portion of the high school debt of approximately $44,325,000.* Chart A is based on an average assessed home of $350,000 and assumed rate of 3.5% $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Average $433 Fiscal Year Chart B is based on an average assessed home of $350,000 and assumed rate of 5.0% $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Average $491 25

26 Questions? More info: