illside elementary schoolrwd1.needham.k12.ma.us/userfiles/servers/server_64429/file... · hank...

�

�

HILLSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOWN OF NEEDHAM

NEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS

PREFERRED SCHEMATIC REPORT DECEMBER 1, 2015

260 Merrimac St. Bldg 7, 2nd Flr xNewburyportxMassachusetts

Phone: 978-499-2999 x Fax: 978-499-2944 1795 Williston Road, Suite 5 xSouth Burlingtonx Vermont

Phone: 802.863.1428 x Fax: 802.863.6955 www.doreandwhittier.com

MODULE�3�–�FEASIBILITY�STUDY� TABLE�OF�CONTENTS��Preferred�Schematic�Report� � �HILLSIDE�SCHOOL� � ��

�

Dore�&�Whittier�Architects,�Inc.��Hillside�Elementary�School�� 3.3.0Ͳ1��

TABLE�OF�CONTENTS��TABLE�OF�CONTENTS�AND�ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS� �3.3.0��INTRODUCTION� 3.3.1�

OVERVIEW�OF�PROCESS�� SUMMARY�OF�UPDATED�PROJECT�SCHEDULE� �

(1) �PROJECTED�DATE�OF�MSBA�BOARD�OF�DIRECTORS�MEETING�FOR�PS&B�AGREEMENT�(2) �PROJECTED�DATE�OF�TOWN�VOTE�FOR�PS&B�AGREEMENT�(3) �ANTICIPATED�START�OF�CONSTRUCTION�DATE�(4) �TARGET�MOVEͲIN�DATE�

SUMMARY�OF�FINAL�EVALUATION�OF�EXISTING�CONDITIONS� �SUMMARY�OF�FINAL�EVALUATION�OF�ALTERNATIVES� �SUMMARY�OF�THE�DISTRICT’S�PREFERRED�SOLUTION� �COPY�OF�THE�MSBA�PRELIMINARY�DESIGN�PROGRAM�REVIEW�&�DISTRICT�RESPONSES� ��

EVALUATION�OF�EXISTING�CONDITIONS� 3.3.2�EXISTING�CONDITIONS�UPDATE�

� �FINAL�EVALUATION�OF�ALTERNATIVES� ��3.3.3�

OVERVIEW�OF�ALTERNATIVES�SELECTED�FOR�FURTHER�DEVELOPMENT�&�EVALUATION� �OPTION�A:�BUILDING�REPAIR�OPTION� �OPTION�B:�ADDITIONS�&�RENOVATIONS�TO�THE�EXISTING�HILLSIDE�SCHOOL� �OPTION�C3:�NEW�BUILDING�ON�EXISTING�SITE�WITH�ADDITIONAL�PROPERTY�PURCHASE� �OPTION�E1A:�DEFAZIO�EAST�SITE�KͲ5�SCHOOL� �OPTION�E2A�+�H3:�DEFAZIO�EAST�SITE�G6�SCHOOL�+�ADD�/�RENO�TO�HIGH�ROCK�SCHOOL�FOR�KͲ5� �OPTION�J3:�NEW�KͲ5�SCHOOL�ON�CENTRAL�AVE�SITE� �EVALUATION�CRITERIA�&�SCORING� �SUMMARY�OF�PRELIMINARY�DESIGN�PRICING� ��

� �

TABLE�OF�CONTENTS� MODULE�3�–�FEASIBILITY�STUDY��Preferred�Schematic�Report�HILLSIDE�SCHOOL�

� �

�

3.3.0Ͳ2� Hillside�Elementary�School��Dore�&�Whittier�Architects,�Inc.��

PREFERRED�SOLUTION� �3.3.4��EDUCATIONAL�PROGRAM� �SPACE�SUMMARY� �LEED�V4�SCORECARD�BUILDING�PLANS� �SITE�PLANS� �BUDGET� �SCHEDULE� ��

LOCAL�ACTIONS�&�APPROVALS� ��3.3.5��CERTIFIED�MINUTES�OF�THE�SCHOOL�BUILDING�COMMITTEE� 1�SCHOOL�BUILDING�COMMITTEE�PRESENTATION�MATERIALS� 4�LOCAL�ACTIONS�&�APPROVALS�CERTIFICATION�FORM� 7�COMMUNITY�OUTREACH�AND�OTHER�APPROVALS� 9� ��

APPENDIX� X��DISTRICT�STATEMENT�OF�INTEREST� XͲ01�COPY�OF�BOARD�ACTION�LETTER� XͲ02�CURRICULUM�SUMMARIES� XͲ03�TRAFFIC�STUDY�AND�REPORT� XͲ04�REͲDISTRICTING�AND�WALKABILITY�MAPS�AND�TRANSPORTATION�CHART�� XͲ05�CENTRAL�AVE�SITE�PURCHASE�AND�SALE�AGREEMENT�&�LAND�USE�AGREEMENT� XͲ06�COPY�OF�PROJECT�NOTIFICATION�FORM�FOR�CENTRAL�AVE�SITE� XͲ07�MAJOR�BUILDING�SYSTEMS�FOR�EACH�OPTION� XͲ08��MECHANICAL�� A��ELECTRICAL�� B��PLUMBING�� C��FIRE�PROTECTION�� D�PMC�COST�ESTIMATES�–�UNIFORMAT�II� XͲ09�EDUCATIONAL�PROGRAM� XͲ10��KͲ5�MARKED�UP�EDUCATIONAL�PROGRAM� A��GRADE�6�EDUCATIONAL�PROGRAM�� B��GRADE�6�MARKED�UP�EDUCATIONAL�PROGRAM� C��GRADE�6�SPACE�SUMMARY�DEVIATIONS� D��


�


EXAMPLE�OF�SCHOOL�DAY�SCHEDULES� XͲ11��EXAMPLE�OF�FIRST�GRADE�SCHOOL�DAY�SCHEDULE� A��EXAMPLE�OF�FOURTH�GRADE�SCHOOL�DAY�SCHEDULE� B��INFORMATION�THAT�LED�TO�THE�OVERIDE�FOR�STEAM�PROGRAMMING� XͲ12��INNOVATIONS�AND�EXTENDED�LEARNING�PRESENTATION��FREQUENTLY�ASKED�QUESTIONS�CAPITAL�IMPROVEMENT�PLAN� XͲ13��DEBT�MANAGEMENT�POLICIES� A�WARRANT�ARTICLES��&�DEBT�EXCLUSION�SPREAD�SHEET� XͲ14�WORKING�GROUP�MEETING�MINUTES� XͲ15�SCHOOL�BUILDING�COMMITTEE�(PPBC)�&�SCHOOL�COMMITTEE�MEETING�MINUTES� XͲ16�PRESENTATIONS� XͲ17��

� �

�

�

� �

TABLE�OF�CONTENTS� MODULE�3�–�FEASIBILITY�STUDY��Preferred�Schematic�Report�HILLSIDE�SCHOOL�

� �

�


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS�Needham�Public�Schools�and�Town�of�Needham��

Dore�&�Whittier�Architects,�Inc.�would�like�to�acknowledge�the�following�individuals�for�their�dedication�to�the�Town�of�Needham�and�for�their�assistance�to�the�Design�Team.�

�Town�of�Needham�Administration�Kate�Fitzpatrick,�Town�Manager�David�Davison,�Finance�Director�Steven�Popper,�Director�of�Design�and�Construction�Hank�Haff,�Project�Manager��Charles�Laffey,��Director�of�Facilities��Needham�School�District�Administration�Dr.�Daniel�Gutekanst,�Superintendent�of�Schools��Mary�Lammi,�Director�of�Student�Support�Services�Dr.�Terry�Duggan,�Director�of�Student�Learning�Matthew�Ganas,�Director�of�Special�Education�Anne�Gulati�–�Director�of�Financial�Operations�Michael�Kascak,�Principal�Hillside�Elementary�School��Jessica�Downey,�Principal�High�Rock�School��School�Committee�Connie�Barr,�Chair�Susan�Neckes�Heidi�Black�Michael�Greis��Andrea�Longo�Carter�Kim�Marie�Nicols�Aaron�Pressman��Permanent�Public�Building�Committee�George�Kent,�Chair�Stuart�Chandler�Natasha�Espada�Peter�Schneider�Paul�Salamone�Roy�Schifilliti�Irwin�Silverstein��Board�of�Selectmen�Maurice�Handel,�Chair�Matthew�Borrelli,�Vice�Chair�Marianne�Cooley,�Clerk�Daniel�Matthews�John�Bulian��


�


�Design�Team�

Design�Team:�Architect�Dore�&�Whittier�Architects,�Inc�260�Merrimac�Street��Newburyport,�MA��Civil�Engineering� � � � � � Landscape�Architecture� � � �Nitsch�Engineering� � � � � Copley�Wolff�Design�Group�2�Center�Place� � � � � � 160�Boylston�Street�–�3rd�Floor�Boston,�MA�02116� � � � � Boston,�MA�02116��Structural�Engineer� � � � � Mechanical,�Electrical,�Plumbing�&�Fire�Protection�Engineers�Design�Group,�Inc� � � � Garcia,�Galuska,�DeSousa,�Inc.�350�Main�Street�Floor�2� � � � � 370�Faunce�Corner�Road�Malden,�MA�02148� � � � � Dartmouth,�MA�02747��Data�/�Communications� � � � � Hazardous�Material�EDvance�Technology�Design,�Inc.� � � � Universal�Environmental�3�Summer�Street� � � � � � 12�Brewster�Road� � � �Chelmsford,�MA�01824� � � � � Framingham,�MA�01702��Cost�Estimating� � � � � � Kitchen�/�Food�Service�Consultant�Project�Management�&�Cost� � � � Crabtree�McGrath�Associates,�Inc�59�South�Street� � � � � � 161�West�Main�Street�Hingham,�MA�02043� � � � � Georgetown,�MA�01833��Sustainable�/�Green�Design�/�Renewable�Energy� � �The�Green�Engineer�54�Junction�Square� �Concord,�MA�01742�

MODULE�3�–�FEASIBILITY�STUDY� INTRODUCTION��Preferred�Schematic�Report� �HILLSIDE�SCHOOL��

�


INTRODUCTION��

Purpose�&�Background��On�March�20,�2013�the�Needham�Public�School�District�submitted�a�Statement�of� Interest�(SOI)�to�the�Massachusetts� School� Board� Authority� (MSBA)� for� the� Hillside� Elementary� School.� � The� priorities�outlined�in�the�SOI,�see�Appendix�X.01,�noted�the�“elimination�of�existing�severe�overcrowding”�and�the�“replacement�of�or�addition� to� the�obsolete�building� in�order� to�provide� for�a� full� range�of�programs�consistent�with�state�and�approved� local�requirements”.� �The�educational�goals�for�the�District� include�the�elimination�of�disruptions�and�compromises�to�the�educational�program�caused�by�insufficient�space�and� facility�deficiencies.� � In�August�2014� the�District�was� invited�by� the�MSBA� to�conduct�a� feasibility�study� to� identify� possible� solutions� to� the� issues� noted� in� the� SOI� and� on�March� 10,� 2015� Dore�&�Whittier�Architects�was�awarded�the�study�by�the�MSBA�Designer�Selection�Panel.��A�copy�of�the�Board�Action� letter� from� the�MSBA�Board�of�Directors� to� the�District�approving� the�Feasibility�Study�can�be�found�in�Appendix�X.02�of�this�report.��The�Feasibility�Study�includes�this�submission�of�the�Preliminary�Design�Program�(PDP)�and�the�Preferred�Schematic�Report�(PSR).��The� purpose� of� the� Preferred� Schematic� Report� is� to� summarize� the� process� and� conclusions� of� the�Preliminary� and� Final� Evaluation� of� Alternatives� and� to� substantiate� and� document� the� District’s�selection� and� recommendation� of� a� preferred� solution.� � This� report� address� the� comments� and�questions� raised�by� the�MSBA�during� its� review�of� the�Preliminary�Design�Program�and� identifies� the�changes�incorporated�by�the�District,�additional�information�and�discoveries�made�since�the�submission�of�the�PDP,�and�further�evaluations�and�considerations�of�the�committee(s).��

Overview�of�the�Process��The�Preliminary�Design�Program� (PDP)�was�accepted�by� the�Town�of�Needham�Permanent�Public�Building�Committee�(PPBC),�acting�as�the�School�Building�Committee�for�this�project,�on�August�24,�2015�and�was�submitted�by�the�Town�of�Needham�Public�Facilities�Department,�acting�as�the�OPM,�to�the�MSBA�on�September�3,�2015.��The�PDP�outlined�the�multiple�options�developed�for�both�a�KͲ5� school�and�a�Grade�6� School�and� identified� several�potential�building� sites.� �The�opportunities�and�constraints�of�each�option�and� the�process�of�evaluation�were�outlined� in� the�PDP.� �The�PDP�concluded�with�six�alternatives�to�be�considered�for�further�evaluation� in�the�Preferred�Schematic�Report�(PSR).��Those�alternatives�were:�

INTRODUCTION� � MODULE�3�–�FEASIBILITY�STUDY��Preferred�Schematic�Report� �

� ��HILLSIDE�SCHOOL��

�


�x Option�A:�Repair�/�Code�Upgrades�Only�to�Existing�Building�for�KͲ5;��x Option�B1:�Additions�/�Renovations�to�Existing�Building�for�KͲ5;�x Option�C3:�New�Building�on�Existing�Site�+�Purchase�of�Adjacent�Property�KͲ5;�x Option�E1a:�New�Building�on�DeFazio�Park�Site�for�KͲ5;�x Option�E2a�+�H3�:�New�Building�on�DeFazio�for�Grade�6�+�Additions�/�Renovations�to�

High�Rock�School�for�KͲ5�and;�x Option�J3:�New�Building�on�Central�Site�(new�purchase)�for�KͲ5.�

�The�MSBA�reviewed�the�PDP�submittal�and�returned�comments�to�the�Needham�Town�Manager�on�Thursday� October� 8,� 2015.� � Many� of� the� questions� and� comments� noted� in� the� review� were�centered� on� the� Educational� Program� for� both� the� KͲ5� and� the� Grade� 6� School.� � On�Monday�October�12,�2015� the�Dore�&�Whittier� team�met�with� the�Town�of�Needham�Director�of�Student�Learning,�the�Student�Support�Services�Director,�the�Director�of�Financial�Operations�for�Needham�Public�Schools,�and�the�OPM�to�review�the�MSBA�Comments�and�to�participate�in�a�conference�call�with� the�MSBA.� �During� the� conference�call� it�was�noted� that� responses� to� the�MSBA�Comments�should�be�delivered� in�two�separate�submissions.� �The�first�submission�was� is�to�be�delivered� in�a�timely�manner� contingent�upon� the� review� time�needed�by� the�Superintendent�of� Schools.� �This�report� was� to� include� responses� to� all� questions� and� comments� except� those� associated� with�Section�3.1.2�Educational�Program,�and�3.1.3� Initial�Space�Summary.�This� report�was�delivered� to�the�MSBA�on�October�29,�2015.� �A�copy�of�that�submission,�“Response�to�MSBA�PDP�Comments”,�follows� this� Introduction� section� and� includes� the� MSBA� Preliminary� Design� Program� Review�Comments.��The� second� submission� was� to� be� included� within� this� Preferred� Schematic� Report.� The� final�responses� to� the� Comments� have� been� incorporated� into� the� Educational� Program� and� Space�Summary� section,� and� in� the� development� of� the� Preferred� Solution.� �A�marked� up� copy� of� the�revised�KͲ5�Educational�Program� is� located� in�Appendix�XͲ10A.� �Final�and�marked�up�copies�of�the�Grade� 6� School� Educational� Program� and� the� revised� Grade� 6� Space� Summary� are� provided� in�Appendix� XͲ10B� and� XͲ10C� respectfully.� � To� complete� the� District’s� response� to� the�MSBA� PDP�Comments� an� associated� narrative� describing� the� deviations� from� the�MSBA� guidelines� for� the�Grade�6�School� is�provided� in�Appendix�XͲ10D.� �The� final�Education�Program�and�Space�Summary�for�the�KͲ5�School�can�be�found�in�Section�3.3.4�of�this�PSR�document.�This�final�Education�Program�and�Space�Summary�were�used�in�the�development�of�the�Preferred�Option�for�the�KͲ5�school.��The� PSR� process� included� several� meetings,� communications,� and� presentations� with� the�committees,�subͲcommittees,�and�key�decision�makers� for� this�project.� �The�Educational�Working�Group�met� and� communicated� several� times� to� refine� the� Educational� Program� and� the� Space�Summary.� �The�results�of�their�work�can�be�found� in�the�Preferred�Solution�section�of�this�report.��


�


Their� efforts� were� incorporated� into� the� Space� Summary� and� proposed� building� plan� and�presented�to�the�PPBC�and�School�Committee�for�approval�on�November�16�and�17�respectfully.��A�Sustainable�Design�SubͲCommittee�was�formed� in�early�October�and� includes�two�members�of�the�PPBC,�the�Town�Facility�Manager,�the�Director�of�Design�and�Construction,�and�the�Town’s�Project�Manager.� � The� Design� Team,� including� the� Sustainable� Design� Consultant� and� the� MEP/FP�Consultant�met�with�this�group�on�two�occasions�to�discuss�sustainability�requirements,�programs,�and� design� decisions� that� will� be� needed� to� reach� the� District’s� goals.� � The� subͲcommittee�recommended�to�the�PPBC�that�the�project�follow�LEED�V4�guidelines�and�establish�a�goal�of�LEED�Silver� for� the�project.� �The�PPBC�voted� to�accept� this�direction�and� to�pursue� the�additional� two�percentage� points� available� from� the� MSBA.� � A� copy� of� the� preliminary� LEED� Scorecard� and�Certificate�Letter� from� the�Designer�can�be� found� in�Section�3.3.4� ‘Preferred�Solution’.�Schedules�and�cost�were�updated�throughout�the�PSR�phase�to� include�changes�based�on� information�noted�above,� and� from� additional� investigations� of� the� building� site� options.� � The� ‘Summary� of�Preliminary� Design� Pricing’� can� be� found� in� Section� 3.3.3� Final� Evaluation� of� Alternatives� and�backup�costs�are�included�in�the�Appendix.�

�Summary�of�Updated�Project�Schedule��

1) Projected�Date�of�MSBA�Board�of�Directors�� Meeting�for�Project�Scope�&�Budget�(PS&B)�Agreement�� July�27,�2016�2) Projected�Date�of�Town�Vote�for�PS&B�Agreement�

�� Special�Town�Meeting�/Ballot� � � � � November�2016�3) Anticipated�Start�of�Construction�Date� � � � May�2018��4) Target�Move�In�Date�Ͳ�School�Opens�� September�2020�

�

Summary�of�Final�Evaluation�of�Existing�Conditions��As�part�of� the�Preferred�Schematic�Report� the� team�has� continued� to� study�each�of� the�existing�proposed� project� sites� and�building� options� noted� in� the�Alternatives� above.� �Additional� studies�and�changes�to�previously�submitted�information�include:��

Hillside�School�Site�–�Alternative�C3:�This�option�proposed�the�purchase�of�three��adjacent�parcels� of� land� on� the� north� side� of� the� existing� site.� � The� purchase� of� these� parcels�provided� the� space� needed� for� a� new� school,� outdoor� play� space,� and� adequate� parking�and� site� circulation�within� the� constraints� of�wetland� boundaries,� utility� easement,� and�steep� grade� of� the�hill.� � In�October� 2015� it�became� clear� to� the� Town� that�not� all� three�parcels�of� land�were�available�for�purchase.� �The�Town�has�opted�not�to�pursue�the�taking�of�the�land,�thereby�making�Alternative�C3�unachievable.��



�


�Central�Ave� Site� –�Alternative� J3:�A� traffic� study�was� conducted�by�Nitsch� Engineering� in�September� 2015� to� assess� the� impact� on� traffic� if� a� school� were� to� be� located� on� the�proposed�Central�Ave�site.��School�related�traffic�data�was�collected�at�the�existing�Hillside�School�and�applied� to� the�existing� traffic�data�collected�at� the�Central�Ave�site.� �The�data�indicated� that� the� Hillside� School� at� Central� Ave� would� result� in� approximately� 202�additional� entering� and� exiting� trips� during� the� weekday� morning� dropͲoff,� and�approximately� 196� additional� entering� and� existing� trips� in� the� afternoon� pick� up.� � This�increase� in� traffic�would�occur�between�7:00�am�and�8:00�am�and�between�2:30�pm�and�3:30� pm� with� the� bulk� of� the� traffic� occurring� over� a� fifteen�minute� time� period.� � The�proposed� location� for�entering�and�exiting� the� site�was� reviewed�with�Town�officials�and�studied�as�part�of� the� traffic�analysis.� �This�proposed� location�at� the� southern�end�of� the�site� provided�more� than� one� and� a� half� (1� ½)� times� the� ‘stopping� site� distance’� in� the�northbound�direction�and�more�than�two�(2)�times�the�stopping�site�distance�on�the�south�bound� direction.� � The� proposed� entrance� /� exit� location� also� exceeds� the� minimum�intersection� site� distance� looking� in� both� the� right� and� left� directions.� To�mitigate� the�impact� on� offͲsite� intersections� Nitsch� Engineering� recommended� that�minor� geometric�improvements� and� signal� optimization� may� be� necessary.� � Traffic� mitigation�recommendations�include:��

x Designate� the� area� as� a� School� Zone� under� State� and� local� statute,� and�installing�the�appropriate�School�Zone�signs;�

x ��Improve�pedestrian�experience�along�Central�Avenue� including� improving�the� sidewalks�on�both� sides�of� the� roadway� to�accommodate� safe�walk� to�school;� and� providing� advanced� warning� signing� of� school� entering� and�exiting�traffic;�

x ��Install�an�ADA�accessible�crosswalk;�x ��Increase�safety�awareness�through�parent�outreach�programs.��

�A�full�copy�of�the�Traffic�Report�is�included�in�Appendix�X.04�of�this�report.��

� �Other� investigative�work�on� the�Central�Ave�site� includes�a� full� topographic�site�survey� to�locate� the� Town� accepted� Flood� Plain,� elevation� 85,� and� to� compare� this� line� with� the�FEMA�Flood�Zone�A,�and�as�a�design�base�for�the�proposed�building.��The�Town�is�currently�working� with� Nitsch� Engineering� to� create� a� Letter� of� Mapping� Amendment� (LOMA),�requesting� that� FEMA� accept� elevation� 85� as� the� Flood� Line� for� the� National� Flood�Insurance�Program�Map.��This�work�began�in�November,�2015�and�will�take�several�months�to�complete.��


�


LEC�Environmental,�the�Project’s�Wetlands�consultant�has�marked�the�wetland�boundaries�and�walked� the� site�with� the� Town’s� Conservation� Commissioner;� additional� flagging� of�wetlands�was� completed� in� the�month�of�November�and�will�be�added� to� the� completed�site�survey.��A� geo� environmental� report�was� submitted� to� the�MSBA� as� part� of� the� PDP� submission.��The� PPBC� has� approved� further� funds� to� conduct� additional� testing� of� soils� and� ground�water,� to� complete� the� interview� and� research� process� to� complete� a� robust� Phase� I�environmental� study.� � Hazardous�material� evaluation� and� testing� will� be� conducted� for�each� of� the� existing� structures� on� the� Central� Ave� property� including� the� residential�buildings,� retail� facility,� and� existing� storage� and� barn� facilities.� � This� work� will� be�completed�midͲDecember�with� test� results�available� in�early� January�2016,�as�part�of� the�due� diligence� investigation� prior� to� closing� on� the� property.� � The� Town� has� signed� a�Purchase�and�Sale�Agreement�(P&S)�with�a�closing�date�on�or�before�March�1,�2016,�a�copy�of�this�document�can�be�found�in�Appendix�XͲ06.��DeFazio� Site� and� High� Rock� Sites� –� The� Town� conducted� a� redistricting� analysis� to�understand�the�DistrictͲwide� impact�of�a�KͲ5�school� located�at�either�the�DeFazio�Park�site�or�at� the�High�Rock�School,� the�existing�Grade�6�School.� �Unlike� the�Central�Ave�site�both�the� DeFazio� Park� and� High� Rock� School� locations� are� outside� of� the� existing� Hillside�catchment� area� and�would� require� substantial� redistricting� of� the� Hillside� and� Newman�School� catchment� areas.� � The� DeFazio� site� is� located� in� the� Broadmeadow� School�catchment�area�and� the�High�Rock�School� is�currently� in� the�Newman�School�district.�The�two�maps�below� show� the� current�districting�and� the�proposed� redistricting� for� the�High�Rock�or�DeFazio�building�options.� �Walk�ability�maps�and�a�bus�transportation�analysis�was�also�developed�for�these�sites.��Additional�information�can�be�found�in�Appendix�X.05.��

��

� �



�


Summary�of�Final�Evaluation�of�Alternatives��The� School� Committee� and� Permanent� Public� Building� Committee� recommended� the� previously�noted�six�alternatives� for� further�development� in� the�Preferred�Schematic�Report.� �These�options�proposed�three�different�building�sites�(Existing�Site,�DeFazio�Park�Site,�Central�Ave.�Site),�and�two�different�educational�programs�(KͲ5�school�for�430�students�and�Grade�6�school�for�445�students).��As�a� result�of� feedback� from� the�public�and� the�Hillside�School�community� in�particular,� the� final�evaluation�of�Alternatives� included�adjustments�to�the�original�score�sheet�to�give�more�weight�to�the�issue�of�redistricting.�In�the�PDP�Evaluation�Chart�/�scorecard�‘Redistricting’�was�a�subͲcategory�of� ‘Site� Location’.� � The� ‘Site� Location’� category� had� seven� (7)� subͲcategories� and�was�weighted�value�of�20�points.��The�revised�Evaluation�Chart�allowed�‘Redistricting’�to�be�a�full�category�with�a�weighted�value�of�10�points.� � ‘Site�Location’�and� the� remaining�six� (6)�categories�were� revised� to�have�a�weighted�value�of�10�points.��Other�revisions�to�the�score�sheet�include�the�addition�of�the�subͲcategory� ‘Off� Site� Traffic� Impact’� to� the� ‘Site� Circulation’� category� creating� six� (6)� subͲcategories�under� that�heading�with�a�weighted�value�of� ten� (10)�points.� �Additionally� the� revised�Evaluation�Chart�includes�the�completion�of�all�cost�items�and�a�full�scoring�of�those�line�items�and�the� revision� to� the� subͲcategory� ‘Cost� to�Maintain�Hillside’�which� now� reads� ‘Residual� Value� vs�Cost’�to�be�more�reflective�of�the�intent�of�that�subͲcategory.��The�following�is�a�summary�of�the�revised�Evaluation�Chart�found�on�pg�3.3.1Ͳ9.��The�chart�includes�only� Alternatives� C3� –� J3� as� options� A� and� B1� were� removed� from� further� consideration� on�September�21,�2015.��Both�the�A�and�B1�options�did�not�address�the�site�and�educational�program�goals�outlined�by� the�District.� �The�weight�of�each� category� in� the�matrix� is�noted� in� the� far� left�column�with� ‘Education’�and� ‘Cost’�receiving�the�highest�weight�of�30�points�each.� �There�are�two�Site�Location�categories,�‘2a)�Site�Location’�is�specifically�for�reͲdistricting,�receiving�10�points,�and�‘2)� Site� Location’�which� includes�walkability� to� the� site,� swing� space� requirements,� scale� of� the�building� to� surroundings,� difficulty� to� permit,� environmental� conditions,� and� if� the� property�needed� to� be� purchased.� � This� category� received� a�weight� of� 10� points� as�well.� � Category� Site�Circulation� /�Traffic� Impact� includes� the�ability� to�meet� the�parking� requirements� for� the� school,�ability�to�separate�bus�and�parent�traffic,�provide�safe�pedestrian�access�to�the�school�site,�provide�dedicated� delivery� /� service� area,� and� the� impact� on� offͲsite� traffic.� � This� category� was� also�weighted�at�10�points.� �The�Site�Amenities�category,�also�weighted�at�10�points,� includes�meeting�the�district�goals� for�outdoor�play�space.� �The� final�category� involved� the� total�cost,�project�cost,�value,�and�the�time�to�completion.��This�category�was�weighted�at�30�points.��Each�sub�category�was�scored�on�a�scale�of�1Ͳ5�with�5�being�of�the�greatest�value.�The�total�of�the�subͲcategories�were�then�multiplied�by�the�weight�of�the�category�and�a�subͲtotal�was�given�prior�to� the� introduction� of� project� cost� to� assure� that� Education� had� the� greatest� influence� on� the�


�


decision�making�process.��The�J3�Alternative�scored�the�highest�in�both�the�subͲtotal�(prior�to�the�addition�of�cost)�and� the�grand� total� (after� the�consideration�of�cost).� �The�C3�Alternative�scored�the� lowest� in�both�the�subͲtotal�and�grand�total� indicating�that�cost�had�an� influence�only�on�the�second�and� third�place�alternatives.� �The�E1a�Alternative� involved�a�single�school�solution,�where�the�E2a�+�H3�Alternative�required�the�construction�of�a�new�Grade�6�school�and�the�renovation�of�the� existing� High� Rock� School� for� KͲ5.� � When� viewed� separately� the� KͲ5� school� at� High� Rock�received�a� lower�score� than�any�of� the�other�KͲ5�alternatives�and�was� therefore�viewed�as�a� less�desirable�solution�than�a�new�school�for�KͲ5.��A�general�evaluation�of�the�proposed�options�is�outlined�below.��

x Option�A:�Repair�/�Code�Upgrades�Only�to�Existing�Building�for�KͲ5�o Determination� that� this� option� does� not� meet� the� educational� program�

needs� and� goals� outlined� in� the� PDP.� � This� option� was� eliminated� from�further�evaluation�by�a� vote� from� the�PPBC�and� the�School�Committee�on�September�21,�2015��

x Option�B1:�Additions�/�Renovations�to�Existing�Building�for�KͲ5�o Determination�that�although�this�option�met�the�educational�goals�outlined�

in� the�PDP� the� “renovation�of� the� existing�building”�was� limited� to�only� a�small�portion�of� the�building� (the�gym,�cafeteria,�and�existing�kindergarten�classrooms)� but� the� location� and� design� of� the� existing� area� dictated� the�design�and�cost�of�the�new�addition�as�well�as�the�site�development�to�the�extent�that�the�value�for�this�option�was�not�equal�to�the�cost.� �This�option�was�eliminated�from�further�consideration�by�a�vote�from�the�PPBC�and�the�School�Committee�September�21,�2015.��

x Option�C3:�New�KͲ5�School�on�Existing�Site�+�Purchase�of�Adjacent�Property��o This�option�remained�under�consideration� through� the�evaluation�phase�of�

the�PSR�and�scored�in�the�midͲrange�of�the�alternatives.�However;�once�the�determination� that� not� all� of� the� adjacent� properties� were� available� for�purchase� (see� meeting� minutes� dated� October� 6,� 2015)� this� option� was�rendered�unobtainable.��

x Option�E1a:�New�Building�on�DeFazio�Park�Site�for�KͲ5�o This� option� received� the� second� highest� score� in� the� Evaluation� Criteria�

Matrix� for� the� KͲ5� schools.� � However� the� redistricting� analysis� and�maps�that�were�developed�to�study�the�impact�of�locating�a�KͲ5�school�outside�of�a�neighborhood,�reducing�walkability,�showed�that�this�option�was�the�least�



�


desirable�location�for�a�KͲ5�school�based�on�the�‘redistrict’�criteria.�A�review�of� the�onsite�circulation,� impact� to�DPW� facilities�and�potential� scheduling�conflicts�between�the�school�and�the�sports�park�program�use�also�reduced�the�desirability�of� this� site.� � In� general� this� site�was� considered� second� to�the� Preferred� Option� and� scored� (overall)� the� second� highest� of� the� KͲ5�schools�in�both�the�SubͲtotal�and�in�the�Grand�Total.��

x Option�E2a�+�H3�:�New�Building�on�DeFazio�for�Grade�6�+�Additions�/�Renovations�to�High�Rock�School�for�KͲ5�

o The�School�Committee�determined�that�the�compromises�required�for�a�KͲ5�school� to�be� located�at� the�existing�High�Rock�School� (option�H3)�were�not�in� line�with� the�needs�and�goals�outlined� in� the�PDP� for�a�KͲ5�school.� �This�option,� which� scored� the� lowest� of� the� KͲ5� schools,� was� removed� from�additional�consideration�on�Oct.�6,�2015.��

x Option�J3:�New�Building�on�Central�Site�(new�purchase)�for�KͲ5�o A�new�school�on�the�Central�Ave�site�met�both�the�educational�and�program�

needs� and� goals� outlined� in� the� PDP,� additionally� the� school� would� be�located� in� the� current� Hillside� School� district� eliminating� or� reducing� the�number�of�students�/�families�that�would�be�need�to�be�redistricted.��Traffic�and� outdoor� play� space� remained� an� onͲgoing� consideration� for� this� site�and�will� be� addressed� as� part� of� the� development� of� the� project� and� site�design.�

��


�


��

�



�


Summary�of�District’s�Preferred�Solution��Ultimately� the� J3� Alternative,� a� new� KͲ5� school� on� the� Central� Ave� site,� was� selected� as� the�Preferred� Solution.� � This�option� allows� the�District� to� construct� a�new� school�within� the�Hillside�School� district,� eliminates� the� need� to� for� swing� space� and� the� relocation� of� students� during�construction,� and� satisfies� the� educational� and� site� program� needs� of� the� community.�Multiple�iterations�of�the�Central�Ave�site�plan�were�studied�to�confirm�that�the�fiveͲacre�buildable�portion�of� the� Central� Avenue� site� was� sufficient� to� meet� the� needs� of� an� elementary� school.� � The�Needham� Town�Manger� is� in� the� process� of� finalizing� a� License� Agreement� with� the� Town� of�Wellesley,�whose�land�boarders�the�west�side�of�the�Central�Ave�site,�for�the�use�of�abutting�lands�as� playing� field� and� a� nature� trail� to� supplement� the� play� space� and� outdoor� learning� area�associated�with� the� school.� � This�Option�was� selected� by� the� School� Committee� on�October� 20,�2015�by�unanimous�vote.��

Summary�of�Local�Approval�Process��The�process�undertaken�to�arrive�at�the�Preferred�Solution�included�a�joint�meeting�with�the�PPBC�and� School� Committee� on� September� 21,� 2015� to� remove� A1� and� B1� options� from� further�consideration.��On�Oct.�6,�2015�the�joint�committees�voted�to�remove�Alternative�C3�and�E2a�+�H3�from� further� consideration� based� on� the� information� noted� in� the� Summary� of� Evaluation� of�Alternatives.� �With� only� two� viable� options� remaining� the� PPBC� voted� on� October� 19,� 2015� to�support� the� School� Committee� in� their� decision� of� either� alternative.� On�October� 20,� 2015� the�School�Committee�voted� to�recommend�Alternative� J3c,�a�new�school�at� the�Central�Avenue�site,�as�the�Preferred�Alternative.��Needham� Finance�Committee�met�Oct� 21,� 2015� to� recommend� the� purchase�of� the�Central�Ave�property� for� the�use�of� a�new� school� and� this�was� supported�by� Special� Town�Meeting�Vote�on�November�2,�2015�with�more�than�two�thirds�(2/3)�majority�approval�of�Warrant�Article�13.��The�Preferred�Schematic�Report�(PSR)�was�approved�and�authorized�for�submission�to�the�MSBA�by�the�PPBC�on�November�16,�2015�by�the�School�Committee�on�November�17,�2015�and�by�the�Board�of�Selectman�on�November�24,�2015.�The�report�was�submitted�on�December�1,�2015.��

HILLSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOWN OF NEEDHAM

NEEDHAM, MASSACHUSETTS

RESPONSE TO MSBA PDP COMMENTS OCTOBER 29, 2015

260 Merrimac St. Bldg 7, 2nd Flr NewburyportMassachusetts

Phone: 978-499-2999 Fax: 978-499-2944 1795 Williston Road, Suite 5 South Burlington Vermont

Phone: 802.863.1428 Fax: 802.863.6955 www.doreandwhittier.com

Dore & Whittier Architects, Inc. Hillside Elementary School 1

Response to MSBA Module 3 PDP Review Comments HILLSIDE SCHOOL NEEDHAM, MA

October 29, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1.1 Introduction 3 3.1.2 Educational Program 3 3.1.3 Initial Space Summary 4 3.1.4 Evaluation of Existing Conditions 4 3.1.5 Site Development Requirements 8 3.1.6 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives 8 X Appendix to Include 10 Appendices Capital Improvement Request X-A Updated Schedule X-B Initial Evaluation of Building Code Compliance for the Existing Facility X-C Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Suitability Assessment X-D Site Plans X-E Redisticting maps and charts X-F


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


3.1.1 Introduction

Narrative summary of the Capital Budget Statement and Target Budget for the proposed project – Not provided. The submittal indicates that a copy of the Town Estimated Debt Service with Facilities Master Plan Projects from Volume 3 of the 2014 Needham Facilities Master Plan is included, however a copy was not provided. Please provide. Additionally, please indicate the District’s Target budget for the proposed project.

The most current information that the Town has for budgeting purposes is the Capital Improvement Plan. This information is being attached in place of the information noted in the 2014 Facilities Master Plan; the District Master Plan is available on the Town website. The District’s target budget for the project represents a range from $13.1 million (representing the “CIP Option”) to $89.5 million (representing the C3 Option, plus temporary school at DeFazio Park.) The budget detail is presented in the attached requested School Department Capital Improvement Requests for FY17-21 (see Appendix A), representing the following program options for Hillside School:

Option A, CIP Option, renovation of existing Hillside School Option B1, addition/renovation to existing Hillside School Option C3, new construction on the existing Hillside Site Option E1A, a new elementary school at the East DeFazio site, Option E2A, a new Grade 6 School at DeFazio, Option H3, renovation of High Rock as an elementary school, Option J3, a new elementary school at the Central Avenue site, and Swing Space at DeFazio Park for Options A-C.

Program cost will be evaluated as part of the overall process to select the District’s preferred site. The Evaluation Matrix (Appendix A) included in the PDP was developed and utilized by the District to assist with the selection of the preferred Alternative. The matrix assigns a weight of 30 points to Project Cost.

3.1.2 Educational Program

Per discussions with the MSBA on October 13, 2015 the Educational Program comments will be included in the PSR submission to the MSBA.


3.1.3 Initial Space Summary

Per discussions with the MSBA on October 13, 2015 the revisions to the Space Summary will be updated and included in the PSR submission to the MSBA.

3.1.4 Evaluation of Existing Conditions

Determination that the property is available for development – The submittal indicates that work on each site may trigger various permitting requirements. For required permits and / or variances, please incorporate a general timeline associated with the application and approval process into the project work plan and schedule as applicable.

The preferred site will require permit approvals from the Town of Needham Planning Board, Design Review Board, and Conservation Commission. The design team has already had informal meetings with the Planning Board and Conservation Commission to inform them of the potential sites being reviewed during the PDP stage of design. The Design team will return to these permitting bodies early in the Schematic Design and Design Development phase to seek informal comments from each of these permitting bodies. Their comments will be addressed during the design phases of the project so that when the project is submitted for the formal permits the Board and Commission will be familiar with the project, facilitating approvals. Since the submission of the PDP, the Central Ave site has been selected as the preferred site. One additional step in the permitting process has been added as a result of the detailed site survey information. A letter of Map Agreement (LOMA) plan is being prepared for submittal to FEMA so that the FEMA Zone A Flood Zone can be made coincident with the Town of Needham Flood Plain at Elevation 85. This LOMA process has been reviewed and supported by the Town Engineer. There have been multiple LOMA filings within the Town over the past couple years. Acceptance is likely and it should facilitate one aspect of the project permitting. A PSR stage Project Permitting Schedule is attached (Appendix B) showing the general timeline and approach to project permitting. The reviewing boards publish their meeting schedule six to twelve months in advance so the actual public meeting dates will need to be confirmed as the project moves forward. Submission packages for the informal meetings are required two weeks in advance of the respective meetings. Submission packages for the formal meetings are required four weeks in advance of the meetings so that formal notice to abutters and advertisement in the local newspapers can occur prior to the public hearing. The formal decision from the Board is often reviewed and approved at their next meeting, following the public hearing. The permitting process can therefore take 60 to 90 days. By


initiating the permitting process after 60% Construction Documents, the Planning Board Decision and the Conservation Commission Order of Conditions can be integrated into the Bid Documents, limiting any change orders that might arise from added scope required by these local permits.

Existing historically significant features (if applicable) and any related effect on the project design and / or schedule – The MSBA notes that the District reported that the Hillside School is not listed as historic with either the State or the National Register of Historic Places. Please determine if any other properties impacted by the potential project are registered. Please confirm that, upon selection of a preferred option, the District will be submitting a Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical Commission in conformance with Massachusetts General Law 950, CMR 71.00

The District confirms that the properties under consideration for the potential development of a new school are not listed as historic with either the State or National Register of Historic Places. The District will be submitting a Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical Commission in conformance with Massachusetts General Law 950, CMR 71.00

Initial Evaluation of building code compliance for the existing facility – Code compliance is presented in the individual existing building system descriptions, however an overall code compliance was not provided. Please provide a narrative summarizing these deficiencies.

An “Initial Evaluation of Building Code Compliance for the Existing Facility” is included in Appendix C


Preliminary evaluation of significant structural, environmental, geotechnical, or other physical conditions that may impact the cost and evaluations of alternatives. – The HVAC Assessment and Evaluations of Site conditions indicated that there is an existing underground fuel oil storage tank at the site. Please note that all costs associated with the removal of fuel storage tanks as well as any necessary soil remediation are categorically ineligible for MSBA reimbursement.

The Design Team and the District acknowledges the current policies associated with MSBA participation in the abatement and removal of hazardous materials including fuel storage tanks. Both the Design Team and the District have read and understood the following from the MSBA’s policy statement on SITE COST ALLOWANCE GUIDANCE:

Pursuant to 963 CMR 2.16 (5), all costs associated with the demolition of buildings are ineligible for reimbursement, unless such costs are deemed by the MSBA, in writing prior to said demolition, to be the most costs effective and educationally sound option. In certain circumstances, the MSBA may allow for an additional itemized allowance for building demolition and/or abatement to be in addition to the 8% site allowance, as determined by the MSBA and explicitly agreed upon in the Project Scope and Budget Agreement. In order to be deemed to be eligible for reimbursement for building demolition, building abatement, or both building demolition and abatement within a building project, the MSBA may reimburse a community for a portion of the costs of building demolition and abatement only if: (i) the agreement is written in the Project Scope and Budget Agreement; (ii) the MSBA determines that the specific plan for building demolition and/or building abatement is necessary to complete the agreed-upon project scope; (iii) the building demolition and/or building abatement requested is not the result of a lack of routine capital investment or maintenance by the district, and (iv) the building demolition and/or building abatement is the most cost effective and educationally sound option. This policy only applies to the school facility itself, and applies only to the removal of hazardous materials within a building, as defined in the Project Scope and Budget Agreement. In order for the MSBA to consider any potential reimbursement for building demolition or abatement to be included in a Project Scope and Budget Agreement, the Eligible Applicant who is seeking approval of a portion of demolition and building abatement costs must submit a written description of: (1) a detailed scope of work, cost estimate, budget and schedule for any proposed demolition, abatement, or both, for which approval is sought;


(2) an assessment done by a registered professional on the type, amount, costs and schedule of abating hazardous materials contained within the building; (3) a written description of the local decision making process that resulted in the decision to demolish an existing school facility, including minutes of meetings and votes of the appropriate local governing bodies, a detailed listing and description of other possible uses/reuses of the existing facility (e.g. continued use as an educational facility, or use as community space), and the reasons why demolition is the highest and best use of that facility; (3) a vote of the local governing body approving any substantial demolition of a school building; (4) any other information, reports or materials that may be requested by the MSBA to make a determination that demolition of the exiting school facility is the most cost effective and educationally sound alternative.

Environmental site assessments minimally consisting of a Phase I: Initial Site Investigation performed by a licensed site professional – Please confirm that a complete Phase I: Initial Site Investigation has been completed at each potential site.

For each site under consideration a licensed site professional has conducted a review of existing geotechnical engineering reports, Phase I Environmental Assessments and reports and studies performed pursuant to the Massachusetts Contingency Plans; and reviewed USGS surficial geologic and historical topographic maps and USDA soil surveys. The Hillside School is currently in Phase IV of an environmental remedy implication plan (RIP); a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the DeFazio Park site was completed in 1999. This DeFazio site is owned by the Town and no release of oil or hazardous material has been reported for this site. A subsurface investigation at the Central Avenue site was conducted as part of the PDP report, as there was no subsurface information available for that site. Limited environmental due diligence indicates that there has not been a release of oil or hazardous material to soil and groundwater at the Central Ave site A copy of the report was included in the PDP submittal in Appendix X.10. An updated report and the 1999 DeFazio report are included with this submittal in Appendix D. Water and soil testing at Central Ave site, as well as interviews with owners and government officials are currently being conducted. Results of the testing will be made available to the MSBA upon completion of the report.


3.1.5 Site Development Requirements

Existing site plan(s) including the following features – Although the submittal provides narratives and shows some of the following features on the full size plans, a comprehensive existing site plan was not provided. Please provide site plans in 11x17 format that clearly identify the following features for each prospective site:

o Structures and fences; o Site access and circulation; o Parking and paving; o Code requirements; o Zoning setbacks and limitations; o Accessibility requirements; o Easements; o Wetlands and/or flood restrictions; o Emergency vehicle access; o Utilities; o Athletic field and outdoor educational spaces; and o Site orientation and other location considerations.

11x17 and full size copies of the Hillside School existing site, the High Rock School existing site, the DeFazio East existing site and an updated survey of the proposed Central Ave site are include with this submittal in Appendix X-E.

3.1.6 Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives

The Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives should include a detailed analysis of compliance with district objectives for each of the following:

o Analysis of school district school assignment practices and available space in

other schools in the district; - See comment above. For options that require redistricting, please describe how this process will occur, how catchment areas will be determined, and any local approvals that will be required.

The process of formally redistricting children to a Hillside School constructed on an alternate site will begin after the Preferred Site is selected and a project funding agreement is executed with MSBA.


In the interim, the District has conducted a preliminary redistricting impact analysis of constructing an elementary school on an alternate site. The results of this analysis are attached (Appendix F) and have been folded into the Evaluation Matrix (with an assigned weight of 10 points) for preferred site selection. The study methods are summarized below. The analysis used student data for the 2014-15 school year to examine the impact of eliminating the current Hillside School and either converting the High Rock Grade 6 School to an elementary school, or building a new elementary school at the Defazio or Central Avenue sites. The 2014-15 school year data was broken down into theoretical K-5 student groups, to simulate historical data based on the current student population. Enrollment data has proven to be more reliable than census data and has additional attributes indicating school attendance inside or outside of Needham. Student location density and patterns of private school attendance were critical in creating this first draft of district lines. Five different K-5 school years were simulated for students born between 2000 and 2009. Boundaries were created to balance elementary school populations, based on the maximum capacities of each building. Districts were drawn to create the best possible walking access to schools for as many students as possible, as well as respecting perceived neighborhood areas. Once the district populations were balanced, a linear network analysis was used to roughly determine the student population within walking distance, as well as those students outside the two-mile busing radius. A walking radius of ¾ mile and paying bussing radius of 2 miles were assumed. Busing radii were based on road centerlines and walking radii were based on sidewalk centerlines. Sidewalk centerline routes include crosswalks and small, slow residential roads without sidewalks where a child can be expected to be reasonably safe from fast-moving vehicles. All distances flow to schools and not away, which was necessary to account for one-way streets that might be on the route from a student’s home to their school. Extra distance from road and sidewalk lines was added to capture student locations and may not accurately reflect whether or not a student is eligible for free busing or follows a safe walking route to school. In general, redistricting is a collaborative process for developing and evaluating school district scenarios that involves the School Committee, School Administration, School Transportation Office, Town GIS Department, Police Department, Public Works Departments and the parent and school community. Following a lengthy public process (which includes a public hearing as required by MGL Ch71 s37D), the School


Committee votes the final district lines. No other local approvals are required. Existing and proposed district maps are included in Appendix F.

List of 3 distinct alternatives (including at least 1 renovation and / or addition option) are recommended for further development and evaluation. The submittal indicates that the following alternatives are recommended for further evaluation:

o Option A: Repair / Code Upgrades Only at the Hillside Elementary School to serve

grades K-5; o Option B1: Additions / Renovations at the Hillside Elementary School to serve

grades K-5; o Option C3: New Construction ES at the Hillside Elementary School to serve grades

K-5; o Option E1a: New Construction ES at the DeFazio East Site to serve grades K-5; o Option E2a + H3: New Construction 6th Grade Center at the DeFazio East Site +

Additions / Renovations at the High Rock School to serve the K-5 students currently at the Hillside School

o Option J3: New Construction ES at the Central Avenue Site to serve grades K-5

Please note that some of the options presented may include work at facilities other than the priority school. The MSBA will evaluate the final design program in the preferred schematic report and potential for participation of work in multiple facilities as part of this single project. As previously discussed, the MSBA will likely limit reimbursement to the school identified as the proposed project The District acknowledges that MSBA participation and reimbursement will likely be limited to the school identified as the proposed project.

X Appendix to include:

MSBA Board Action Letter including the invitation to conduct a Feasibility Study; – A copy of the Feasibility Study Agreement was provided. Please confirm that the District maintains a copy of the Board Action Letter, dated July 30,2014

The District Confirms that it maintains the original MSBA Board Action Letter dated July 30, 2014.