school building presentation

8/7/2019 School Building Presentation

1/22

Duxbury School Building Committee

Middle School & High SchoolRecommendations

Superintendent Dr. Ben TantilloSchool Committee Meeting- January 19, 2011


2/22

Agenda

Historical Perspective Role of Technology

Financial Picture Neighboring Schools State of Buildings Model Design or Custom

Rebuild or Renovate? Cost to Taxpayers

One Location or Two? Why Now?


3/22

Duxbury Town PRIDEBeach Bay Open Spaces History

Arts Athletics Education Seniors


4/22

School Building History 1926 - Original DHS built, became Upper Alden and closed in 1992;

Became Library in 1997

1949 - 54, Alden Elementary built; addition in 54

1960 - Jr/Sr. HS built - now DMS

1968 - Current DHS built

1974 - Chandler built; additions to DMS/DHS

2000 - Master Facilities Plan appvd by SC and town

2001-03 - Alden/Chandler additions; PAC built for schools & town at67% reimbursement

2007 - Request to State for Chandler roof, DMS, DHS projects

2009 - Feasibility Study for DMS/DHS and Chandler roof costsappvd at Town Meeting


5/22

Duxbury Support for Schools

Duxbury ranks as the 17th wealthiest town in MA, yet 277th in schoolspending out of325 districts.

Enrollment has doubled sincecurrent DHS was built in 1968;so has wear and tear on bothbuildings.

Duxbury per pupil spending falls below MA state average; despiteincreases from the Town, the gap is widening.

0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

195060 70 80 902000 10

8000

9500

11000

12500

14000

2006 2007 2008 20091000

1375

1750

2125

2500

Comparison of Expenditure Per Student Duxbury vs. State Average

$PerPupilSpending

$SpendingGap

Duxbury State Average Gap


6/22

Current State of DMS & DHS(per 2010 Building Feasibility Study and NEASC)

Failing systems and aged equipment Boilers, heating, mechanical, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and temperature

controls require replacement; no longer energy efficient or code compliant.

Crumbling infrastructure beyond repair Weekly roof leaks impacting structure; majority of window seals and doorgaskets broken, insulation deficient, classroom lighting below state candlerequirements....can create potential health & safety issues

Buildings hinder curriculum & instruction

Classrooms undersized; spread-out additions inefficient; cannot deliver APrequirements in science labs; SPED space insufficient; buildings deficient fortechnology use

2002 NEASC cited DHS facility at risk 2011 Accreditation study underway; may be placed on warning for facilities


7/22

The Ugly Reality at DMS & DHS:Outdated, inefficient boiler rooms and systems;

too few outlets to support todays technology....


8/22

A RAIN DAY at DMS for Rm 516: January 3, 2011Senora Mehegans classroom after gushing water from

ceiling filled 2 buckets; 175 students disrupted.


9/22

A closer look at DHS & DMS windows withoutseals, crumbling walls and doors wearing thin.


10/22

About that brand new$23,000 copier at DMS....do not plug in until further notice.


11/22

Replacement & RenovationCost in $mm for DMS/DHS

SYSTEM or NEED DMS DHS TOTAL COST

HVAC $7.8 $10.8 $18.6

Electrical 7.2 10.1 17.3

Roof 3.9 5.4 9.3

Windows 3.7 5.2 8.9

ADA 3.0 4.2 7.2

SPrinklers 1.2 1.6 2.8

Kitchen 0.85 0.85 1.7

Locker Rooms 0.68 0.68 3.1Gym Floors 0.48 0.48 0.80

TOTAL SYSTEMS REPAIR $28.8 $39.4 $68.2

TOTAL EST. RENOVATION

COSTS

$46.9 $70.5 $117.4


12/22

Rebuild or Renovate

Biggest factors driving decision to rebuild or renovate:

Systems replacement totaling$68mm

State reimbursement: 43% for rebuild; significantly lessfor renovation

Rebuilding addresses both the physical system needsand academic needs; renovation doesnt

Rebuilding is more cost efficient and causes far lessdisruption to school environment

Renovation would require portable trailers for 5-7 yrs.


13/22

Options: 2 Locations, 2 Buildings or

1 Location, 2 Buildings Co-located

Six options presented to SBC in Spring2010: renovateboth buildings, replace both bldgs in different locations,

renovate plus addition, rebuild both schools at 1 location(range from $47 -$146MM)

Unanimous SBC recommendation for a co-locatedbuilding with separate identities, shared

infrastructure at estimated cost of$125MM

Significant economic, academic and logisticalconsiderations support this decision


14/22

Advantages of 1 Location,

Co-located Buildings

Economic Benefits:Single shared mechanical plant forHVAC, heating, electrical, plumbing, technology support, etc,provides significant savings in initial building costs and ongoingmaintenance; more efficient footprint with shared kitchen, mediacenter, loading dock, saves $ on both ends.

Academic Benefits:Separate buildings but alignment incurriculum & instruction for grades 6-12, enhanced technology withshared software & labs; peer tutoring; easier transition to HS.

Logistical Benefits: Disruption issues minimized,notrailers needed with students remaining in existing buildings intransition; shorter construction time with buildings connected inone location; may reduce grid lock problem on St. George St.


15/22

Role of Technology in our

Evolving Education System A tool, but a critical one going forward; need

flexible space & wireless capability

Nearly 90%

ofDHS graduates go on to college-they need to be fluent in technology

21st century skills needed in the work placerequire students to learn and think globally;

technology integral to making this happen

All current equipment & components -purchased or leased - can and will be transitioned


16/22

Recently built high schools: Silver Lake, WhitmanHanson, Norwood, Ashland, Pembroke & Natick


17/22

Benefits of Using a

Model School Design Following SBC approval of a co-joined building and submission for

reimbursement, the state invited Duxbury to consider a ModelSchool design.

A State Model Design decreases design time by up to 6 months andcan reduce construction costs by 5-10%

State reimbursement increases by 5% using a Model School design(savings of approx. $6.5MM)

Towns using this approach have saved up to $30mm (Norwood);other towns include Natick, N. Plymouth and E. Bridgewater.

Option to choose from 4 designs, then customize to fit local needsand space requirements.


18/22

Preliminary Cost to Taxpayer


19/22

Preliminary Tax ImpactSize of Borrowing$130,000,000 - 25 YearsEstimated Interest Rate - 4.75%State Reimbursement - 43.75%Net Borrowing-$73,125,000First Year of Debt Service - 2014Median House Assessment -$481,100

Level Principal' ' ' ' Level Debt Service (Mortgage)Max$918' ' ' ' ' $727

Avg. $679' ' ' ' ' $725

*Based on current market conditions


20/22

Why Now? Infrastructure and major systems at DMS and DHS are failing

or close to it; were at a crossroad.

State of buildings erodes long standing PRIDE in Duxbury

education among students, teachers and community Duxbury is eligible for State reimbursement for a project at

43.45% after many submissions; many school proposals arentaccepted

Most cost effective, educationally appropriate solution is tobuild a co-located DHS/DMS building with reimbursement,when construction costs are low and borrowing favorable

NEASC accreditation for DHS at risk; status review in Aug2011


21/22

Timeline/Next Steps

Citizens of Duxbury will decide schools fate

Town Article for $3.5-4.0MM for Model School Design schematic (customizedfor DMS/DHS) launches project

SC approval of recommendation/article - Feb

Presentation of Article at Town Meeting- March 12

Ballot of Article at Town Election -March 26

With voter approval, design begins; construction$

approved fall 2011 atSpecial Town Meeting.

Construction begins Spring 2012; Current 3rd, 4th and 5th graders enternew Middle School in 2014; current 6th, 7th and 8th graders enter newHigh School in 2015.


22/22

Duxbury takes great PRIDE in its bay, open spaces andhistorical buildings. Where we educate our children and

support our teachers deserves that PRIDE too.

school building presentation

Documents