H OW D ID W E G ET H ERE 2 R OOF C OLLAPSE @ M ITCHELL T EAMING - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• G. H. MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BRIDGEWATER, MA COMMUNITY PRESENTATION: NOVEMBER 14, 2018

Raymond Design Associates

2

HOW DID WE GET HERE …

In February 2015, the roof of the Mitchell Elementary School collapsed during school vacation week, followed by a sprinkler system pipe failure that led to flooding in the “Central” wing of the school. The Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District and the Town of Bridgewater began steps to find a solution for the Mitchell Elementary School building.

3

ROOF COLLAPSE @ MITCHELL

February 17, 2015 Roof Collapse in Central Wing February 2015 Sprinkler System Pipe Failure / Flooding in Central House March 2015 RDA Associates hired to complete building assessment March - December 2015 Temporary repairs and “shuttering” work completed February 2016 Needs Assessment Report completed by RDA January 14, 2016 Statement of Interest submitted to MSBA February 15, 2017 MSBA voted the Mitchell Elementary School into the Eligibility Period June 10, 2017 Bridgewater voters approve $800k for Feasibility Study October 25, 2017 MSBA invites Mitchell Elementary School into Feasibility Study Phase

TEAMING WITH MSBA HIRING THE PROJECT TEAM FEASIBILITY STUDY

November 27, 2017 – March 6, 2018 Public procurement, Interviews + Selection, MSBA OPM Review Panel, and MSBA approval of Daedalus Projects, Inc. as OPM March 2018 – May 23, 2018 Public procurement, MSBA Designer Review Panel, MSBA DSP interviews + Selection, and MSBA approval of Raymond Design Associates as Architect June – October 2018 Existing site and building evaluation and documentation Exploration of alternate site options within the Town of Bridgewater

(PK-2 and PK-3 grade configurations)

Study of options for repair, addition/renovation, and new construction on existing site

(PK-2 and PK-3 grade configurations)

HOW DID WE GET HERE …

FUNDING:

• The MSBA has a dedicated revenue stream of one penny of the state’s 6.25% sales tax.
• The MSBA will provide state funding based on a percentage value of the total eligible costs of the project

(55.63% for the Mitchell Elementary School Feasibility Study).

• The Town of Bridgewater will be able to utilize the MSBA ProPay system to submit requests for Progress

Payments for the reimbursement of eligible costs incurred throughout the project.

OVERSIGHT:

• The MSBA’s Board of Directors, Project Manager, and Project Coordinator will work with the

School Building Committee and the Project Team and to make certain that the project meets all necessary educational requirements.

4

WHO IS THE “MSBA”?

The is quasi-independent government authority created to reform the process of funding capital improvement projects in the Commonwealth’s public schools.

THE BRIDGEWATER SBC IS MADE UP OF 21 MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

Gerry Chipman Michael Dolan Lillian Holbrook Mal Benvie Melissa Desjardins Pat Driscoll Tim Fitzgibbons John Gerrish Eric Langone Jim Perry Renee Rushton Larry Silva Scott Wauchope Chris Koczela Harsh Rebello Community Member School Committee School Committee Community Member Community Member Bridgewater Planning Board Bridgewater Town Council Community Member Bridgewater Finance Committee Community Member Community Member Community Member Community Member Community Member Community Member Michael Dutton Derek Swenson Ryan Powers Dennis Bray Kathleen Macedo Paul Fox, Jr. Joanne Mulcahey Lisa Ohman Bridgewater Town Administrator BRRSD, Superintendent BRRSD, Assistant Superintendent GMES, Principal BRRSD, Dir. of Business Services BRRSD, Director of Facilities GMES, Teacher GMES, Teacher

5

= SBC members with Design or Construction experience

WHO IS THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE (“SBC”)?

THE PROJECT TEAM INCLUDES THE OWNER’S PROJECT MANAGER (“OPM”) AND THE ARCHITECT OPM TASKS & RESPONSIBILITIES (FEASIBILITY STUDY):

• Liaison to the Massachusetts School Building Authority
• Cost Control
• Project Schedule
• Public Process

ARCHITECT TASKS & RESPONSIBILITIES (FEASIBILITY STUDY):

• Study and Documentation of Existing Conditions
• Building Program and Space Summary Needs
• Evaluation of Building Repair, Add/Reno, and New Construction options.
• Public Process

Raymond Design Associates

6

WHO IS PROJECT TEAM?

Collaborate with the MSBA to develop and evaluate preliminary and final alternatives, and recommend the most cost effective and educationally appropriate solution”

PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROGRAM INCLUDES:

• Educational Program
• Initial Space Summary
• Evaluation of Existing Conditions
• Site Development Requirements
• Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
• Repair
• Addition/Renovation
• New Construction – Existing Site
• New Construction – Alternate Sites

7

WHAT IS INCLUDED / REQUIRED IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY?

CURRENTLY, THE BRIDGEWATER’S PRE-K THROUGH 8TH GRADE STUDENTS ARE LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOLS:

• Pre-K students attend school at the Raynham Middle School
• Grades K-3 are housed at what was the Bridgewater Middle School
• Grades 4-7 are at the Williams Intermediate School
• Grade 8 is at the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional High School

8

WHERE ARE THE MITCHELL SCHOOL STUDENTS NOW?

A review of all options for Repair, Renovation/Addition, and New Construction for two possible grade configurations (PK-2 or PK-3):

Pre-K – 2nd Grade (740 students) Pre-K – 3rd Grade (995 students)

9

K-3 Pupils:

GRADE CONFIGURATION STUDY

10

B-R Regional High School Williams Intermediate School Bridgewater Middle School

2014

(before roof collapse)

2022

(estimated Mitchell ES project completion)

Mitchell Elementary School 9th 10th 11th 12th Pre-K 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th K 1st 2nd 9th 10th 11th 12th 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th Pre-K K 1st 2nd

GRADE DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON

BRIDGEWATER STUDENTS:

The Feasibility Study will determine the “most educationally-appropriate, flexible, sustainable, and cost-effective solution” for addition/renovation or new construction for the Mitchell Elementary School

 Building sized to meet enrollment + educational program  Improvements to accessibility and safety systems  Increased efficiency + air quality in building systems  Age-appropriate playground and recess facilities  Infrastructure for modern technology requirements  Creating a space for the whole community

11

WHAT ARE THE PRIORITY GOALS OF THE PROJECT?

Innovation and Creativity Flexible and Adaptable Space Small-School Feel School as a Community Resource

“21ST CENTURY LEARNING” – GUIDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES

12

The purpose of the Educational Program is to document the BRRSD teaching and learning methodology and define the District’s mission and goals.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

Visioning Sessions

This summer, a group of School District Administrative Leaders, Teachers, Students, and Community Members participated in three Educational Visioning Workshops.

13

Members of the SBC and School Department also toured other recently built elementary schools in both MA and NH.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM VISIONING + PLANNING

School Visits

14

199 PARKING SPACES 23 BUS QUEUE @ 45 LF / BUS 35 PARENT QUEUE @ 20 LF / AUTO 97,100 SF PLAYFIELD 11,090 SF PLAYGROUND 27,550 SF HARD SURFACE PLAY

Existing building traffic flow, site layout, queuing, and parking

EXISTING CONDITIONS – SITE / PARKING / QUEUING

Roof Collapse – Central House Damaged Wood Trusses / Required Shoring

15

Insulation / Cavity Wall Issues Ice Dams

EXISTING CONDITIONS – DAMAGED ROOF STRUCTURE

Insufficient/Missing Lateral Bracing Damaged Wood Trusses

16

Insufficient/Missing Lateral Bracing/Bridging

EXISTING CONDITIONS – LACK OF ADEQUATE TRUSS BRIDGING AT ROOF

Inadequate Exterior Envelope Compressed Insulation

17

Ice Dams Water Damage Inadequate Air/Vapor Barrier

EXISTING CONDITIONS – INSUFFICIENT INSULATION & AIR/VAPOR BARRIER

Clogged Wall Cavities / Weep Holes Inadequate Air/Vapor Barrier

18

Moisture Issues in Exterior Walls Exterior Brick, Cavity Side

EXISTING CONDITIONS – AIR QUALITY / EXTERIOR WALLS

As a requirement of the MSBA, other potential sites within the Town of Bridgewater were studied for possible relocation of the Mitchell Elementary School. Each option was weighted based on Location, Permitting, Utilities, Pupil Capacity, Building Scale, Parking Capacity, Auto Queuing, Bus Queuing, Traffic, and Play Areas.

19

SITE OPTIONS STUDY

After careful review of each alternative site option, the following sites were deemed not feasible.

LEGION FIELD ADDITION TO WILLIAMS SCHOOL 166 MT. PROSPECT B-R REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL EAST STREET LOT CHERRY STREET LOT

20

ALTERNATE SITE OPTIONS STUDY

21

After careful review of each option on the existing site, four main options were submitted for MSBA review.

“COMPREHENSIVE” ADD/RENO REPAIR (REQUIRED BY MSBA) “HYBRID” ADD/RENO NEW CONSTRUCTION

ALTERNATE NEW OPTION – NOT SELECTED ALTERNATE NEW OPTION – NOT SELECTED

EXISTING SITE OPTIONS STUDY

A requirement of the MSBA Feasibility Study, a “Base Repair” option was studied to determine

• verall design and cost.

* NOTE: this option is the least feasible, and likely will not be funded by the MSBA, as it does not meet the educational program

22

199 PARKING SPACES 25 BUS QUEUE @ 45 LF / BUS 35 PARENT QUEUE @ 20 LF / AUTO (112 PARENTS QUEUE @ 166 MT PROSPECT) 97,100 SF PLAYFIELD 11,090 SF PLAYGROUND 27,550 SF HARD SURFACE PLAY

“A.1” – BASE REPAIR

23

All structural work meets the current 9th Edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code

197 PARKING SPACES 26 BUS QUEUE @ 45 LF / BUS 78 PARENT QUEUE @ 20 LF / AUTO (35 PARENTS QUEUE @ 166 MT PROSPECT) 97,100 SF PLAYFIELD 11,090 SF PLAYGROUND 27,550 SF HARD SURFACE PLAY

“B.1” – COMPREHENSIVE ADDITION/RENOVATION

Reconfiguration of classrooms to create split “pods” for each grade level.

100% OF BUILDING STRUCTURE WILL ADHERE TO 9TH EDITION MA STATE BUILDING CODE

Addition to expand footprint and create connectivity between existing wings.

24

“B.1” – COMPREHENSIVE ADDITION/RENOVATION

25

Structural repairs to existing building under

• riginal code (6th edition)

+ addition (9th edition)

197 PARKING SPACES 26 BUS QUEUE @ 45 LF / BUS 78 PARENT QUEUE @ 20 LF / AUTO (35 PARENTS QUEUE @ 166 MT PROSPECT) 97,100 SF PLAYFIELD 11,090 SF PLAYGROUND 27,550 SF HARD SURFACE PLAY

“B.2” – HYBRID RENOVATION/ADDITION

Reconfiguration of classrooms to create split “pods” for each grade level. (same as “B.1”)

LATERAL LOADING SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN UNDER ORIGINAL CODE (6TH EDITION) + ROOF REPAIRS AND ADDITION UNDER CURRENT CODE (9TH EDITION).

Addition to expand footprint and create connectivity between existing wings.

26

“B.2” – HYBRID RENOVATION/ADDITION

27

Removal of existing building and construction

• f a new school on existing

site

197 PARKING SPACES 26 BUS QUEUE @ 45 LF / BUS 68 PARENT QUEUE @ 20 LF / AUTO (35 PARENTS QUEUE @ 166 MT PROSPECT) 97,100 SF PLAYFIELD 47,550 SF PLAYGROUND 27,550 SF HARD SURFACE PLAY

“C.1” – NEW CONSTRUCTION

REMOVAL OF EXISTING BUILDING AND NEW CONSTRUCTION ON EXISTING SITE

Configuration of classrooms to create single “pods” for each grade level with easy access to core facilities New construction option allows for more efficient use

• f space and better internal access to shared resources

28

“C.1” – NEW CONSTRUCTION

29

RANKING SYSTEM 3 = BEST 2 = NEUTRAL 1 = POOR

PK-2 OPTION EVALUATION MATRIX

Study Option GSF

(Gross Square Feet)

2018/2019 Construction Cost Benchmarks 2018/2019 Total Project Cost Benchmarks Estimated Costs - Mitchell Project

(estimated after MSBA reimbursement)

Base Building Repair Option A.1

134,235 $28 - $30 M $34 - $37 M $37 M

(Tow n share = approx. 100%)

“Comprehensive” Renovation/Addition Option B.1

147,335 $70 - $72 M $87 - $90 M $50 M

(Tow n share = approx. 55%)

“Hybrid” Renovation/Addition Option B.2

147,335 $64 - $66 M $80 - $83 M $46 M

(Tow n share = approx. 55%)

New Construction Option C

133,743 $71 - $73 M $88 - $91 M $50 M

(Tow n share = approx. 55%) 30

BENCHMARKING – ESTIMATED COSTS (FOR PK-2 GRADE CONFIGURATION)

WHAT’S NEXT?

31

2018 2019 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

OCT 31st

PDP Submission to MSBA

NOV 1st

+

NOV 14th

Community Presentations (3)

“Module 3”: Feasibility Study “Module 4”: Schematic Design “Module 5”: Funding FEB 20th

PSR Submission to MSBA

APR 10th

MSBA Board of Directors Meeting to approve PSR Begin Schematic Design Phase

AUG 28th

MSBA Board of Directors Meeting to approve PSBA

FALL

Town Vote to approve Funding

JUL 10th

Schematic Design Submission to MSBA

JAN

* Tentative * Additional Community Presentations

The Bridgewater School Building Committee has developed a project website to keep the community informed about our progress. Please visit www.bridgewaterschoolproject.com for more information or to sign up for our newsletters! If you would like to contact us directly, please send us an email at:

bridgewaterschoolproject@gmail.com

THANK YOU!

32 32

STAY INFORMED!