Tisbury Elementary School September 25, 2017 AGENDA| 1. Discussion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE TITLE| Slide Sub‐Title Building Committee Presentation:

Tisbury Elementary School

September 25, 2017

AGENDA|

• 1. Discussion of Options:

i. Option 3B – 3‐story school, existing building to remain during construction ii. Option 3C – 3‐story school, existing gym removed prior to construction

• iii. Option 3D – 3‐story school, existing building removed prior to construction
• 2. Design‐Bid‐Build vs. Construction Manager at Risk
• 3. LEED vs. CHPS Comparison

i. Registration ii. Prerequisites

• iii. Credit Areas – Location and Linkages, Site, Water, Energy, Materials, IEQ
• iv. Program Knowledge – Contractors, Suppliers, General Public

v. Processes – LEED Online, Basecamp

• vi. Acknowledgement – State Reimbursement, Plaques and Certificates, Public Relations
• 4. School Visits: Edgartown and Oak Bluffs Schools
• 5. Project Schedule

OPTION 3B REVISED| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN

SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS

SITE PLAN SITE SECTION CONSIDERATIONS

• Entire existing building to

remain during construction

• Separated bus & parents drop‐
• ff
• Lower grade play area close to

classrooms and protected at rear of building

• Reduces height by using

topography (130’)

• Potential to screen service areas

from view

• Adequate setback from W.

William – 30’+/‐

• Setback to Spring – 32’+/‐
• Adequate planting buffers to

east residential lots

• Improves pedestrian and bike

access ‐ accessibility

• Centralizes community

recreation areas – visible

• Protects wicks
• Loss of separate lower grade

drop off zone with loss of parking at the service lane.

EXISTING BUILDING (137’)

OPTION 3B|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS

SITE PLAN SITE SECTION CONSIDERATIONS

• Entire existing building to

remain during construction

• Separated bus & parents drop‐
• ff
• Lower grade play area close to

classrooms and protected at rear of building

• Reduces height by using

topography (130’)

• Potential to screen service areas

from view

• Adequate setback from W.

William – 30’+/‐

• Minimal setback to Spring –

9’+/‐

• Adequate planting buffers to

east residential lots

• Improves pedestrian and bike

access ‐ accessibility

• Centralizes community

recreation areas – visible

• Protects wicks
• Visual impact of parking is

reduced by smaller lots

EXISTING BUILDING (137’)

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3B|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN FLOOR PLANS SECOND FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3B|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING TO REMAIN FLOOR PLANS THIRD FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3B|

MASSING BIRD’S EYE VIEW EXISTING SCHOOL COMPARED TO NEW SCHOOL

EAST VIEW NORTH WEST VIEW

OPTION 3B|

MASSING

OPTION 3C|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS

SITE PLAN SITE SECTION CONSIDERATIONS

• Requires gym demolition
• Separate bus & parent drop‐off
• Increases parking adjacent to

residential, but provides buffers

• Visual impact of parking reduced

with buffers and placement at now elevation on site

• Lower grade playground

separated from Upper and more protected, will need to use stairs to access.

• Reduces height by using

topography (126’)

• Potential to screen service areas
• Adequate setback from W.

William ‐ 50’+/‐

• Adequate setback to Spring –

45’+/‐

• Improves pedestrian and bike

access – overall accessibility

• Segregates public use and school

uses vertically

• Centralized community

recreation areas

• Protects wicks

EXISTING BUILDING (137’)

OPTION 3C|

MODULARS

GYM CLRM

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3C|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED FLOOR PLANS

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3C|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED FLOOR PLANS

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3C|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G GYM REMOVED FLOOR PLANS

OPTION 3C|

MASSING BIRD’S EYE VIEW EXISTING SCHOOL COMPARED TO NEW SCHOOL

OPTION 3C|

MASSING EAST VIEW NORTH WEST VIEW

OPTION 3D.1| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED

SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS

SITE PLAN SITE SECTION CONSIDERATIONS

• Requires full building demolition

first

• Main entrance north facing –

prevailing windward

• Lower grade play area close to

classrooms

• Separated bus and parent drop off
• Limited queing for parent drop off
• Extends construction duration.
• Tallest overall (137’)
• Difficult to screen service areas
• Limited access to kitchen/café for

deliveries

• Reduced setback to W. William St.
• Adequate setback to Spring St.
• Greatest building setback from

east residential properties

• Divides pedestrian and bicycle

zones

• Divides school and community

recreation uses

• Protects wicks
• Consolidates parking along length
• f Spring Street

EXISTING BUILDING (137’)

OPTION 3D.2| NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED

SITE PLAN, SITE SECTION, CONSIDERATIONS

SITE PLAN SITE SECTION CONSIDERATIONS

• Requires full building demolition

before construction

• Main entrance north facing –

prevailing windward

• Lower grade play area close to

classrooms

• Separated bus and parent drop off
• Limited queing for parent drop off
• Extends construction duration.
• Tallest overall (137’)
• Difficult to screen service areas
• Limited access to kitchen/café for

deliveries

• Reduced setback to W. William St.
• Adequate setback to Spring St.
• Greatest building setback from

east residential properties

• Divides pedestrian and bicycle

zones

• Divides school and community

recreation uses

• Protects wicks
• Visual impact of parking similar to

existing – familiar

• Requires remote site for parking

EXISTING BUILDING (137’)

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3D|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL LOCATED, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED FLOOR PLANS

OPTION 3D|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED FLOOR PLANS SECOND FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3D|

NEW 3‐STORY SCHOOL, EXT’G BUILDING REMOVED FLOOR PLANS THIRD FLOOR PLAN

OPTION 3D|

MASSING BIRD’S EYE VIEW EXISTING SCHOOL COMPARED TO NEW SCHOOL

OPTION 3D|

MASSING NORTH WEST VIEW SOUTH EAST VIEW

DESIGN OPTIONS|

ALL OPTIONS & COST COMPARISON OPTION 3C : Located East Side of Site Gym Removed OPTION 3B : Located East Side of Site OPTION 3D: Located Center of Site – Demo of existing school

DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD (DBB) ‐ PROS ‐

• Design changes easily accommodated prior

to start of construction

• Design is complete prior to construction

award

• Construction cost is fixed at contract award
• Low bid cost, maximum competition
• Relative ease of implementation
• Maximum Owner control of

design/construction

DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD (DBB) ‐ CONS ‐

• No contractor input in design, planning or

value engineering (VE).

• Owner has little to no say in the selection of

the individuals who will supervise the project.

• Design and construction are sequential, no

ability for early work packages

• Construction cost unknown until contract

award

• Limited number of bidders likely due to busy

mainland construction market

DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD (CH. 149)

VS.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CH. 149A)

PROCUREMENT| DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD VS.

CONSTRUCITON MANAGER AT RISK

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR) ‐ PROS ‐

• Ability to prequalify and select the CM and

the team of individuals who will be part of the team

• CM participates in the sub‐contractor

prequalification process

• CM will review the plans and limit

drawing/specification inconsistencies

• Better cost control through CM ownership of

construction budget

• Ability to “fast track;” may start construction

before design completion, reducing project schedule

• CM will recruit island bidders

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMR) ‐ CONS ‐

• Approval required by the Office of the

Inspector General (takes 30‐45 days)

• Need clear definition of CM and A/E roles
• Cost of CM services including pre

construction (adds 2‐3% to initial cost)

• Contingency and allowance level
• Timing of GMP
• CM has little real “risk.”

DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD (CH. 149)

VS.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CH. 149A)

PROCUREMENT| DESIGN‐BID‐BUILD VS.

CONSTRUCITON MANAGER AT RISK

SUSTAINABILITY| LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (LEED) VS.

COLLABORATIVE OF HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS (CHPS)

• 2. AGENDA

i. Registration & Certifications ii. Prerequisites

• iii. Credit Categories– Location and Linkages, Site, Water, Energy, Materials, IEQ
• iv. Program Knowledge – Contractors, Suppliers, General Public

v. Certificate Process – LEED Online, Basecamp

• vi. Acknowledgement – State Reimbursement, Plaques and Certificates, Public Relations

SUSTAINABILITY| REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION

Flat Registration Fee Certification Fee Based on Square Footage No Registration Fee Flat Certification Fee

SUSTAINABILITY| REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION

Registration $1,500 Design Review $4,400 Construction Review $1,440

Total $7,340

Registration $0 Verified Design $4,850 Verified Construction $2,700

Total $7,550

SUSTAINABILITY| PREREQUISITES

15 Prerequisite Credits Unique to LEED –

• Building Level Water Metering

27 Prerequisite Credits Unique to NECHPS –

• Educational Display
• Crime Prevention
• Integrated Pest Management
• Facility and Staff Training
• Outdoor Moisture Management
• Local Energy Efficiency Incentives

and Assistance

• Irrigation Systems Commissioning

SUSTAINABILITY| LEED CREDIT CATEGORIES

Location & Transportation Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere Materials & Resources Indoor Environmental Quality

SUSTAINABILITY| NECHPS CREDIT CATEGORIES

Integration and Innovation Operations & Metrics Indoor Environmental Quality Energy Water Sites Materials & Waste Management

SUSTAINABILITY| PROGRAM KNOWLEDGE

• Established in 1993
• 90,000 LEED Certified Projects
• All supporting documentation for

sustainability is geared toward LEED

• Globally recognized

SUSTAINABILITY| PROGRAM KNOWLEDGE

• Established in 1999 (California)
• 300 CHPS Verified Projects
• Supporting documentation for

sustainability is LEED based, but also acceptable for NECHPS

• Recognized in 12 US States

SUSTAINABILITY| CERTIFICATE PROCESS

• All documentation is uploaded to LEED Online
• Team members communicate with the

assigned LEED Coach independently

• Review Period is 25 Business Days

Sustainability Options – Certification Process

SUSTAINABILITY| CERTIFICATE PROCESS

• Communications and file

sharing through Basecamp

• All team members can review all

communications and files

• Team members maintain their documents

separately until they are ready for review

• No set time period for review

SUSTAINABILITY| CERTIFICATE PROCESS

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

MSBA Reimbursement for LEED Silver (50 points) MSBA Reimbursement for CHPS Verified (110 points)

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

• LEED Plaques and Certificates are purchased

by the building owner

• Certified projects appear in the global

Project Directory

• Projects may be featured as Case Study

projects nationally or regionally

• Projects may be included as exhibits at

Greenbuild or USGBC Massachusetts Chapter

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

• One CHPS Plaque per project
• CHPS Verified Letter of Recognition in

pdf format for duplication

• Project listing on CHPS national web site
• Building tour opportunities through

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

SUSTAINABILITY| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Tisbury School Building Committee

Tour of Oak Bluffs School & Edgartown School Notes – July 26th, 2017

• Colleen McAndrews – TSBC ‐ Chair
• Cheryl Doble – TSBC – Planning Board
• Ben Robinson ‐ TSBC – Planning Board
• Reade Milne ‐ TSBC – Public Member – Design Expert
• Siobhan Mullin – TSBC – Parent Rep
• Edgartown School Guide – John Stevens, Principal
• Oak Bluffs School Guide – Michelle Bettencourt, Admin. Asst.

ATTENDEES

EDGARTOWN SCHOOL

• School Built: 2003
• 2 Story Building
• Current Enrollment: 320
• Capacity: 550
• Highlights:

 We could learn from the Edgartown school as it is set within/abuts a residential neighborhood.  Drop off space, walk ways , parking lot design/landscaping and outdoor activity spaces provide

• pportunities to integrate and connect the school and surrounding neighborhood.

 The main entrance at Edgartown was spacious, is used for public gatherings. The cafeteria and kitchen connect to this space creating a central community space where students pass through and gather on a regular basis.  Detailing in the Edgartown main entrance (wainscot panels) helped to give a bit of warmth to the space, and distinguish the area as a unique space.  School Nurse area impressive, privacy and access for help from other staff members well considered  Community gardens at Edgartown were great. They have a part‐time staff member to oversee them and community support during the summer to help with maintenance. They preserve vegetables for use during the school year.  Rugs were being taken out of the Edgartown school and being replaced with vinyl tile flooring.

EDGARTOWN SCHOOL

EDGARTOWN SCHOOL

Nurses Area Hallway

Lower Level Classroom – Change of Flooring from Carpet to Vinyl leaves classrooms looking very sterile

EDGARTOWN SCHOOL

Cafetorium – Cafeteria and Kitchen is well laid

• ut,with ample work

and storage space, impressive equipment.

EDGARTOWN SCHOOL

• Edgartown Lessons Learned:

 Heating system works well but costs high, considering switching heating system in next 5 years ‐ will consider Renewable Energy sources  Cooling inadequate – Hot classrooms in shoulder months of school year  Lighting is poor overall – High Glare fluorescents, have been switching to LED bulbs over time, very little natural interior light  Gym Floor ‐ went with synthetic floor to save costs, but would prefer wood floor

EDGARTOWN SCHOOL

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

• School Built: 1995
• 2 Story Building
• Current Enrollment: 455
• Capacity: Not known
• Highlights:

 The main Oak Bluffs entrance was not as welcoming or comfortable. The second floor overhang ceiling reduced the light and openness of the space. The security entry constrained the space. If we need a security entry it would be best to consider this as part of the initial design rather than a retrofit add on.  Halls in OB seemed overly wide. They use the halls for small group activities but this arrangement did not seem to provide much privacy.  Library is inviting with comfortable seating indoor and outdoor  The class rooms are large and a small class of young kids could feel a bit lost in the space.  Science room is connected to Greenhouse  Have introduced new Steam Class, just one year so far, spoke briefly with Leah Door who has plenty of ideas for how to best utilize this kind of space, note to discuss our Maker Space design with her.

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

Entryway

Kindergarten – Well thought out spaces still function and look well

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

Steam Room – Reusing shop space and reconfiguring

Use Computer screen to show practical videos

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

Science Room with connecting greenhouse

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

• Oak Bluffs Lessons Learned:

 Heating system does not work well, very high costs to maintain, large part of operating budget  Cooling inadequate – Similar to Edgartown Hot classrooms in shoulder months of school year, using fans in windows  Lighting is poor overall – High Glare fluorescents, take out light bulbs to reduce glare, wish for better lighting  Large space areas outside on different levels not used that much so dead space  Length of school prohibits efficiency of movement for staff, administrative staff spend a lot of time walking the length of the building, have set up administrative hubs at different areas  Hallways long and dark

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

• Takeaway from Both Schools

 Scale of both schools felt too large ‐ classrooms, hallways, entries etc.  Both entrances felt like wasted space  Libraries should be more front and center to facilitate community access  Edgartown school library location was good, 2nd floor but right at the entry.  OB library felt remote.  Both schools felt too sprawling and layout seemed a bit confusing.  Materials used were sterile and synthetic, too much plastic and vinyl  Both have added into open space areas a School Store  Both have staff rooms in multiple areas throughout the school  Liked Connecting Doors between multiple classrooms onside of hallway  Overall our decision to go with a 3 Story building eliminates some of our concerns over length of buildings and overly long hallways  Material choices are key to creating to inviting spaces  Color seemed only noticeable in Kindergarten rooms, need to incorporate varied color choices throughout

OAK BLUFFS SCHOOL

SCHEDULE

SEPTEMBER 26TH

Sustainability Design Working Group

SEPTEMBER 28TH

School Tours (Dearborn School and Hannigan School)

OCTOBER 2ND

Working Group ‐ Security

OCTOBER 5TH – 6TH

Staff/Room Data Meetings

OCTOBER 10TH

School Building Committee Meeting

OCTOBER 23RD

School Building Committee Meeting

JANUARY 3RD

MSBA Schematic Design Submission

Thank You