MOUNT GREYLOCK REGIONAL SCHOOL
Addition/Renovation
Summary Report
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Prepared by:
Mount Greylock Regional School District
1781 Cold Spring Road
Williamstown, MA 01267
Why do we need to replace or renovate Mt. Greylock’s building?
The 55-year-old facility continues to be a serious educational impediment and a significant financial drain on
our communities. Building and infrastructure deficiencies, failing mechanical systems, substandard science labs,
ADA non-compliance and the absence of fire suppression systems are only the most dramatic issues. The cost
to the towns of repairing the building in full—meeting ADA requirements, installing fire suppression systems,
replacing the ventilation system, installing insulation, replacing windows, etc.—is estimated at $58 million. All
this would cost the towns more than the currently proposed project, as the Massachusetts School Building
Authority would not reimburse a project that merely repaired the building and left it educationally deficient.
Summary of Deficiencies
Mount Greylock Regional School is a 177,400 sq. ft. facility primary constructed in two phases: 1960 and 1968.
The 1968 addition added a cafeteria and library to support the then growing student population. That
population has since leveled off at significantly less, leaving the facility oversized. Although well maintained
throughout its life, the primary infrastructure remains largely unchanged from its construction 47 and 55 years
ago. As result, our school does not meet safety and accessibility code, hampers learning, and wastes money. It
also contains high levels of hazardous materials since little abatement has been done over the years and the
finishes are largely original.
MGRS’s SOI was accepted into
MSBA program in October 2013
The major issues include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
oversized structure---built for 1200 students, now serves
under 600
outdated, non-code compliant fire alarm system
very significant heat loss due to poor wall and roof
insulation
dysfunctional heating distribution and ventilation systems
age and poor layout that obstruct new uses of technology
inadequate space and infrastructure for science instruction
and labs
inadequate special education areas
non-code compliant building security and air quality
sprawling layout that impedes collaborative learning
original building materials found to be hazardous
1
177,400 Square Foot Building Sprawl
Single story building
Flat roof
Ponding
occurring
Minimal insulation
Average R-value
of walls: 2.4
Heat Escaping Through Windows & Walls
Poorly Fitting Interior
Storm Windows
80% of Exterior
Walls Are Glass
2
New Boilers Connected to Outdated Systems
Air compressors linked to
heating controls
Pneumatic heating controls
Outdated, Deficient Ventilation System
Air Out
3
Air
Inadequate Science Labs
Poor Ventilation
Water Disconnected
Gas Disconnected
Non-functional,
Asbestos-lined Fume Hood
Minimal Technology
Accessibility and Other Code Requirements
Corridor Ramps & Stairs to Gym
Auditorium Slope & Meeting Room Steps
Door Widths and Hardware make serving line &
Restrooms Non-Accessible
4
What’s the advantage of working with the Massachusetts School Building
Authority (MSBA)?
In October 2013, the MSBA recognized Mt. Greylock’s serious building needs and brought the district into its
highly competitive building program. In the case of Mt. Greylock, almost 60% of the costs will be reimbursed by
MSBA. This amounts to as much as $32.4 million. It has taken a decade for our project to be accepted into the
competitive MSBA pipeline. If we don’t take advantage of this opportunity now we’ll go back to the end of the
MSBA waiting line.” We thus have a once-in-a-generation chance to use the tax money that we’ve already paid
to help provide for our communities with a safe, efficient, and educationally supportive school building.
Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA)
•
•
•
•
Uses 1% of State Tax to support municipal building projects
VERY Competitive Selection
Partners with accepted districts to guide them through the Design and Construction Process
Reimburses portion of cost: MSBA contribution for MGRS Project would be as much as $32.4 million almost 60% of eligible reimbursable costs
Does the MSBA reimburse for all project costs?
No, some costs are not reimbursed. The $64.8 million figure includes an estimated $8 million that is nonreimbursable. Through careful scrutiny and extensive deliberations, the School Building Committee (SBC) has
since August lowered the non-reimbursable costs from $16 million to $8 million, which directly reduced the
local share of the cost. The SBC will continue to focus on reducing the local share as we move into the Design
Development and Construction Document phases of the project. We will continue to explore avenues of “smart”
Value Engineering to bring the costs down while maintaining the high level of educational program our kids
deserve. These processes take place after the voters approve a project.
What financial role might Williams College play?
Williams has said all along that it intends to be involved financially with the capital needs of the Mt. Greylock
District. The focus has been on determining how to do that so that the full benefit accrues to the district and
its member towns. We believe that that can now be worked out fairly soon.
What is the basis of the design?
The MSBA requires the design of a school building be driven by the district’s educational plan. School
administrators, architects, education consultants, teachers, staff, students, and community members all helped
to formulate the educational plan submitted to the MSBA on which this design is based. The MSBA has said that
it’s extremely pleased with the district’s educational plan, as well as with how the building has been designed
to meet the educational needs in a cost-effective manner.
How was the size of the building determined?
The MSBA determines the amount of square footage that it will reimburse based on detailed enrollment
projections and its experience with projects across the state. The district then allocates the allotted square
footage to the number of classrooms, labs, seminar rooms, locker rooms, etc., within the strict MSBA guidelines.
The MSBA has approved all space proposals in Mt. Greylock’s schematic design
5
What was accomplished with the Feasibility Study that the towns funded?
At the annual town meetings in 2014, both towns overwhelmingly authorized the district to incur the $850,000
debt necessary to take the next steps with the MSBA. These included retaining an owner’s project manager
(OPM) and a design firm. The team examined the existing building, commissioned studies of engineering,
wetlands, hazardous materials, explored alternative designs, and developed a schematic design with a detailed
cost estimate. At that time, the MSBA offered a reimbursement rate of 53.32% for this step. The result of all
that work and of extensive input from the communities has been the development of a detailed design and of
a budget that’s now ready for approval by the towns. On July 30, 2014, the MSBA invited Mount Greylock into
the feasibility phase and set the projected enrollment at 535 students.
PHASE 1 HAZMAT SURVEY- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND AVIATION TANK CIRCA 1947,
COMPLETE-TANK AND SOILS REMEDIATED 2015
APPROXIMATE LOCATION/AREA OF FIREWORK LAUCHING
1989—92/ 1999-2003- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY SCHOOL
COMMITTEE
UNDERGROUND FUEL OIL TANKS, TESTING OF EXISTING
MONITORING WELLS- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY NEW
PROJECT; FUNDS HAVE BEEN CARRIED TO DO SO.
GEO-TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION DONE IN 2015
UNCOVERED AREA OF URBAN FILL- WILL BE ADDRESSED BY
SCHOOL COMMITTEE
AIRPLANE RUNWAY/ RUNNING TRACK- WILL BE
ADDRESSED BY SCHOOL COMMITTEE
WELLS 1, 2, 3- WELLS 1&2 NOT USED FOR DRINKING
WATER, CURRENTLY OPEN & BEING MONITORED. W3-FULLY
TESTED & FOUND TO BE FREE OF ANY CONTAMINANTSWILL BE ADDRESSED BY NEW PROJECT; FUNDS HAVE BEEN
CARRIED TO DO SO.
SEWER DRAINAGE LINE CONNECTED IN 1984 TO RTE 7 LINE,
PIPE POTENTIALLY ABANDONED IN PLACE, ACM POSSIBLEMAY BE PARTIALLY ADDRESSED BY NEW PROJECT WHERE
PIPE IS IN FOOTPRINT OF BULIDING FOUNDATIONS.
BALANCE OF ABATEMENT BY SCHOOL COMMITTEE.
VISIBLE INDICATION OF FLOOR TILE & OTHER DEBRIS
AROUND PERIMETER OF AIRPLANE HANGER STRUCTURE,
COMPLETE- BUILDING DEMOLISHED AND SITE
REMEDIATED 2015
1
3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ASSESSMENT MAP
2
LEGEND
Location deemed unfeasible
Location deemed feasible
6
5
4
Evaluation of Options
Multiple options were considered throughout the Feasibility Study including Base Repair, Addition/Renovation
Options as well as New Construction Options.
BR
Base Repair (BR)
CUST
AUD
R1
R2
R3
R4
N1
N2
N3
N4
R5
Addition + Renovation (R)
New Construction (N)
MOUNT GREYLOCK SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE GOALS
Well-Designed/Site Specific
clear/inviting approach, orientation/views
Supports the Educational Program
proper zoning, location/adjacencies
Creates Collaborative, Flexible Spaces
for teams/departments/pull-out/planning
Safe/Secure and Comfortable
good visibility, one entry, simple circulation
Aesthetically Pleasing
new face, visible SE entry/approach
Energy Efficient/Comfortable
good orientation & three-story construction
Fiscally Responsible & Supportable
educationally-optimal/least expensive range
Incorporate Durable, Low- Maintenance Materials
Durable & energy conscience material choice
Right-Sizing the School
consolidated plan, efficient & flexible
7
R6
R7
What is the design that voters are being asked to support?
Based on extensive study and community input, the design chosen would combine renovation and new
construction. The auditorium, the gym, and the surrounding support spaces would be renovated, ensuring they
are code compliant, more efficient, and more useful. The academic wing would be removed and replaced with
a new wing that would be energy efficient and would support the many ways that teaching and learning have
changed since 1960.
Preferred Solution
The preferred solution keeps only the existing auditorium, mechanical/custodial wing, and gymnasium/locker
wing, while building a new consolidated 3-story academic wing in front and a new cafeteria, media/technology
and school administration areas between the existing auditorium and gymnasium. The new academic wing is
angled for ideal solar orientation and to maximize daylight while improving energy efficiency. This also opens
the building toward the approach—reinforcing visibility and way-finding and helps capture views—a priority
among staff, students, and community.
The new portion of the building is situated to minimize
disruption with educational operations during construction.
The car loop and parking lot remain in their current locations,
but are reconfigured to separate buses and cars, use trees to
break up the parking mass and provide shading, and to
incorporating an access road around the building and to athletic
fields for safety, service, and maintenance
Reuse of the auditorium and gymnasium creates a separation
of activity/community use spaces, while maintaining good
zoning and lock-off ability. The cafeteria, located with the
auditorium, serves as additional spill-out space with the kitchen
nearby for potential catering opportunities. The gym takes
advantage of the adjacent main lobby as foyer. Admin areas
are positioned for natural supervision and control of the entry,
and activity areas and the Media Center/Library and
technology spaces are located within the same zone.
The academic wing provide optimal educational flexibility
with classroom clusters (neighborhoods) that can
accommodate a department or team structure, while
minimizing travel and congestion. The two middle school
teaching teams could be located on one floor, while the other
floors could be organized into four departments (math,
English, social studies and foreign language) or four
interdisciplinary teams. In either case, special education
would be spread across all floors, and science would exist in
pairs on each floor, connected vertically as a department.
8
GYM.
AUD.
CAF.
MEDIA/
LIBRARY
Educational Program/Preferred Solution
The Preferred Solution meets the district’s Educational Program and was designed directly from the stated
program, policies, and objectives. Some of the key components of the program that are infused into the
design include:






Addressing the district’s space and configuration needs as a combined middle-high School by
creating the potential for small learning ‘neighborhoods’ or teams as well as departmental
structure;
- 2 teams or grades per floor (MS on one floor, HS on
two)
- 2 departments per floor (5 CRs Each w/ SPED)
- 6 Interdisciplinary teams (5 CRs Each w/ SPED)
- SPED is Integrated in teams and departments
- Science positioned for both team and department
integration
- class size policies are built into the programming
calculations
- 20 or fewer students in each math or english class
- 22 or fewer students in science, social studies & world language
School scheduling methods are integral, such as 2 deliberate lunch periods, which alternate with
directed study or science prep for all students (all 3 grades in one or other during those periods)
- Cafeteria sized for an efficient 2 lunch seatings
- Science programmed at 75% utilization (to accommodate prep periods)
Teaching methodology/structure (current and future) is accommodated by flexible classroom size,
shape, visibility and connections to adjacent space
- Supports inquiry/project based learning
- Supports small group, project work & 1:1 pull out
- Opportunities interdisciplinary work
- Classrooms are contiguous and stacked vertically for flexibility of departments or teams to
expand or contract year to year
Technology/media center/library, art/music, PE & SPED programs are sized, positioned and
connected per the program needs
- Media center/Library, technology & art connected to allow for STEM opportunities, but also
flexibility for maker spaces to evolve
- Integration of SPED (within each team/department)
- Outdoor learning (linked to media center, art/tech spaces)
Key programmatic adjacencies are incorporated, as outlined
- Planning/large group space near the cafeteria and connected to the media center (with video
production) to serve lunchtime cultural events and alternatives
Addresses safety/security (at the planning level)
- Having a single main entry and limited exterior access points
- Administration with visibility of approach and internal major spaces
- Zoned for controlled public access and lock-off capabilities
9
Site Plan and Views
View Looking South (from new Lobby, Library & Cafeteria)
10
Enlarged Main Entry/Drop-Off
Enlarged Courtyard/Amphitheater
GYMNASIUM
AUDITORIUM
11
Floor Plans
12
Front Aerial (looking north/west)
Back Aerial (looking east)
13
Entry/Bus Approach (looking west)
Cafeteria/Main Entry Canopy (looking north)
14
MSBA 3011 SD Project Budget Sheet
• Estimates based on the schematic design
• Budget and scope agreed to by the MSBA
Feasibility Study $850,000 included for reimbursement
Maximum Total Facilities Grant: $33,267,903
This is the max that MSBA will reimburse – it is based on eligible
costs & we may not receive the full amount depending on how
much we actually spend
Total Project Budget: $64,737,706
This is the amount that the towns will be asked to authorize
Potential District Share:
Minimum Share:
$31,469,803
Maximum Share:
$35,360,463
What’s the total cost, and how much of it would be borne by the state and by
the district?
The total project cost is around $64.8 million dollars. The MSBA would use money that Massachusetts residents
have paid in state sales tax to reimburse 59.68% of the reimbursable costs. The maximum facilities grant is
currently estimated at $32.5-$33.3 million. The district share is estimated to be a minimum of $31.5 million and
a maximum of $35.3 million. (Since the MSBA does not determine final reimbursement of contingency items
until the end of the project, it is necessary to present a range at this time.) The current division of debt would
be 32.3% to Lanesborough and 67.7% to Williamstown. If the number were $33.0 million, that would come to
around $10.6 million for Lanesborough and $22.3 million for Williamstown.
15
MSBA Funding Calculation
Project
Budget ($)
[Eligible Costs]
X
[Reimbursement
District
Share ($)
• MSBA limits eligible costs in an effort to more fairly distribute its funds – this is
done with caps and exclusions
• Some ineligible costs include:
•
•
•
•
Site costs > 8% of the construction
costs
Remediation costs associated with
asbestos tile
New construction costs
greater than $299/sq-ft
Legal fees
This number was about
$16M in August 2015
How has the community been
involved in this process?
Total Project Budget
$ 64,737,706
Construction Budget
$ 52,310,706
Misc. Costs & FFE
$ 2,252,000
Contingencies
$ 2,200,000
Feasibility Study
$ 850,000
Scope items exclude or
ineligible (current)
$ 8,035,557
The district has worked to make the process as inclusive and transparent as possible. The School Building
Committee includes members of each town’s Select Board and Finance Committee. Other residents of both
communities serve on task groups. Many public forums have been held in Lanesborough and Williamstown. All
meetings of the School Building Committee have been open to the public. They’ve also been taped for access
on both town’s cable TV and continue to be available online at WilliNet.org. A project page has been maintained
on Facebook and on the Mt. Greylock website. And there’ve been numerous articles in The Berkshire Eagle,
iBerkshires, and The Berkshire Courier detailing the decision-making process. Community feedback played a
large role in the development of design options and in the selection of the project that went into schematic
design. Town Officials, community members, faculty, students, administrators, and district officials have all
participated in the following task groups:
• Educational Planning
• Green School Design
• Facilities & Maintenance
• Finance & Bonding
• Community Outreach
The School Building Committee conducted public forums in both towns to gain community input on project
design. In addition, the Committee shared updates and collected feedback at over a dozen school and
community events and meetings in both towns.
We welcome future participation!
16
When would the new/renovated school be ready?
If we stay on schedule with the votes, students would begin using the new academic wing in April 2018. The
renovation of the auditorium/gym and demolition of the old academic wing is scheduled for completion by fall
2018. Delays in voting at this time could push the completion dates for these two phases by 6-12 months.
2015
2016
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC
2017
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
2018
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Feasibility & Schematic Design Phase
Local
Vote
Complete Design Documents / Bid
Early Classroom Building Packages & Long Lead Equipment
Phase 1 - Public Space (Cafeteria, Media, Auditorium, Art, Admin)
Phase 2 - New Classroom Wing
Phase 3 - Gym Renovation
Phase 4 - Demo & Sitework
Submit
Schematic
Design to
MSBA
MSBA Board
Vote
January 27,
2016
Mt. Greylock Regional
School District Regional
Town Debt Exclusion
Vote
Classroom Wing Complete
Open April 2018
Project Complete
Open Fall 2018
MARCH 2016 -
DEBT EXCLUSION VOTES
AUGUST 2016 -
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS
APRIL 2018-
CLASSROOM WING COMPLETE- OPEN
FALL 2018 -
PROJECT COMPLETE - SCHOOL OPEN
Project Costs
approx. $64.8 MILLION PROJECT COST
approx. 59.68% REIMBURSEMENT of eligible costs from the MSBA
$31.5-$35.3 MILLION DISTRICT SHARE –
32.3% by Lanesborough and 67.7% by Williamstown
17
How would the debt affect my taxes?
The Finance Task Group, composed of district and town officials, working
with our bonding agent, recommends a series of bonds ranging from 27
to 29 years. In Lanesborough, residents could expect their tax bill to
include $309-$393 per year for the building project over the life of the
bond. This averages to $351 per year or $87.75 per quarter. In
Williamstown, the impact would be closer to $394-$568, which averages
to $481 or $120.25 per quarter. These tax impacts could shift over the life
of the bond according to the five-year rolling average on capital
apportionment agreed to by the towns in November and December 2015.
SAMPLE
How would the debt exclusion vote work?
The debt exclusion vote would be an election with a paper ballot. To save
the towns money, Williamstown and possibly Lanesborough will hold the
vote on March 1, the same day and in the same places as the presidential
primary. Voters could choose to participate in one or both elections.
Voters who chose to participate in both elections would sign in twice,
receiving one ballot each time. Votes for school building projects are
decided by simple majority, so 50% of the votes determines the outcome.
Williamstown Vote:
Tuesday March 1
Lanesborough Vote:
Tuesday March 15
What are the next steps in the process?
The School Committee voted on January 14, 2016 to appropriate the debt for the project. Since the School
Committee voted to appropriate the debt contingent on the towns’ ability to exclude the debt (that is, to pass
debt exclusion votes), town meetings are not necessary. Williamstown has decided not to call a special town
meeting. Lanesborough will hold a Special Town Meeting on February 23. The towns will vote to exclude the
debt cost from the Proposition 2 ½ limit on tax increases over the life of the bond. This vote will be held on
March 1 in Williamstown—the same day as the state presidential primary. The vote in Lanesborough will be
held on March 15.
What if one town votes to exclude the debt and the other doesn’t?
In regional districts like Mt. Greylock, if any member town fails to pass the debt exclusion, then the project fails.
In our case, if the project fails, we’ll have missed the chance to use money that our communities have already
paid the state in taxes, will have not realized the full potential of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that both
towns voted overwhelmingly to spend on the feasibility study, and will be stuck with the significantly higher cost
of repairing a building (without any state reimbursement) that will still fail to meet the educational needs of our
children. While the district can seek a second vote within six months, this could be a re-vote of the same project.
If the district chooses to attempt a reduction in the scope of the project, this would be a costly process, requiring
additional architectural services and delays in procurement of materials.
TIME is MONEY
The School Committee and School Building Committee have met every deadline that we and the MSBA have set
to date. It is critical that we continue to stay on schedule. Delays in approvals could mean higher bond rates
for taxpayers and season-long construction delays. These factors will cost our communities in real dollars.
18
Why is a March Debt Exclusion Vote Critical to the Towns?
The current project is on a tight timeline to gain every possible efficiency and to reduce the overall project
cost once it goes to bid. The construction schedule is based on many variables that were developed in the 18month feasibility and schematic design phase, supported by the towns in spring 2014. If the project falls out of
the current timeline, we will lose these built-in efficiencies and will need to reduce costs elsewhere to make
up for the losses. A Debt Exclusion vote by mid-March is critical to meeting the schedule.
A one/two-month delay in the town vote could impact several phasing sequences that could greatly impact
the school operations and construction cost model. We are currently scheduled to break ground in August
2016, finish the academic wing by April 2018, and complete the full project by fall 2018. If delayed at the start,
all final site improvements and landscaping would be pushed into Spring '19. This adds remobilization costs,
labor rate increase, etc. It also pushes out the final MSBA audit and therefore the final reimbursement. The
new classroom wing would open in Fall '18 instead of April '18. The gym would not be complete for use during
Fall '17.
While it is hard to quantify the costs for such a delay, we do know they will escalate quickly. Key cost drivers
that would increase the current estimates are:
1. Subcontractor bidding increases: the nationwide cost index increased over 4% last year; in New
England, it was around 5.5%.
2. An inefficient project is also likely to attract fewer bidders, decreasing our ability to keep down the
costs. In many instances labor supply cannot keep up with labor demand. Subs are very selective and
the further projects get pushed out the less interest subs have in them.
3. Phasing and sequencing of the work. The present schedule is efficient, aggressive, and designed to
save the community money. The schedule works with the district’s educational program, allowing for
minimal disruption to teaching and learning. Revisions to the schedule have far reaching impacts.
4. Increased schedule duration requires additional time on site, which costs money for all involved with
the project; Contractor, designer, OPM, and other administrative and carrying costs.
5. Higher maintenance costs for the building. Resulting from the need to reduce the quality of materials
to offset the delay. Materials that cost less but have higher maintenance costs do not actually save
money.
6. Escalating interest rates for bonding the project. This estimate alone is $3-5 million.
Efforts to speed up the project to meet later deadlines could increase the following
1. Over-time pay for 2nd and 3rd shifts.
2. Tight delivery and set up timeframes for electrical and tech to get spaces ready for students.
3. Complaints from all sides that the project is not well thought out, inconvenient, or unsafe on site and
at school. Even though we will have a good plan under any circumstance, the more frantic / frenetic
schemes tend to elicit more negative feedback and less trust of the team and process overall.
All cost for delays will be born solely by the District taxpayers in Lanesborough and Williamstown. The
MSBA will not increase its grant to the District to offset increased project costs.
We ask that you help us maintain an efficient effective process for this important
project.
Remind people to vote!
19