Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLPS Elementary Master Plan 2006 DPCOJS MORN /NC O TOWN OF LEXINGTON a 1W Lexington, Massachusetts $ APRIL Nlx LFX[NC'[a{ DRAFT REPORT Lexington Elementary Schools Master Plan Study January 2007 Designpartnership OF CAM B R I D G E TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Confirm the 10 year projected K -5 enrollment; adopt a district -wide K -5 design enrollment for master plan purposes. SECTION 2: CAPACITY ANALYSIS Determine capacities of the existing schools, including modular CR's. Present this information to the Superintendent in a form that can be used to determine redistricting requirements. SECTION 3: SYSTEM -WIDE OPTIONS Identify system -wide options in terms of number and size of schools, based on calculated capacities for the new Harrington school and new Fiske schools. We will consider the remaining schools as either new schools, renovated as -new schools, or removed from service, and we will look at both a 5- school model and a 6- school model. SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF MASTER -PLAN OPTIONS Based on school committee decision on number and size of schools, Identify and evaluate school- specific district —wide elementary school master plan options as follows: a. Develop prototype ed specs for new and renovated -as -new schools based on school size decision, using the new Harrington and Fiske ed specs as a starting point for a prototype ed spec. b. Develop building plans and site plans for new school and renovated -as -new school options for each of the Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Hastings sites. c. Develop preliminary cost estimates for new and renovated -as -new plans at 4 school sites. d. Establish a possible time -line for master plan implementation. Describe alternative approaches to temporary housing for schools during construction. Show when old Harrington would be no longer needed for swing space. SECTION 5: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Develop space program for central administration. Explore options for relocation, including fit of space needs into old Harrington. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E Lexington Elem. Schools Master Plan Study A. PROJECT BACKGROUND The public school system of the Town of Lexington includes the Lexington High School, two middle schools, six elementary schools, and a central administration building (the "White House "). Of the 6 elementary schools, one is in a new building (Harrington), 4 are in buildings dating from the 1950's (Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Harrington), and one (Fiske) is housed temporarily in an old school building (old Harrington) while its new building is being completed. DPC was engaged by the Town of Lexington in July 2006 to undertake a Master Plan study of its elementary school system. This engagement follows in the steps of several previous school master planning and study efforts. Among other considerations, this current master planning effort needs to address several major system -wide elementary school issues: With the exception of the two new schools, all of the elementary schools are 50 years old, with building systems and enclosure elements having met or exceeded their useful service life. Additionally, these buildings do not meet current standards for educational space size or handicapped accessibility. Serious inequities exist, both educationally and from a facilities standpoint, between the two new schools and the 4 old schools. Recent enrollment projections by the Lexington Public Schools show a likely significant decline in elementary school enrollments over the next few years, which potentially changes the long -term elementary school needs of the town. Against this background, DPC's primary charge is to develop a long -term master plan for Lexington's elementary schools. The working assumption is that no new sites would be available for school construction. Consequently, master plan options are presumed to involve either renovation and expansion of existing schools, replacement of existing schools on their existing sites, or some combination of those approaches. A related short-term objective of the study effort is to assist in the current re- districting effort by calculating appropriate student capacities for the existing elementary schools, taking into account non - classroom space needs for specialized instructional programs such as art & music and the space needs of special education programs, both school- specific and district -wide. An additional part of the charge is to investigate alternatives and recommend a solution for housing the school department's central administration functions. This is considered a high priority concern, as the existing central administration building is severely undersized for its function and in poor condition. A recent design study indicates a very high cost to renovate and expand the existing building for this purpose. Lexington Elementary School Master Plan C. STEPS TO COMPLETE THE MASTER PLAN The sequence of tasks required to complete the Master Plan study in an orderly fashion is outlined below. Confirm the 10 year projected K -5 enrollment; adopt a district -wide K -5 design enrollment for master plan purposes. 2. Determine capacities of the existing schools, including modular CR's. Present this information to the Superintendent in a form that can be used to determine redistricting requirements. Identify system -wide options in terms of number and size of schools, based on calculated capacities for the new Harrington school and new Fiske schools. We will consider the remaining schools as either new schools, renovated as -new schools, or removed from service, and we will look at both a 5- school model and a 6- school model. 4. Based on school committee decision on number and size of schools, Identify and evaluate school - specific district —wide elementary school master plan options as follows: a. Develop prototype ed specs for new and renovated -as -new schools based on school size decision, using the new Harrington and Fiske ed specs as a starting point for a prototype ed spec. b. Develop building plans and site plans for new school and renovated -as -new school options for each of the Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Hastings sites. c. Develop preliminary cost estimates for new and renovated -as -new plans at 4 school sites. d. Compare options (replacement school, renovate as new, or close school) at each of the 4 school school sites. Be prepared to offer a system -wide recommendation based on the comparison. e. Establish a possible time -line for master plan implementation. Describe alternative approaches to temporary housing for schools during construction. Show when old Harrington would be no longer needed for swing space. Develop space program for central administration. Explore options for relocation, including fit of space needs into old Harrington. Lexington Elementary School Master Plan 2. Existing School Capacities: As our next step, DPC developed working capacity calculations for each of the existing elementary schools, based on the premise that, as planned for redistricting, each school should have dedicated space for art, music and technology. The capacity calculations also recognize the need for resource and specialist space and for space to house district -wide special education programs at each school. These have been reviewed with the superintendent and presented to the redistricting committee. Since the end result of our work includes recommendations on providing school space for the projected elementary school enrollment, and since the new Fiske and Harrington schools are presumed to be part of that accommodation, we had to adopt working capacities for those new schools in order to be able to quantify the seats that need to be provided at other schools. For this purpose, we have used the working capacities of 490 and 444 respectively determined as noted above. These differ from the nominal design capacities of 500 pupils per school, primarily because the working capacities make allowances for space dedicated to district -wide special needs programs, something not specifically identified in the design capacities. 3. Master plan configuration options: We took as a starting point our projections for the district -wide K -5 projected enrollment and the calculated capacities for the new Harrington and Fiske Schools. Based on these considerations, we determined that the enrollments that need to be accommodated in the remaining schools is 1272 pupils. This remaining enrollment can be accommodated in the context of either a 6- school (as currently exists) or a 5- school district -wide K -5 configuration. Assuming a desire for schools of equal size (to the greatest extent possible), this calculation indicates that the remaining enrollments could be housed in 3 schools of 426 pupils (19 CR's) or 4 schools of 318 pupils (14 -15 CR's). From this point forward in the planning process, we saw our task as providing a recommended master plan meeting the long -range elementary needs, beyond the capacities of the new Harrington and new Fiske, with either new schools or functionally -as -new renovated & expanded schools at existing elementary school sites. School Committee presentation of 11/14/06 A progress presentation of our work -to -date was made to the School Committee on November 14 The presented work to date included the enrollment projections and recommended elementary grades design enrollment, the calculations of present working capacities for the elementary schools and the mathematical models for the 5- school and 6- school district wide elementary school plans as described above. In choosing between the 5 school model and the 6 school model, it is important to recognize the relative operational and cost inefficiencies of operating 6 elementary schools compared to 5 elementary schools serving the same enrollment, and to also acknowledge the educational advantages, including the increased potential to provide specialists dedicated to a single school and the opportunity to provide more capacious core facilities, of a 400 pupil school over a 300 pupil school. With these considerations in mind, we recommended to the School Committee that they direct us, without regard to which school sites might be involved or to whether individual schools would be renovations & additions or replacement new schools, to proceed with exploration of master plan Lexington Elementary School Master Plan options based on the 5- school model, including the new Harrington, the new Fiske, and 3 other schools of 426 pupils each. In the discussion and public q & a that followed, the School Committee expressed its concern that the enrollment projections, in showing a dramatic future decline in elementary school enrollments, do not take into account all factors which could affect future enrollments. Among factors causing concern is the possibility that the inherent attractiveness of the Lexington Public Schools could cause a wave of in- migration, not reflected in historic trends, that would drive up future enrollments beyond what is shown in any of the projections. As part of this discussion, several points were brought out: * The proposed design enrollment and the prototype ed specs being developed from them contain contingencies and a significant degree of "elasticity ", so that there is accommodation for a considerable degree of uncertainty. * The enrollment projections have been prepared on the assumption that future enrollment patterns will, in broad ways, follow historic trends. In that context, it is possible to imagine changes to enrollment growth & shrinkage patterns that would push actual future enrollments beyond what is projected. * The master plan process is expected to culminate in a long -term recommendation to engage in a number of school building projects over a period of years. The master plan should be structured to allow recognition of and accommodation for the possibility that, over a period of years, actual enrollments may deviate from what is projected. * The advantage of a plan that calls for incremental implementation is that, successive implementation steps can be adjusted, by increasing or decreasing the amount built, to accommodate changes in actual need that occur over time. In light of this discussion, the School Committee asked if it is possible to develop the the master plan based on a school slightly larger than the 426 pupil school model that is proposed as part of the 5 school plan. On being told that this is possible, the School Committee directed DPC to complete the master plan study using as model a school of approximately 450 pupils, with an educational space program essentially equivalent to the new Harrington School. Lexington Elementary School Master Plan 4. System -Wide Master Plan Options a. Prototype Educational specifications: Based on the meeting with the School Committee, DPC developed a prototype ed spec for a 21 —room 450 -pupil school. This ed spec became the basis for developing both new school plans and plans for renovation/expansion to functionally as -new condition at each school site. Versions of this ed spec have been developed to reflect the slight differences in district -wide SpEd program space needs that occur at each school. These have been reviewed with the Superintendent and have been used to develop preliminary plans for each site. These educational space programs are in the appendix. b. Develop preliminary site and building plans: For each of the 4 sites of active older elementary schools, we developed site plans and building plan options, looking at both new school and renovate -to -as -new for each site and school. We recognized that the preferred school size decision by the School Committee, taken together with our district -wide design enrollment projection, pointed to a 5- school elementary school master plan. Our thinking was that, by developing new and renovation options at each site, we had a "kit of parts" from which the family of all reasonable options could be developed. District -wide options would consist of the two new schools plus 3 of the older school sites, in some combination of new and renovation. Preliminary site plans: In developing new and renovated school site plans at each site, we aimed to provide the greatest possible quantity and best locations for fields, play -space and tot lots, parking and roadways. We also looked to provide the highest possible degree of separation of uses, between cars and buses and between vehicles and pedestrians. The opportunities for improvement provided in the site plans for renovated buildings are obviously limited by the need to work with existing building locations. In the site plans for new buildings, there is more opportunity to take maximum advantage of the sites because of the options available for siting of the new buildings. Given that the existing Lexington school sites are all fairly small sites with, in many cases, significant constraints such as wetlands, topography and easements, the freedom to site new buildings has proven to offer significant advantages. 2. Preliminary building plans: Both new and renovation building plans were developed to satisfy the 450 pupil prototype ed spec. Since our goal is to provide equity of educational facility in all cases, this meant that some significant reconfigurations of existing buildings were required to meet program. Since, with the exception of the Hastings School, all of the active older school buildings are single - story, we have developed plans for the renovations & expansions of those buildings as single story. For the new school options, we have shown those as 2 story plans in all cases. Because of the limited site space, the reduced footprint of a 2 story plan yields significantly more site area that can be used to other purposes, so there is a significant advantage to the 2 story plans. Lexington Elementary School Master Plan d. Comparisons of and recommendation of a District -wide Master Plan Option: In comparing options, it was assumed, for reasons already described, that the elementary school Master Plan would be for a 5 school district, including the two new schools and 3 other schools using existing elementary school sites. On that basis, the identification of a recommended district -wide master plan option is, to some extent, a process of elimination of options at each potential site, based on a number of considerations. These include: * Building Project (construction & related) First Costs * Relative operations costs: - Energy - Maintenance * Site considerations: - Safety -Site constraints - Traffic & parking - School needs athletics, P.E., play -space - Community needs—athletics & recreation * Building considerations: Ability of building to meet educational program needs - Ability of building to serve community needs Based on our evaluation, taking these considerations as criteria, our recommendation is to discontinue use of the Hastings site as a permanent elementary school site and build new elementary schools for 450 pupils at each of the other 3 sites. In making this recommendation, our thinking is as follows: Recommendation to close a school: why choose Hastings? * The Hastings site is the tightest and most constrained for play- space, parking and drop -off space. The site and building are the least accommodating for renovations & additions. Effective accommodation of program needs requires demolition & replacement of a large part of the building, with consequent higher costs. Because part of the building is buried, the plan creates windowless space for which there is no appropriate program use. This adds to cost. Because the building is cut into the embankment, there will also be premium costs for foundation waterproofing & drainage. The site is the least accommodating for new construction. To accommodate changes in grade, major retaining walls will be required. If these are incorporated in the site, they pose a hazard to children. If they are incorporated in the building, they create windowless space for which there is no appropriate program use, which adds to cost. Because the building is cut into the embankment, there will also be premium costs for foundation waterproofing & drainage. * Both renovation and new construction costs are higher than at other sites. Lexington Elementary School Master Plan 4. Time line for implementation: Following identification of this recommended approach, we developed two alternative preliminary implementation timelines. Both of these assume the following: Three new elementary schools will be built sequentially, with the 4"' school (Hastings) used as swing space, so that students are assumed not to be on site during construction at any school site. * It is assumed that construction can begin in the summer of 2010, and that it will be possible to close a school that year for construction to begin based on the projected decline in enrollments. * It is assumed that the time from start of construction to completion, furnishing and occupancy is 18 months. The difference between the two implementation plans lies in the presumed duration between start of successive school building projects. The 24 month schedule assumes that new schools will not be occupied (and old schools vacated) until completion of a school year. This means that the interval between the starts of successive school projects will be 24 months. The 18 month schedule assumes that mid -year occupancy of a new school will be possible, thus allowing the next school project to start 6 months earlier. This plan would allow the construction of 3 schools to be completed one year earlier. 5. Program and plan options for relocation of Central Administration: Our report on evaluation of options for Central Administration is addressed in the appendix. We limited our assessment of options to the Old Harrington School and the Hastings School, which may become available in the future under the proposed master plan. We did not evaluate continued use of the "white house ", as that has already been the focus of a planning study. Recognizing that both options for housing Central Administration provide more space than is needed for the functions currently housed at the white house, and understanding that there are some functions currently housed elsewhere that could benefit from proximity to Central Administration, we developed an expanded program of spaces that include some of these functions, including the K -5 Curriculum Center (previously expected to move to the new Fiske) and Central Supply Storage, currently at the High School. We are also including space in this program for School Facilities, recognizing that it may well be incorporated into the new DPW building if that project is approved and built. We recognize that some of these functions may not end up being located with Central Administration, and we also realize that there are other functions that may need space available in these buildings. Evaluation of those needs and the potential conjoined fit of Central Administration with other non- school- related functions has not been a part of this study. 11 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Confirm the 10 year projected K -5 enrollment; adopt a district -wide K -5 design enrollment for master plan purposes. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E 00 00 M co � It C14 i N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ro N N N N ;uaualloju3 IOOu3S Aje;uawal3 C4 O r r r u u 0) O OD O O (O O O V O M O N O 0 O O 00 Lo 9) 9) m rn N O O O 9) 0) 00 00 90 ti PO O 90 Lo PO v 00 c+) 00 N OD 4z v N LL o •� 0 N � IS N Q� U N � Sri C� J y� v�J • ICI W O LP O U U D I cn O U N O L ti ^� W E Q c W O 0 p U t co >1 a ^C W = 0 E 0) c:_ 4 X W w—aj) C O � O U Q) V, O O N O L Q1 d p O +0 O .0 d d CL O) d) 2 2 J J V ❑ ■ N ■ ■ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ro N N N N ;uaualloju3 IOOu3S Aje;uawal3 C4 O r r r u u 0) O OD O O (O O O V O M O N O 0 O O 00 Lo 9) 9) m rn N O O O 9) 0) 00 00 90 ti PO O 90 Lo PO v 00 c+) 00 N OD 4z v N LL o •� 0 N � IS N Q� U N � Sri C� J y� v�J • ICI W O LP O U U D I cn O U N O L ti ^� W E Q c W O 0 p U t co >1 a ^C W = 0 E 0) c:_ 4 X W w—aj) 0 t m V O N 2 c O J -a 0 0 a� a� U (n J U) U) _ _ m m z z W W 0 0 U) U) W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0') � LO co 0) 1,- co co N N N N N sgliIB SOOZ tlOOZ £OOZ ZOOZ 6002 0002 6666 8666 L666 L 966 6 L 966 6 t,666 U £666 2666 6666 0666 6866 9866 L966 9966 5966 0 LO Lexington, MA Resident Birth Data YEAR RESIDENT BIRTHS (State Records.) 1985 269 1986 244 1987 254 1988 243 1989 267 1990 313 1991 260 1992 256 1993 275 1994 282 1995 297 1996 274 1997 286 1998 293 1999 241 2000 303 2001 237 2002 225 2003 219 2004 222 2005 RESIDENT BIRTHS (Local Records) 272 295 273 288 297 248 301 228 227 221 219 210 RESI DEN1 RESI DENT BI RTHS (: RESI DENT BI RTHS (Local Records) 282 297 274 286 293 241 303 237 237 228 225 225 227 219 219 221 222 222 219 210 L a t m N N N _ O M� W _ O V �O L a _ O L _ W °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o rn co ti (D LO T c7 N N N N N N N N N N s4uowlloau3 9MZ-9MZ 9 MZ-1v MZ £MZ-ZMZ Z MZ- � Mz � MZ-O MZ MZ-600Z 600Z-900Z 900Z-LOOZ ZOOZ-900Z 900Z-900Z 900Z-IVOOZ L VOOZ-£OOZ .v £OOZ -ZOOZ E ZOOZ-MOZ Q MOZ-000Z OOOZ-666 � 666 x-966 � 966 �-Z66 � Z66 x-966 � 966 x-966 � 966 �-V66 � V66 x-£66 � £66�-Z66� Z66�-�66� �66�-066� 066 x-696 � 0 0 0 N Lexington Schools Enrollment Projections Summary (Based on 222 projected births /year) 1989 -1990 1990 -1991 1991 -1992 1992 -1993 1993 -1994 1994 -1995 1995 -1996 1996 -1997 1997 -1998 1998 -1999 1999 -2000 2000 -2001 2001 -2002 2002 -2003 2003 -2004 2004 -2005 2005 -2006 2006 -2007 2007 -2008 2008 -2009 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 2011 -2012 2012 -2013 2013 -2014 2014 -2015 2015 -2016 Historic 2057 2124 2201 2276 2418 2520 2623 2727 2724 2794 2817 2834 2766 2715 2764 2701 2700 A B C D E 2629 2623 2623 2624 2628 2549 2537 2545 2545 2555 2479 2462 2476 2475 2491 2370 2348 2375 2371 2395 2309 2284 2317 2312 2343 2185 2154 2201 2185 2232 2159 2128 2175 2160 2206 2154 2123 2170 2154 2201 2159 2128 2175 2160 2206 2159 2128 2175 2160 2206 I-- -e r W 00 O M 1-- It It ti It W W It T- O LC! N O 1,. T- N N N N 69 T- Cl) CD T- CD O O Y O T- N N I* LC! CD 1,. 1,. 1,. 00 00 1,. 1,. 1,. 1,. 1- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln 00 LC! 69 I* CD O LC! T- 69 00 CD T- 1,. LC! 00 00 N LC! Cl) CD LC! LC! N N 1,. M CD 1,. LC! 00 LC! O T- O M M M M M I* I* I* I* I* I* LC! LC! LC! LC! O Cl) N O O N N It O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC! 1* N 1,. 1,. 1,. LC! 69 CD r 1,. 69 N CD LC! N N M CD LC! I* LC! M CD 1,. I* ti LC! 69 T- 00 1,. �F �F N LO 0) N N 00 O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O CD O N LC! N N O O r I* 00 00 w LC! I* I* 69 N LC! M CD CD I* ti CD 69 O 1'. CD I* M M M M I* I* I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* �F 1� M of M V) M N M M L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . N CD N 1* 1,. 00 LC! O 1, r LC! LC! N 00 CD a) � N LC! 00 00 Cl) T- LC! LC! N CD LC! 00 00 CD 1* N CD Cl) Cl) Cl) M I* I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* N N N Cl) 1\ 1,, N M It O O It M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . 1'. 69 69 00 00 69 69 CD LC! 1,. 1'. 1'. N 1'. Cl) O Cl) 1,. 1,. N O Cl) N 00 LC! M w w w r LC! Cl) Cl) Cl) I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I f� �F N O M O LO c`) O 1\ P., 00 P., . . . . . . Y 1,. I* 69 1,. 69 N r M N 1* Cl) 69 I* I* Cl) I* LC! 1,. CD 1,. 1,. N r 00 r O 69 00 O LC! O Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) I Cl) I* M M M I* M I* N N LO M O 1,, 00 0) O M M O N 00 1,, M IF CO V) LO M LO LO M N M I' M . . . . . . . O 69 I* I* M ti M O w LC! N 1,. 1* CD Cl) r Cl) CD I* LC! I* CD T- CD LC! 1,. 00 69 1,. 00 a) O N N N N N N Cl) N N N N N N N N N M N ch E 0 0 0 m O I* LC! w I%. 00 69 O r N M I* LC! w I%. 00 69 O LJI 00 00 00 00 00 00 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O V 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O N O ,- N 2 m N C O L t Cc U u v co O O r N M I* LC! w 1� 00 69 O r N M I* LC! w O 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O O O O O O O *a 0 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O O O O O O O 01 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N O 6 4 M � L O L 69 O r N � Lp CO 1� 00 69 O r N M 4 Lp X cc 00 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O O O O O O N V N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O O O O O O J V) >- N N N N N N Ln N O ti r N N N N 69 r M CD r CD O O Y O r N N I* LC! CD 1� 1� 1� 00 00 1� 1� 1� 1� 1� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln 00 LC! 69 -e CD O LC! T- 69 00 CD T- 1,. LC! 00 00 N LC! Cl) CD LC! LC! N N 1,. M CD 1,. LC! 00 LC! O T- O M M M M M I* I* I* I* I* I* w I* I* LC! LC! LC! O , � CO � N '* O O � X- N X- N X- 't N N � X- X- Q) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC! -e N 1,. 1,. 1,. LC! 69 CD T- 1,. 69 N CD LC! N N Cl) CD LC! -e W M CD 1,. -e ti LC! 69 T- 00 1,. M M M M I* I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* LC! I* I* �F �F N LO O X- X- X- N - N 00 O N - - X- X- X- X- X- Q) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl) O O O CD O N LC! N N O O T- -e -e 00 00 CD LC! I* -e 69 N LC! Cl) CD CD -e ti CD 69 O 1'. CD I* M M M M I* I* I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* �F 1-, Cl) 0) M LO M N M M LO 1* It It co co co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . N CD N -e ti 00 LC! O 1,. T- LC! LC! N 00 -e CD 69 I* N LC! 00 00 Cl) T- LC! LC! N CD LC! 00 00 CD -e N CD M M M M I* I* I* I* LC! I* I* I* I* I* I* I* I* X- X- N N N cn 1\ 1\ N 1F cn 1F O O 1F M N N M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1'. 69 69 00 00 69 69 CD LC! 1l. 1l. 1l. N 1l. M O M e ti ti N O Cl) N 00 LC! M CD CD CD I r LC! 1� N O M O LO cn O 1\ 1,, 00 f� In c0 V) � LO . . . . . . . . . . . Y T" It ti It M 1- M N T" M N -e M M -e -e M e LC! 1'. CD 1'. 1'. N r 00 r O 69 00 -e O LC! O Cl) M M M M M - M I* M M M -e M I* (h N N LO M O 1\ 00 0) O M M O N 00 1\ M 1\ LO 0) O . . . . . . . . . . . . n� L 4) O 69 -e I* M ti M O CD LC! N 1� -e CD Cl) r M CD I* LC! -e CD T- CD LC! 1� 00 69 1� 00 69 -e O Q N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N M N ch E 0 � U m LU I* LC! CD 1� 00 69 O T- N M I* LC! CD 1� 00 69 O W 00 00 00 00 00 00 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O V 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N O ,- N 2 m N C 0 L t U u v co 0: O r N M I* LC! CD 1� 00 69 O r N M I* LC! CD Q m U D W p D> D> D> D> D> D> D> D> D> D> O O O O O O O D D D D D 4� O O O O O O O O O O O O a1 0 r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N X cC CO 0 609 69 a) a) a) a) 609 a) 609 609 O O O O O O W W W W W N V N 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O O O O O O LC! O 69 69 69 O 69 LC! 69 I* 69 69 Y O N 1* 1,. 1,. O 00 LC! LC! LC! LC! 1,. CD LC! I* Cl) M T- T- T- T- T- C4 N N N N N N N N N N Ln N Cl) N 69 LC! M M N N 1l. N O Go CD 69 LC! T- T- 69 Go Go 69 Cn I* I* I* I* Cn I* M M M M O O O O O O O O O O N T- Go LC! T- I* Cl) M Go M Go 1,. LC! Oo I* O O Go 1,. 1,. Go 1,. I* I* I* LC! I* M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) CD M O LC! 69 69 69 I* 69 I* I* Go I* 69 69 1,. CD 1� 1� 1� 1� M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O N 1* M CD I* I* LC! O I* O O O w N 1� Go CD LC! CD CD CD CD CD I* I* M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O M LC! LC! CD CD r CD r r r r r CD ti Cn I* Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn I* M M M M M M M M M Y M an Oo O Go I* I* I* I* I* O N O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M N S= O U Cl) M M M M M M M M M cc �a a0 y M 1,. LC! 69 N LC! A N N N N y�N O Cl) N T- N N V N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N E 0 t N N O � U m W O y O N CO LO (D � 00 0) O y .— .w O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 ^ Q L N N N N N N N N N N N O M CO C4 Um>- S= S= S= w 1� co 69 O r N M I* LC! w d 0 O O O O T r T- T- T- T- T- 4O E O O O O O O O O O O O a1__ p N N N N N N N N N N N N X O N O L LC! w 1� co 69 O r N M I* LC! L cc � cc O O O O O T r T- T- T- T- J W m co >- N N N N N N N N N N N W) O M 1'. N 00 I* I* 00 M 00 00 Y O N M w I* 00 W) N N N N 1,. CD W) I* Cl) N T- T- T- T- T- 04 N N N N N N N N N N W) N T- 69 1l. T- T- CD W) W) O W) O 00 W) 69 W) T- O 00 1,. 00 00 Ln I* I* I* I* Ln I* Cl) M M M O O O O O O O O O O N O 1,. N T- 00 00 1,. N 00 N 1,. W) 00 I* O 69 1,. w 1,. 1,. 1,. I* I* I* W) Cl) M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) CD M 00 CD I* I* I* 69 I* 69 69 00 M 69 69 1,. CD CD 1� CD CD I* I* M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O N 69 69 O W) 69 W) W) W) CD N 1� 1� W) W) W) W) W) W) W) M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O M 1, r N M 00 N 00 00 00 00 r CD 1,. W) I* I* W) I* I* I* I* M M M M M M M M M co O N O 69 O O O O O O O M M N M M M M M M M N S= O U Cl) M M M M M M M M M m y a0 y M 1,. W) 69 N W) N N N N N O Cl) N T- N N N N N N N y N M N N N N N N N N N N 0 t NO � U m W O y O N CO LO CD 1-- 00 0) O y} .w O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 L N N N N N N N N N N N 0 Q O M CC y a N V m>- S= S= S= w 1� 00 69 O r N M I* W) w d 0 O O O O T r T- T- T- T- T- 4O E O O O O O O O O O O O a1__ p N N N N N N N N N N N N •X O N 0 L W) w I%. 00 69 O r N M I* W) L Cc cc O O O O O T r T- T- T- T- J W m co >- N N N N N N N N N N N W) O M W) CD W) 1,. T- W) O W) W) Y O N 1* 1,. 1,. T- O 1,. 1,. 1,. 1,. 1,. CD W) I* Cl) M N T- T- T- T- 04 N N N N N N N N N N Ln N 1,. W) 00 1,. N O 69 69 I* 69 O 1,. W) 00 I* O T- 00 ti 00 00 Ln I* I* I* I* Ln I* Cl) M M M O O O O O O O O O O N O Cl) M 1,. CD W) W) O W) O 1,. W) 00 I* 69 O 00 1,. 00 00 00 I* I* I* I* I* M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) CD 00 00 N N N T- CD N CD CD 1,. M 69 O 00 1,. 1,. 00 1,. 1,. I* I* I* I M M M M M M Cl) O O O O O O O O O N 1* W) 1,. O O r CD O CD CD w w N 1,. 69 1,. CD CD 1,. CD CD CD I* I* Cl) M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) Cl) 69 O O W) O W) W) W) W) r CD ti CD W) W) CD W) W) W) W) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Y M 69 M � 69 M 69 69 69 69 69 O N r O O r O O O O O Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) N S= O U M M M M M M M M M M U m a0 y M 1,. W) 69 N W) N N N N N O Cl) N T- N N N N N N N y N M N N N N N N N N N N 0 t NO � U m W O y CD N M LO 0 1-- M M O y} .� O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 L N N N N N N N N N N N 0 Q O M y a N V m S= S= S= w 1� 00 69 O r N M I* W) w d 0 O O O O T r T- T- T- T- T- 4O E O O O O O O O O O O O a1__ p N N N N N N N N N N N N •X O N 0 L W) w I%. 00 69 O r N M I* W) L C cc O O O O O T r T- T- T- T- J W m co >- N N N N N N N N N N N W) O I* W) W) T- N W) O I* O O Y O N I* ti ti T- 00 CD W) CD CD 1,. CD W) I* Cl) M T- T- T- T- T- C4 N N N N N N N N N N Ln N 1,. W) 00 1,. O 00 1,. 1,. N 1,. O 1,. W) 00 I* T- O 00 ti 00 00 Ln I* I* I* I* Ln I* Cl) M M M O O O O O O O O O O N O Cl) M W) I* I* M 69 I* 69 1,. W) 00 I* O O 00 ti ti 00 ti I* I* I* W) I* M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) CD 00 00 O O O O W) O W) W) 1� M O O 00 1,. 1� 00 1� 1� I W) M M M M M M Cl) O O O O O O O O O N 1* W) CD 00 69 69 I* 69 I* I* I* CD N 00 00 CD W) CD CD CD CD CD I* I* Cl) Cl) Cl) M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) N 1� 00 00 M 00 M M M M r ti ti W) I* W) W) W) W) W) W) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) M M Y M N w OD N w N N N N N O N O 69 O O O O O O O M M N M Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) N S= O U(O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O V M M M M M M M M M M O 0 N a0 y M 1,. W) 69 N W) N N N N N O Cl) N T- N N N N N N N y N M N N N N N N N N N N 0 t NO � U m W O y CD N M LO 0 1-- M M O y} .� O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 L N N N N N N N N N N N 0 Q O M y a N V m S= S= S= w 1� 00 69 O r N M I* W) w d 0 O O O O T r T- T- T- T- T- 4O E O O O O O O O O O O O a1__ p N N N N N N N N N N N N •X O N 0 L W) w I%. 00 69 O r N M I* W) L C cc O O O O O T r T- T- T- T- J W m co >- N N N N N N N N N N N W) O O LC! T- LC! M N CD T- CD CD Y O N LC! 69 69 I* M O O O O 1,. CD LC! I* Cl) M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln N 1,. LC! 00 1,. N CD LC! I* O LC! O 1,. LC! 00 I* O T- 69 00 69 69 Cn I* I* I* I* Cn I* Cl) M M M O O O O O O O O O O N O Cl) M 1,. N T- T- CD T- CD 1,. CS) 00 I* a) r 69 00 00 69 00 I* I* I* I M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) CD 00 00 N 00 1,. 1'. N 1'. N N 1,. M 69 O 00 1,. 00 00 00 00 I* I* I* I* M M M M M M Cl) O O O O O O O O O N 1* CS) 1,. CD CD CD r CD r r r CD N 1,. 69 1,. CD 1,. 1'. 1'. 1'. 1'. I* I* Cl) M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O Cl) Cl) I* LC! LC! O LC! O O O O r O O O Cn O O O O O CD I* M M M M M M M Cl) Cl) O M r O r r r r r r r N S= O W y a0 y M 1,. LC! 69 N LC! N N N N N y O Cl) N T- N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N E 0 t NO � U m W O y O N M LO 0 � M M O y— .w O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 L N N N N N N N N N N N 0 Q O M CC y a N V m>- S= S= S= CD 1� 00 69 O r N M I* LC! CD d 0 O O O O T r T- T- T- T- T- 4O E O O O O O O O O O O O a1__ p N N N N N N N N N N N N •X O N 0 L LC! CD I%. 00 69 O r N M I* LC! L C Cc O O O O O T r T- T- T- T- J W m co >- N N N N N N N N N N N CAPACITY ANALYSIS Determine capacities of the existing schools, including modular CR's. Present this information to the Superintendent in a form that can be used to determine redistricting requirements. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E + / }a k j u2 \ � & o & p m E o 0 0 2 F- E x==20\ a 0 6m LU o .\ cc §\o a U) c� � Flo & a) ok 2 z = 0 ( 0 U) w & / � mow/ I--� m E » qco 0 m 2\ § ®w C14 a\ o R\ } a� o a/ S a a) o R\ } a/ o /\ \ / C, o R \ \ 0 � M / }a U) \� u2 I & o & p m E o po . r_. p d E 2� E x==20\ 6m LU o .\ §\o a Sue Flo a) ok = o %\ / a k r 0 § . g a CL / § / } w & o . .\ a .\ w \ ( / \ § \ \ � w y k / k \ w ; \ \ \ k ] ^ ± \ \ 2 3 G \ 2 w 2 # _ k LLI \ \ ) k G /m % \\ LO t- @ @ w e. » w t e- 2 \ 2 2 § @ ƒ @ e E » e \ .( e 3 # \ \ \ 2 O K e K K K % a A & M a < 6 & § \ C) •� 0 N � CC_ N Q� U N C\J�, W (D co ) _ CL coCL \V U � O o O � U U p (n i � co >., a i M C (D = O E 4) X W w� I I I � W r _ ! V1A71r 1 �y � CG a 4J Ir i S le L r aj x� ,>5ar C) •� 0 N � CC_ N Q� U N C\J�, W (D co ) _ CL coCL \V U � O o O � U U p (n i � co >., a i M C (D = O E 4) X W w� Sept.20, 2006 Hello Paul, This is a brief report on the status of our school system enrollment planning. I'm working toward the goal of having school capacity calculations for existing schools by October 4. As a precursor to that, I am taking a first pass at calculating the long -term space needs. My thinking on this so far is as follows: Recognizing concerns that using too low a design enrollment could lead to overcrowding if the drop in enrollments does not quite reach the projections, I am using 2206 as a K -5 design enrollment for the 2015 -2016 school year, based on the Method E projection by DPC. This is on the high side of average for enrollment projections by both DPC and the Lexington Public Schools, exceeding the LPS High / Middle projected K -5 total by 68 pupils. If we take the LPS High / Middle projection as a reasonable base, we can safely say that the 2206 number provides more than enough cushion for the anticipated enrollment impact of Avalon Bay, since that development is projected to add between 36 and 61 elementary school students (Koff Report, p. 4). 2. The district -wide design enrollments by grade, using this approach, are as follows: K 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 313 360 371 382 386 395 2206 In looking at individual school capacity, I am ignoring for the time being the impact of district -wide SpEd programs and focusing on Kindergarten and general classroom spaces as capacity - generating. A decision will have to be made whether to also count some or all SpEd space as "capacity generating ", as may be appropriate for spaces with largely self - contained programs. 4. In looking at school capacities based on KG and CR count, calculations are based on what we understand to be School Committee policy regarding class size: Grade Optimal Size Maximum Size K 18 20 1 22 24 2 22 26 3 24 26 4 24 26 5 24 26 5. For determining total system -wide room requirements, we are using the optimal students / room plus 0.5, to allow a slight amount of rounding down. Beyond that figure, we are rounding up to the next higher number of rooms. On this basis, the total number of rooms required district -wide on a grade by grade basis is as follows: K 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL 1 -5 17 16 17 16 16 17 82 Assuming that Harrington and Fiske have KG's and CR's available for general instruction as explained below, this leaves a need for 9 KG's and 48 CR's within the district. 6. Based on recent discussions, there is an apparent need for space to support district -wide programs at Harrington. Recognizing a similar need at the new Fiske school, this suggests that Fiske and Harrington should have general education capacities of 4 KG's and 17 CR's each. Using the optimal pupils per room policy, this gives each school a capacity of 468, excluding self- contained SpEd. 7. Using the district -wide K -5 design enrollment of 2206, and subtracting the capacities of Harrington and Fiske as just calculated, this leaves 1270 K -5 pupils to be housed in the remaining schools. This could be distributed as follows: TOTAL 3 Schools 4 Schools 1238 424 318 8. Assuming, for discussion, that the decision is made to adopt a long -range plan with a total of 5 schools, this remaining population could be housed in 3 schools, new or renovated, with classroom counts and enrollments as follows: TOTAL K -5 K 1 2 3 4 5 swing enrollment School 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 426 School 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 426 School 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 426 With this as a starting point, we have generated prototype ed specs for new schools of 3 KG's and 16 CR's. We are developing new building plans and renovation /expansion plans at each of the 4 active old school sites to determine the best long -term approach. We are also looking at the short -term capacities of each of the schools. s 6 Schools Option X318 ell (10 Year Plan) stab took' �� ��r • �' 2,175 Total w Design Enrollment 490 �2 r• ISs��'1 �o s 444 � � .stf R.'s New Harrington ,9. ; Old Harringfdn BrO ON ka ¢ E 6 / � oV1/ma �, R8 o Distribution of Elementary Schools Lexington Public Schools Elementary School Masterplan 11.8.06 Designpartnership O F C A M B R I D G E s 5 Schools Option X450 ell (10 Year Plan) stab took' �� ��r • �' 2,175 Total w Design Enrollment �—� 0 ". 490 a s ..� tin9s New Harrin.gton f d le •• Old Harringfdn �P Bride - �. 450 n , ON ka 3owman g R 45 -0' o Distribution of Elementary Schools Lexington Public Schools Elementary School Masterplan 11.8.06 Designpartnership O F C A M B R I D G E EVALUATION OF MASTER -PLAN OPTIONS Based on school committee decision on number and size of schools, Identify and evaluate school- specific district —wide elementary school master plan options as follows: a. Develop prototype ed specs for new and renovated -as -new schools based on school size decision, using the new Harrington and Fiske ed specs as a starting point for a prototype ed spec. b. Develop building plans and site plans for new school and renovated -as -new school options for each of the Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Hastings sites. c. Develop preliminary cost estimates for new and renovated -as -new plans at 4 school sites. d. Compare options (replacement school, renovate as new, or close school) at each of the 4 school school sites. Be prepared to offer a system -wide recommendation Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E PROTOTYPE ED SPECS 1.1 Develop prototype ed specs for new and renovated -as -new schools based on school size decision, using the new Harrington and Fiske ed specs as a starting point for a prototype ed spec. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E C. Lexington Elementary Schools Master Plan 1118106 ES District Configuration Options: K -5 Design Enrollment: 2175 I. 6- School Option: capacity Fiske 490 Harrington 444 New School 1 310 New School 2 310 New School 3 310 New School 4 310 Total 2174 11. 5- School Option: capacity Fiske 490 Harrington 444 New School 1 413 New School 2 413 New School 3 413 Total 2173 Tabl 2. 3. Sl 4. 5. 6. 9. 10 11. Sl 12. Ri 13. Town of Lexington - Bridge Elementary Program Study - storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) e A: Basic Educational Space 450 students ?neral Classrooms Kindergarten w/ toilet 4 3,905 1,200 1,300 4 1,250 5,000 1stGrade 4 3,703 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 2nd Grade 3 2,538 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 3rd Grade 3 2,531 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 4th Grade 5 4,278 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 5th Grade 4 3,387 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 swing cr 2 980 1,960 subtotal 23 20,342 5,700 6,300 21 21,660 )ecialized Teaching Stations Art 760 1,000 1,200 1 1,500 1,500 total w/ storage & kiln Art Storage -- -- Music 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage. VIF existing partitioned space Practice Room 1 75 130 1 130 130 Practice Room 2 75 130 1 130 130 Computer Labs 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage, VIF existing partitioned space Library 2,313 1,800 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 Library Office 154 -- -- 1 160 160 Library Work 685 1 120 120 AN Storage 143 1 120 120 Gymnasium" 3,157 3,000 6,000 1 4,400 4,400 stage for "gymatorium" 940 subtotal 8,152 12,360 )ecial Needs Learning Center (Resource) ? ?? 1,737 (as needed) 1 750 750 Tutorial - -4 @ 200 549 (as needed) 4 200 800 distributed (in pairs ok) Occup. Therapy 197 (as needed) 1 550 550 near gym if poss. (as needed) subtotal 2,483 2,100 wading / S L Reading Small Group Room 441 (as needed) 1 350 350 as a suite Reading Office /tutorial 197 (as needed) 3 220 660 Speech /Office (as needed) 2 250 500 subtotal 638 1,510 District -wide SpEd PALS program 2 980 1,960 ) as a suite Total Table A 32,253 39,590 storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Tabl 2. 3. Sl 4. 5. 6. 9. 10 11. Sl 12. Ri 13. Town of Lexington - Bowman Elementary Program Study - storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) e A: Basic Educational Space 450 students ?neral Classrooms Kindergarten w/ toilet 4 3,905 1,200 1,300 4 1,250 5,000 1stGrade 4 3,693 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 2nd Grade 3 2,687 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 3rd Grade 3 2,539 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 4th Grade 3 1693 +Mod 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 V.I.F. Mod 4th grade CR and add 5th Grade 5 4,248 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 swing cr 2 980 1,960 subtotal 22 17,072 5,700 6,300 21 21,660 )ecialized Teaching Stations Art 1,143 1,000 1,200 1 1,500 1,500 total w/ storage & kiln Art Storage -- -- Music Mod 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage, V.I.F. Mod CR and add Practice Room 1 75 130 1 130 130 Practice Room 2 75 130 1 130 130 Computer Labs 760 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage Library 2,313 1,800 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 Library Office 154 -- -- 1 160 160 Library Work 685 1 120 120 AN Storage 1 120 120 Gymnasium " 3,157 3,000 6,000 1 4,400 4,400 decide if stage is with caf or gym. stage for "gymatorium" 940 subtotal 9,152 12,360 )ecial Needs Learning Center (Resource) 2,730 (as needed) 1 750 750 V.I.F. ext. partitioned space Tutorial - -4 @ 200 (as needed) 4 200 800 distributed (in pairs ok) Occup. Therapy Incl. in above sf (as needed) 1 550 550 near gym if poss. (as needed) subtotal 2,730 2,100 wading / S L Reading Small Group Room 608 (as needed) 1 350 350 as a suite Reading Office /tutorial 96 (as needed) 3 220 660 Speech /Office 441 (as needed) 2 250 500 subtotal 1,145 1,510 District -wide SpEd LLP s.c. classrooms 2 980 1,960 ) as a suite Total Table A 31,244 39,590 storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Town of Lexington - Bowman Elementary Program Study - + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Table B: Misc. Educational Space 428stu.s Cafeteria 3,219 1 2,140 2,140 or or Cafetorium Platform 0 1 800 800 Seating Area + 0 + 1 3,210 3,210 sized for 2 seatings for max. audience space subtotal 3,219 4,010 Guidance Counseling Waiting Area (as needed) 1 100 100 Counseling office 200 (as needed) 1 150 150 psych office 127 (as needed) 1 150 150 Conference/Testing (as needed) 1 150 150 Assesment Storage (as needed) 1 100 100 subtotal 327 650 Health (Nurse) 306 300 750 1 700 700 (200sf offce /waiting,200sf exam + rest Kitchen ++ 1,708 1,360 1,360 ++ 1 1,360 1,360 full service, incl. storage, toilet, walk -in, dw Administration Principal 200 1 200 200 Asst. Princ. 144 1 150 150 Main Office 496 1 470 470 Work Rm /Kitchenette /Mailboxes 1 180 180 Office Supplies 65 1 50 50 Conference 2@ 300 192 2 300 600 subtotal 1,097 800 1,650 Small Group and Seminar Teachers Work 500 1 600 600 Teachers Dining 558 500 1 500 500 Tech aide / work 1 250 250 Extended day office 1 200 200 V.I.F. ext. partitioned space subtotal 558 1,550 2. Specific Storage /Offices Caf Storage 1,238 1 200 200 Gym Office 1 120 120 Gym Storage 1 300 300 subtotal 1,238 620 Community Use subtotal 0 0 Total Table B 8,453 10,540 Total Table A+ g 39,697 50,130 Other Space (partial listing) Custodial 186 [6] 1 150 150 Storage General Storage 1 900 900 subtotal 0 900 Mechanical MDF Rooms 1 110 110 IDF Rooms 1 110 110 Boiler Room 1,271 1 1 1 1,500 1,500 subtotal 1,271 1,720 Total Other Space 1,457 2,770 + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Town of Lexington - Bridge Elementary Program Study - + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Table B: Misc. Educational Space 428stu.s Cafeteria 3,219 1 2,140 2,140 or or Cafetorium Platform 1 800 800 Seating Area + + 1 3,210 3,210 sized for 2 seatings for max. audience space subtotal 0 4,010 Guidance Counseling Waiting Area (as needed) 1 100 100 Counseling office (as needed) 1 150 150 psych office 192 (as needed) 1 150 150 Conference/Testing 127 (as needed) 1 150 150 Assesment Storage (as needed) 1 100 100 subtotal 319 650 Health (Nurse) 300 750 1 700 700 (200sf offce /waiting,200sf exam + rest Kitchen ++ 1,566 1,360 1,360 ++ 1 1,360 1,360 full service Administration Principal 200 1 200 200 Asst. Princ. 144 1 150 150 Main Office 496 1 470 470 Work Rm /Kitchenette /Mailboxes 1 180 180 Office Supplies 1 50 50 Conference 2@ 300 200 2 300 600 subtotal 1,040 800 1,650 Small Group and Seminar Teachers Work 500 1 600 600 Teachers Dining 500 1 500 500 Tech aide / work 1 250 250 Extended day office 1 200 200 subtotal 0 1,550 2. Specific Storage /Offices Caf Storage 1 200 200 Gym Office 1 120 120 Gym Storage 1 300 300 subtotal 0 620 Community Use subtotal 0 0 Total Table B 2,925 10,540 Total is with Cafetorium, not Cafeteria - Adjust accordingly Total Table A+ g 35,178 50,130 Other Space (partial listing) Custodial [6] 1 150 150 Storage General Storage 1 900 900 subtotal 0 900 Mechanical MDF Rooms 1 110 110 IDF Rooms 1 110 110 Boiler Room 1,271 1 1 1 1,500 1,500 subtotal 1,271 1,720 Total Other Space 1,271 2,770 + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Tabl 2. 3. Sl 4. 5. 6. 9. 10 11. Sl 12. Ri 13. Town of Lexington - Estabrook Elementary Program Study - storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) e A: Basic Educational Space 450 students ?neral Classrooms Kindergarten w/ toilet 4 3,972 1,200 1,300 4 1,250 5,000 1stGrade 3 2,460 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 2nd Grade 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 V.I.F. all Mod CR 3rd Grade 4 3,665 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 4th Grade 940 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 V.I.F. 2 Mod CR and add to total 5th Grade 4 3,566 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 swing cr 2 980 1,960 subtotal 15 14,603 5,700 6,300 21 21,660 )ecialized Teaching Stations Art 1,436 1,000 1,200 1 1,500 1,500 total w/ storage & kiln Art Storage Incl. in above sf -- -- Music 1,436 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage Practice Room 1 75 130 1 130 130 Practice Room 2 75 130 1 130 130 Computer Labs 620 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage Library / Media Center 2,720 1,800 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 Library Office -- -- 1 160 160 Library Work 1 120 120 AN Storage 1 120 120 Gymnasium " 2,472 3,000 6,000 1 4,400 4,400 decide if stage is with caf or gym. stage for "gymatorium" 833 subtotal 9,517 12,360 )ecial Needs Learning Center (Resource) (as needed) 1 750 750 Tutorial - -4 @ 200 (as needed) 4 200 800 distributed (in pairs ok) Occup. Therapy (as needed) 1 550 550 near gym if poss. (as needed) subtotal 0 2,100 wading / S L Reading Small Group Room (as needed) 1 350 350 as a suite Reading Office /tutorial (as needed) 3 220 660 Speech /Office (as needed) 2 250 500 subtotal 0 1,510 District -wide SpEd CARE program 527 2 980 1,960 ) as a suite Total Table A 24,120 39,590 storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Town of Lexington - Estabrook Elementary Program Study - + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Table B: Misc. Educational Space 428stu.s Cafeteria 1,954 1 2,140 2,140 or or Cafetorium Platform 1 800 800 Seating Area + + 1 3,210 3,210 sized for 2 seatings for max. audience space subtotal 0 4,010 Guidance Counseling Waiting Area (as needed) 1 100 100 Counseling office (as needed) 1 150 150 psych office (as needed) 1 150 150 Conference/Testing (as needed) 1 150 150 Assesment Storage (as needed) 1 100 100 subtotal 0 650 Health (Nurse) 189 300 750 1 700 700 (200sf offce /waiting,200sf exam + rest Kitchen ++ 2,129 1,360 1,360 ++ 1 1,360 1,360 full service Administration Principal 143 1 200 200 Asst. Princ. 1 150 150 Main Office 377 1 470 470 Work Rm /Kitchenette /Mailboxes 840 1 180 180 Spaces for offices, etc. Office Supplies 211 1 50 50 Conference 2@ 300 2 300 600 subtotal 1,571 800 1,650 Small Group and Seminar Teachers Work 938 500 1 600 600 Teachers Dining 470 500 1 500 500 Tech aide / work 1 250 250 Extended day office 1 200 200 subtotal 1,408 1,550 2. Specific Storage /Offices Caf Storage 1 200 200 Gym Office 1 120 120 Gym Storage 481 1 300 300 subtotal 481 620 Community Use subtotal 0 0 Total Table B 5,778 10,540 Total is with Cafetorium, not Cafeteria - Adjust accordingly Total Table A+ g 29,898 50,130 Other Space (partial listing) Custodial 102 [6] 1 150 150 Storage General Storage 2,019 1 900 900 1083 SF in basement subtotal 2,019 900 Mechanical MDF Rooms 1 110 110 IDF Rooms 1 110 110 Boiler Room 1 2,106 1 1 1 1,500 1,500 subtotal 2,106 1,720 Total Other Space 4,227 2,770 + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Tabl 2. 3. Sl 4. 5. 6. 9. 10 11. Sl 12. Ri 13. Town of Lexington - Hastings Elementary Program Study - storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) e A: Basic Educational Space 450 students ?neral Classrooms Kindergarten w/ toilet 4 3,932 1,200 1,300 4 1,250 5,000 1stGrade 3 2,592 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 2nd Grade 5 4,165 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 V.I.F. all Mod CR 3rd Grade 3 2,470 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 V.I.F. all Mod CR 4th Grade 4 3,449 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 V.I.F. all Mod CR 5th Grade 4 3,456 900 1,000 3 980 2,940 swing cr 2 980 1,960 subtotal 23 20,064 5,700 6,300 21 21,660 )ecialized Teaching Stations Art see Cafeteria 1,000 1,200 1 1,500 1,500 total w/ storage & kiln Art Storage 224 -- -- Music 521 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage Practice Room 1 75 130 1 130 130 Practice Room 2 75 130 1 130 130 Computer Labs 576 1,000 1,200 1 1,400 1,400 total w/ storage Library 1,444 1,800 3,000 1 3,000 3,000 Library Office -- -- 1 160 160 Library Work 100 1 120 120 AN Storage 1 120 120 Gymnasium " 3,600 3,000 6,000 1 4,400 4,400 stage for "gymatorium" 950 subtotal 7,415 12,360 )ecial Needs Learning Center (Resource) 2,214 (as needed) 1 750 750 Tutorial - -4 @ 200 (as needed) 4 200 800 distributed (in pairs ok) Occup. Therapy (as needed) 1 550 550 near gym if poss. (as needed) subtotal 2,214 2,100 wading / S L Reading Small Group Room 147 (as needed) 1 350 350 as a suite Reading Office /tutorial (AIDES ? ?) 518 (as needed) 3 220 660 Speech /Office (as needed) 2 250 500 subtotal 665 1,510 District -wide SpEd ILP classroom 1,666 2 980 1,960 ) as a suite Total Table A 31,023 39,590 storage included within room size (note: the SBA reccommended classroom sizes exclude storage) " SBA (603 CMR 38.05 Table 1) specifies in a 12+ classrm school, 3000sf for ea. of first 2 teaching stations & 2000 to 3000sf ea. additional Page 1 1/19/2007 Town of Lexington - Hastings Elementary Program Study - + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 Exist. Program SBA standards New Program Room Name No. Size (so Min (so Max (so No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Table B: Misc. Educational Space 428stu.s Cafeteria 3,000 1 2,140 2,140 Also used as Art Room or or Cafetorium Platform 1 800 800 Seating Area + + 1 3,210 3,210 sized for 2 seatings for max. audience space subtotal 0 4,010 Guidance Counseling Waiting Area (as needed) 1 100 100 Counseling office (as needed) 1 150 150 psych office (as needed) 1 150 150 Conference/Testing (as needed) 1 150 150 Assesment Storage (as needed) 1 100 100 subtotal 0 650 Health (Nurse) 497 300 750 1 700 700 (200sf offce /waiting,200sf exam + rest Kitchen ++ 1,126 1,360 1,360 ++ 1 1,360 1,360 full service, includes serving Administration Principal 34 1 200 200 Asst. Princ. 1 150 150 Main Office 643 1 470 470 Work Rm /Kitchenette /Mailboxes 1 180 180 Office Supplies 1 50 50 Conference 2@ 300 2 300 600 subtotal 677 800 1,650 Small Group and Seminar Teachers Work 500 1 600 600 Teachers Dining 500 1 500 500 Tech aide / work 1 250 250 Extended day office 1 200 200 subtotal 0 1,550 2. Specific Storage /Offices Caf Storage 1 200 200 Gym Office 1 120 120 Gym Storage 211 1 300 300 subtotal 211 620 Community Use subtotal 0 0 Total Table B 2,511 10,540 Total is with Cafetorium, not Cafeteria - Adjust accordingly Total Table A+ g 33,534 50,130 Other Space (partial listing) Custodial [6] 1 150 150 Storage General Storage 1,305 1 900 900 subtotal 1,305 900 Mechanical MDF Rooms 1 110 110 IDF Rooms 1 110 110 Boiler Room 998 1 1 1 1,500 1,500 subtotal 998 1,720 Total Other Space 2,303 2,770 + SBA specifies 15sf per pupil for 1/2 or 1/3 of the enrollment at each seating ++ SBA specifies for full service kitchen, 1 300s for the first 300 meals + 1 sf for each additional meal serviced. For service kitchen only allow 800sf + ++ SBA specifies 7sf per pupil for seating, stage sf additional Page 2 1/19/2007 BUILDING & SITE PLANS Develop building plans and site plans for new school and renovated -as -new school options for each of the Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Hastings sites. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E �' ,nOyR Fs�HE Site Plan New Construction - Bowman Elementary School Site Plan Addition/ Renovation - Bowman Elementary School Bowman Elementary School DesignpartrLership Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 �`E. Site Plan New Construction - Bridge Elementary School Site PYan Addition/ Renovation - Bridge Elementary School Bridge Elementary School Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 Designpartnership f"' Site Plan - Option 1 Site Plan - Option 2 New Construction - Estabrook Elementary School Site Plan Addition/ Renovation - Estabrook Elementary School Estabrook Elementary School Designpartnersh ' OF CAMBRIDGE INC Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 �`E, 0 �� _ % — -_���_ `• r• HARD kENI Hq «� SURFACE • i ")TlNGSN001' M PLAY BUS LOOP f �. I r PLAY �` '-� .?[LJ o Rill AR % ! i/� 9� '! PLAY FIELD I �P. NdNG, 160X300' I O'.. f _ �•Tj ,y# TGT LOT y 1 PLAY w �� AREA BALL FIELD', P4AijKl�G �y47:S1!A ES)! I y. BALL FIELD cb 250' z j ek i 1 Site Plan - Option 1 Site Plan - Option 2 New Construction - Hastings Elementary School r FAG.ISTAFF PARKIN_G�q- ,_(,_� �` • ` P ('"".. 70 SPACES „per /f BUS y, 9 LOOP h .* a PLAY FIELD 160X300' 1 �OTLO_ ' - I PLAY , Q STUD €NT DROP -T • _ •� " BALLFIELD jI t V' I 250' Site Plan Addition/ Renovation - Hastings Elementary School Hastings Elementary School Designpartnersh2p OF CAMBRIDGE INC Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 Second Floor Ground Floor New Construction - Bowman Elementary School Ground Floor Addition/ Renovation - Bowman Elementary School Program: 450 Pupils, 17 CRs, 4 KG Bowman Elementary School Designpartnership OF CAMBRIDGE INC Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 eEww F T TT 1 9� a GmR LI WO Second Floor G Ground Floor a New Construction Bridge Elementary School 0 �iiiiiiiiir% a Ground Floor A) Addition/ Renovation - Bridge Elementary School Program: 450 Pupils, 17 CRs, 4 KG Bridge Elementary School Designpartnership Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 Second Floor Ground Floor New Construction - Estabrook Elementary School 9� ,4 El Ground Floor Addition/ Renovation - Estabrook Elementary School Program: 450 Pupils, 17 CRs, 4 KG Estabrook Elementary School Designpartnersh ' OF CAMBRIDGE INC Po Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 Ell 4. , Second Floor Ground Floor New Construction - Hastings Elementary School lu Second Floor Ground Floor Addition/ Renovation - Hastings Elementary School Program: 450 Pupils, 17 CRs, 4 KG Hastings Elementary School Designpartnersh2p OF CAMBRIDGE INC Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES Develop preliminary cost estimates for new and renovated -as -new plans at 4 school sites. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E Ln •° 'Ln O d0 N N l� +, o m � ° v p o eC a> N N N N O' 504 504 504 504 L c/w A W LL �a > N O O O 01 01 �O N w r w cd v V1 504 504 504 504 a �••' V +C ai d U �O GO M v V M 01 N GO o 0 CW V CC V • n C� C� C� C� o N o o y Vl O . V cw '� i�l i�l i�l i�l O L i.• ..U. V �+ c cw W) � s• O � C� .. W � W � Q" 0.'1 ICI �i U •�� W z NM .; Lexington Elementary Schools 12/1/06 Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area--gross SF: 72,364 A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction Casework Food Service Equipment Fire Protection Plumbing HVAC Electrical VDV infrastructure scope contingency SUBTOTAL B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition Hazardous Materials Abatement Earthwork/Site Improvements Utilities -- Civil C. TOTAL TRADE COST General Conditions Overhead & Profit D. GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST RG 72,364 NEW $132.68 $9,601,256 $5.50 $398,002 is $150,000 $3.81 $275,707 $689 $498,588 $18.63 $1,348,141 $20.63 $1,492,869 $1.00 $72,364 5% $688,228 $2oo.72 $14,525,155 7.5% 6.2% E. ESCALATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST Bidding Contingency 3.0% F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID Construction Contingency 5.0% G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COSTS FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Bowman Elementary School New School 72,364 TOTAL $9,601,256 $398,002 $150,000 $275,707 $498,588 $1,348,141 $1,492,869 $72,364 $688,228 $14,525,155 $364,203 $105,000 $984,000 $231,000 $16,209,358 $1,215,702 $1,004,980 $18,430,040 $18,430,040 $552,901 $18,982,941 $949,147 $19,932,088 $3,210,561 $578,912 $506,548 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $334.81 $ / SF $24,228,110 Lexington Elementary Schools 12/1/06 Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area--gross SF: 71,988 A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction Casework Food Service Equipment Fire Protection Plumbing HVAC Electrical VDV infrastructure scope contingency SUBTOTAL B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition Hazardous Materials Abatement Earthwork/Site Improvements Utilities -- Civil C. TOTAL TRADE COST General Conditions Overhead & Profit D. GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST RG 71,988 NEW $132.68 $9,551,368 $5.50 $395,934 is $150,000 $3.81 $274,274 $689 $495,997 $18.63 $1,341,136 $20.63 $1,485,112 $1.00 $71,988 5% $684,691 $2oo.73 $14,450,501 7.5% 6.2% E. ESCALATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST Bidding Contingency 3.0% F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID Construction Contingency 5.0% G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COSTS FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Bridge Elementary School New School 71,988 TOTAL $9,551,368 $395,934 $150,000 $274,274 $495,997 $1,341,136 $1,485,112 $71,988 $684,691 $14,450,501 $364,203 $220,000 $894,000 $210,000 $16,138,704 $1,210,403 $1,000,600 $18,349,707 $18,349,707 $550,491 $18,900,198 $945,010 $19,845,208 $3,198,103 $575,904 $503,916 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $335.10 $ / SF $24,123,131 Lexington Elementary Schools Estabrook Elementary School 12/1/06 New School Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area--gross SF: 72,234 72,234 72,234 NEW TOTAL A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction $132.68 $9,584,007 $9,584,007 Casework $5.50 $397,287 $397,287 Food Service Equipment is $150,000 $150,000 Fire Protection $3.81 $275,212 $275,212 Plumbing $689 $497,692 $497,692 HVAC $18.63 $1,345,719 $1,345,719 Electrical $20.63 $1,490,187 $1,490,187 VDV infrastructure $1.00 $72,234 $72,234 scope contingency 5% $687,005 $687,005 SUBTOTAL $2oo.73 $14,499,344 $14,499,344 B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG 5.19 $268,442 Hazardous Materials Abatement $335,000 Earthwork/Site Improvements $1,034,000 Utilities -- Civil $222,000 C. TOTAL TRADE COST $16,358,786 General Conditions 7.5% $1,226,909 Overhead & Profit 6.2% $1,014,245 D. GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $18,599,940 E. ESCALATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST Bidding Contingency 3.0% F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID Construction Contingency 5.0% G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COSTS FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $18,599,940 $557,998 $19,157,938 $957,897 $20,115,835 $3,235,743 $577,872 $505,638 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $338.28 $ / SF $24,435,088 Lexington Elementary Schools Hastings Elementary School 12/1/06 New School Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area - -gross SF: 76,818 76,818 76,818 NEW TOTAL A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction $132.68 $10,192,212 $10,192,212 Foundation wall & waterproofing $265,000 $265,000 Casework $5.50 $422,499 $422,499 Food Service Equipment is $150,000 $150,000 Fire Protection $3.81 $292,677 $292,677 Plumbing $689 $529,276 $529,276 HVAC $18.63 $1,431,119 $1,431,119 Electrical $20.63 $1,584,755 $1,584,755 VDV infrastructure $1.00 $76,818 $76,818 scope contingency 5% $743,377 $743,377 SUBTOTAL $204.22 $15,687,733 $15,687,733 B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG $5.19 $262,095 Hazardous Materials Abatement $88,000 Earthwork/Site Improvements $811,000 Utilities -- Civil $190,000 C. TOTAL TRADE COST $17,038,828 General Conditions 7.5% $1,277,912 Overhead & Profit 6.2% $1,056,407 D. GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $19,373,148 E. ESCALATED GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST Bidding Contingency 3.0% F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID Construction Contingency 5.0% G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT COSTS FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $19,373,148 $581,194 $19,954,342 $997,717 $20,952,060 $3,356,865 $614,544 $537,726 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $331.45 $ / SF $25,461,195 Lexington Elementary Schools Bowman Elementary School 12/1/06 Additions & Renovations Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area - -gross SF: 72,608 61,349 11,259 72,608 RENOV NEW TOTAL A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction $64.67 $3,967,430 $149.87 $1,687,386 $5,654,816 Remedial Structural $4.00 $245,396 $245,396 Casework $5.50 $337,420 $61,925 $399,344 Food Service Equipment is $150,000 $150,000 Fire Protection $3.81 $233,740 $42,897 $276,636 Plumbing $689 $422,695 $77,575 $500,269 HVAC $18.63 $1,142,932 $209,755 $1,352,687 Electrical $20.63 $1,265,630 $232,273 $1,497,903 VDV infrastructure $1.00 $61,349 $1.00 $11,259 $72,608 scope contingency 15% $1,164,786 5% $115,591 $1,280,377 SUBTOTAL $157.42 $8,991,377 $2,438,660 $11,430,037 B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG Hazardous Materials Abatement $105,000 Earthwork/Site Improvements $943,000 Utilities -- Civil $222,000 C. TOTAL TRADE COST $12,700,037 General Conditions 7.5% $952,503 Overhead & Profit 6.2% $787,402 D. SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $14,439,942 E. TOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $14,439,942 Bidding Contingency 3.0% $433,198 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID $14,873,140 Construction Contingency 10.0% $1,487,314 G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $16,360,454 INDIRECT EXPENSES $3,159,550 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT $580,864 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $508,256 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $283.84 $ / SF $20,609,124 Lexington Elementary Schools Bridge Elementary School 12/1/06 Additions & Renovations Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area--gross SF: 72,228 61,349 10,879 72,228 RENOV NEW TOTAL A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction $63.58 $3,900,609 $149.87 $1,630,436 $5,531,045 Remedial Structural $4.00 $245,396 $245,396 Casework $5.50 $337,420 $59,835 $397,254 Food Service Equipment is $150,000 $150,000 Fire Protection $3.81 $233,740 $41,449 $275,189 Plumbing $689 $422,695 $74,956 $497,651 HVAC $18.63 $1,142,932 $202,676 $1,345,608 Electrical $20.63 $1,265,630 $224,434 $1,490,064 VDV infrastructure $1.00 $61,349 $1.00 $10,879 $72,228 scope contingency 15% $1,154,763 5% $111,689 $1,266,452 SUBTOTAL $15605 $8,914,533 $2,356,353 $11,270,886 B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG Hazardous Materials Abatement $220,000 Earthwork/Site Improvements $894,000 Utilities -- Civil $210,000 C. TOTAL TRADE COST $12,594,886 General Conditions 7.5% $944,616 Overhead & Profit 6.2% $780,883 D. SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $14,320,385 E. TOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $14,320,385 Bidding Contingency 3.0% $429,612 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID $14,749,997 Construction Contingency 10.0% $1,475,000 G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $16,224,997 INDIRECT EXPENSES $3,136,650 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT $577,824 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $505,596 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $283.06 $ / SF $20,445,066 Lexington Elementary Schools Estabrook Elementary School 12/1/06 Additions & Renovations Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area - -gross SF: 72,199 51,723 20,476 72,199 RENOV NEW TOTAL A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction $74.32 $3,843,953 $149.87 $3,068,738 $6,912,691 Remedial Structural $2.50 $129,308 $129,308 Casework $5.50 $284,477 $112,618 $397,095 Food Service Equipment is $150,000 $150,000 Fire Protection $3.81 $197,065 $78,014 $275,078 Plumbing $689 $356,371 $141,080 $497,451 HVAC $18.63 $963,599 $381,468 $1,345,067 Electrical $20.63 $1,067,045 $422,420 $1,489,465 VDV infrastructure $1.00 $51,723 $1.00 $20,476 $72,199 scope contingency 15% $1,048,773 5% $210,217 $1,258,990 SUBTOTAL $173.51 $8,092,314 $4,435,030 $12,527,344 B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG Hazardous Materials Abatement $335,000 Earthwork/Site Improvements $900,000 Utilities -- Civil $211,000 C. TOTAL TRADE COST $13,973,344 General Conditions 7.5% $1,048,001 Overhead & Profit 6.2% $866,347 D. SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $15,887,692 E. TOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $15,887,692 Bidding Contingency 3.0% $476,631 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID $16,364,323 Construction Contingency 10.0% $1,636,432 G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $18,000,755 INDIRECT EXPENSES $3,430,546 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT $577,592 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $505,393 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $311.84 $ / SF $22,514,286 Lexington Elementary Schools 12/1/06 Proposed Enrollment -- pupils: 450 Building Area- -gross SF: 76,138 A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction Remedial Structural Foundation retaining wall & w'prooFing Casework Food Service Equipment Fire Protection Plumbing HVAC Electrical VDV infrastructure scope contingency SUBTOTAL B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG Hazardous Materials Abatement Earthwork/Site Improvements Utilities -- Civil C. TOTAL TRADE COST General Conditions Overhead & Profit D. SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST 27,406 RENOV $44.25 $1,212,716 $2.50 $68,515 $5.50 is $3.81 $6.89 $18.63 $20.63 $1.00 15% $174.18 $5.19 7.5% 6.2% E. TOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST Bidding Contingency 3.0% F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID Construction Contingency 10.0% G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT EXPENSES FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Note: renov cost for Hastings assumes existing windows and roof will remain. $150,733 $150,000 $104,417 $188,827 $510,574 $565,386 $27,406 $442,675 $3,421,248 Hastings Elementary School Additions & Renovations 48,732 NEW $132.68 $6,465,762 $157,000 $268,026 $185,669 $335,763 $907,877 $1,005,341 $1.00 $48,732 5% $466,272 $9,840,442 $306.03 $ / SF 76,138 TOTAL $7,678,477 $68,515 $157,000 $418,759 $150,000 $290,086 $524,591 $1,418,451 $1,570,727 $76,138 $908,947 $13,261,691 $119,858 $88,000 $798,000 $187,000 $14,454,549 $1,084,091 $896,182 $16,434,822 $16,434,822 $493,045 $16,927,866 $1,692,787 $18,620,653 $3,538,117 $609,104 $532,966 $23,300,841 TIME -LINE FOR MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Establish a possible time -line for master plan implementation. Describe alternative approaches to temporary housing for schools during construction. Show when old Harrington would be no longer needed for swing space. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E N- _ -•-=-- -- --- Y7 r v ' N- °-�--°-. __- --`-- --- ----- ---- °--- --` ----- --- - -- ---- - ° °t..° ---- ---- ---'- - °- --- ----- ----- --------- ---- `- -- --- -' LL 'M r LL r N a` N LL r - -. - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- -- r r LL LL O � r N * k O C N * K 0) O LL co Co. N �I �I I C O___ ___ ____j_____ __ •____ _._ _____ ____ ___ ___ _ 1__..__._ N ti �r O Q 0 LL N U Q c U CL o vi � c c Q (b O y fl: C m C m E m w a� .a 15, ,o m .o ro i c •O Q1 L L .� a C c° N t9 C1 � E a� LU u,c �iy�U'°U ar .� 0`m ,,w L a` � 4 t Q V w o co m E E 2 W C�QpQ � m. o m w C .: L cn O Q � c CO E LL E as LLJ 0 0 N •_l c N N U N U N � E ' QL CL V! O U ^W W }/ I V! t� O h� h� W Ir- 0- O ' Co C L E 0 _N o Q p U E p 0 � V .0 _ co i II I �I .. ..... ».. _.__.._»�L- „- ---- ---- ---- - -' --- --`-s----- ---- --- _ ». _--- -- ----- ----- -- -..--- - --- -- -- ---_ ----- ---- -- -- an v T — - - --------- - - --- - -- LL © -- - - -- - -- - - -- . - - -- - - -• -• - -- - --- - - -- --------- — — — - N N N } LL T Q____ ___ ____ ____ _ -_ __W ._. __ -__ _._ ». - -_ ---- Q---- ____ _ -. -_ N ie T } LL C p-`-- ---- ---- --------- C ---- - _. -...- Cb C `T r LL LL coN } N co i. U. cc> R O --- ------- --- ------- -- ---- M1 O � } 4 LL N N i I I I V 00 c U a41Y v� N C R Q � ro c o U U (0 C W C 2 LLI fi C C C ,CR '� ,O� •� ,O cD =21 c fi c o c iiLL Cj LU V .N N d . o. 4 4 w ti 4tl � EY LU C C C� -O Cn • C �.�. 5 .0 N .O C % .L� O c (!1 K L9 Q ul C til U, d LLJ U- L1] d 4 0 ti V w co Q vJ E E U- Lu 0 0 N •� c N L U N W W CL ti O U ^C:^' ^W W W V! O E N 1 I..L C O 7 Q c E CCu 0 0 Q p U 00 Co i CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Develop space program for central administration. Explore options for relocation, including fit of space needs into old Harrington. Designpartnership 0 F C A M B R I D G E Evaluation of Options for Central Administration December 12, 2006 1. Options considered Part of the charge for the Master Plan study is to look at options for relocation of the Lexington Schools Central Administration and to make recommendations. We restricted our consideration to buildings under the control of the Lexington Public Schools, specifically the "White House ", the old Harrington School and the Hastings School. which is recommended to come out of service as a school. The Hastings and Old Harrington are of similar size and lit for Central Admin. The major difference in suitability is that Hastings is slated to remain in service as a school until either 2015 or 2016, whereas old Harrington can be made available as soon as Fiske moves into its own building. Given the size limitations and cost per square foot to reconstruct the 'White House ", as reported in a previous study, it appears that renovation of the old Harrington is a more cost - effective solution. Although overall cost for a full renovation to old Harrington may he higher, the old Harrington provides much more space, including a significant amount of "unassigiied space" available for other functions. 2. Costs for renovation of Old Harrington The task of developing a renovation plan for old Harrington has been complicated by the fact that there have been some changes, and there remain unanswered questions, about the ultimate location of some program functions. The K -5 curriculum center, previously expected to go to the new Fiske, is now being proposed as part of Central Administration, to allow a higher pupil capacity at Fiske. School Facilities has been proposed for relocation to a new DPW building, but that plan does not seem certain. Accordingly, we have continued to show space for Facilities in a relocated Central Administration. We have also included central supply storage, a function currently located elsewhere. For the sake of this report, we have looked at renovation costs in two ways. We have calculated a Phase I cost, which is the minimal cost to renovate old Harrington so that Central Administration can move in on a short-term basis. These renovations are thought to be sufficient for an occupancy of several years, but they do not address long -term building system and envelope needs. The Phase II renovation cost assumes full renovation of the building systems and exterior enclosure, concluding new HVAC, full electrical, plumbing and fire protection, new roof and windows, as well as completion of interior renovations for Central Administration. The only work not included in this cost is interior renovations of spaces not assigned as part of the relocation of Central Administration. Rough budget costs, expressed in current dollars, are as follows; Phase I: 2,850,000 Phase II: 6,875,000 Phase III: 9,725,000 Note that the Phase II costs assume that Phase I work is already completed, so that the total cost to complete Phase II is the combined total. Town of Lexington - Old Harrington Program Study - Central Admin 12/11/06 New Program print shop deleted Room Name No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Central Admin Spaces Student Services (SPED) Assist. Director 1 150 150 K -5 Coordinator 1 150 150 Out of District 1 150 150 IEP Processing 1 120 120 Transportation 1 120 120 Financial 1 120 120 Conference Room 1 250 250 Admin Assist 2 75 150 Dept. Head 1 210 210 subtotal 1,420 Human Resources Dept. Head 1 150 150 Conference Room 1 200 200 Benefits 1 100 100 File Room 1 50 50 Licensure 1 80 80 Supplies / Mailing 1 120 120 subtotal 700 Facilities Recept / Response / Admin Assist 1 400 400 Director of Facilities 1 200 200 Assist. Director for Buildings 1 150 150 Project Manager 1 200 200 Conference Room 1 250 250 Archives 1 250 250 Central Supply 1 2,500 2,500 with loading dock Shop A - General Maintenance 1 1,100 1,100 Shop B - HVAC 1 400 400 Shop C - Electrical 1 200 200 Shop D - Plumbing 1 200 200 Facilities Shop 1 900 900 subtotal 6,750 Business / Finance Work Room 1 450 450 Payroll 1 300 300 Dept. Head 1 200 200 Conference Room 1 250 250 subtotal 1,200 District -wide Curriculum Deputy Superintendent 1 250 250 Assistant 2 100 200 Conference Room 1 250 250 Assist. Superintendent 1 200 200 subtotal 900 K -5 Curriculum Coordinator Offices 5 150 750 Materials Library 1 1,000 1,000 subtotal 1,750 Superintendent Conference Room 1 200 200 Superintendent 1 400 400 Admin Assistant 1 1 75 75 subtotal 675 Page 1 1/19/2007 Town of Lexington - Old Harrington Program Study - Central Admin 12/11/06 New Program print shop deleted Room Name No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Central Admin Spaces (con't.) Technology Assist. Superintendent of Tech 1 150 150 Administration Assistant 1 100 100 subtotal 250 Professional Development Prof. Development/CommunityRoom Resource 1 1,200 1,200 1 250 250 subtotal 1,450 Other Storage 1 300 300 Kitchen 1 60 60 Central Admin 1 200 200 Central Reception 1 200 200 Lunch Room 1 180 180 subtotal 940 Page 2 1/19/2007 Fw 111g�, - / Ground Floor Renovation - Old Harrington Building Program: Central Administration Bowman Elementary School r�-a Designpartnership OF CAMBRIDGE INC Lexington, Massachusetts 05 December, 2006 s1 Lexington Public Schools 12/13/2006 Phase I Scope: Remove modulars Old Harrington School conversion to Central Administration Remove VAT in occ spaces, install new flooring (carpet or VCT) Renovate 2 large toilet rooms each floor New doors and hardware, all occupied space Main stair and handrail renovations Demol and replacement of partitions per plan Selective ceiling work Paint signage & fire extinguishers Shelving & cabinet allowance Fire alarm upgrades electrical upgrades for power & lighting telephone & data network selective renovation of heating system Asbestos abatement allowance Roadway and parking improvements - -60 to 75 spaces minor drainage and utilities work Furniture & equipment -- upgrade allowance Addition scope for Phase II: renovate shop spaces,2 HR toilets & rear stair (Phase I excludes renov of old kitchen) Replace all Ceilings with ACT Clean brick, selective repointing Replace Roof Replace Windows, ext. doors & louvers Operable partition, stage curtain, elevator: minor upgrades & add stage lift Fire suppression system New plumbing New lighting & electrical service All new HVAC system including partial load AC with chiller Additional site improvements Furniture & equipment -- additional upgrade allowance Estimated Project Costs: Jan 2007 dollars Phase I: $2,850,000 Phase II: $6,875,000 Total project: $9,725,000 Not included: moving costs Build -out costs for unassigned spaces (10,100 SF) escalation to construction date beyond 1/2007 Lexington Public Schools 12/13/2006 Program Fit Issues: Gross Building Area: Central Admin Program Auditorium School Facilities Central Supply, stor Unassigned Space Net Usable Area Ground Floor 20,327 9,715 4,317 Main Floor 29,614 854 5,282 3,025 10,112 Old Harrington School conversion to Central Administration Total 49,941 14,032 19,273 33,305 Questions to Address before Phase II: 1. What Town function will share space in old Harrington': 2. Does School Facilities stay with Central Admin? 3. Does Central Supply stay with Central Admin? Estimated Project Costs: Jan 2007 dollars Phase L• 2,850,000 Phase H: 6,875,000 Total project: 9,725,000 Not inc moving costs Build -out costs for unassigned spaces (10,100 SF) escalation to construction date beyond 1/2007 Lexington Public Schools Old Harrington School 12/13/2006 Phase I build -out conversion to Central Admin Building Area--gross SF: 49,900 28,534 21,366 49,900 RENOV Existing Unrenovated TOTAL A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction- -upper floor $27.35 $780,361 $780,361 General Construction- -lower floor Remedial Structural $0 $0 Casework $1.00 $28,534 $28,534 Fire Protection Plumbing $1.00 $28,534 $28,534 HVAC $5.19 $148,000 $148,000 fire alarm $2.10 $59,921 Electrical (assume significant re -use) $11.67 $332,992 $332,992 SUBTOTAL $2642 $1,378,342 $1,318,421 B. SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG Hazardous Materials Abatement $100,000 Earthwork/Site Improvements $250,000 Utilities -- Civil $50,000 C. TOTAL TRADE COST $1,718,421 General Conditions 7.5% $128,882 Overhead & Profit 6.2% $106,542 D. SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $1,953,844 E. TOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST $1,953,844 Bidding Contingency 3.0% $58,615 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID $2,012,460 Construction Contingency 10.0% $201,246 G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,213,706 INDIRECT EXPENSES $512,407 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT $50,000 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $50,000 H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $56.64 $ / SF $2,826,113 Carried for Budgeting (rounded up) $2,850,000 Lexington Public Schools 12/13/2006 Phase II build -out (assumes phase I work already complete) Building Area--gross SF: 49,900 A. BUILDING TRADE COST General Construction- -upper floor $3674 General Construction- -lower floor Remedial Structural Casework Fire Protection $3.22 Plumbing $4.98 HVAC (includes partial -load AC) $2678 fire alarm Electrical $18.28 SUBTOTAL $89.99 B_ SITEWORK TRADE COST bulk demolition RG Hazardous Materials Abatement Earthwork/Site Improvements Utilities -- Civil C. TOTAL TRADE COST General Conditions 7.5% Overhead & Profit 6.2% D. SUBTOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST E. TOTAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S COST Bidding Contingency 3.0% F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID Construction Contingency 10.0% G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST INDIRECT EXPENSES FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY H.4 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 49,900 RENOV Old Harrington School conversion to Central Admin 21,366 49,900 Existing Unrenovated TOTAL $1,833,155 (unassigned space excluded) $0 $0 $160,678 $248,502 $1,336,322 $911,947 $4,490,604 $137.66 $ / SF Carried for Budgeting (rounded up) $1,833,155 $0 $0 $0 $160,678 $248,502 $1,336,322 $0 $911,947 $4,490,604 $50,000 $4,540,604 $340,545 $281,517 $5,162,667 $5,162,667 $154,880 $5,317,547 $531,755 $5,849,302 $1,020,000 $6,869,302 $6,875,000