HomeMy WebLinkAboutLPS Master Plan 2009 DPCDesignpartner p
OF CAMBRIDGE IRdi_
HOOD BU9NESS PAW
500 RJTHETOFD AVENUE
CHAR=OWN, MA 02129
T617.241.9800
F617.241.5143
WWWTDFC.COM
AFiHITECTUFE
MASTERRA NING Lexington
INTEROR DE9GN
Public S
PK —12 Master Plan
March 12, 2009
Updated June 3, 2009 Elementary Section
9 March 2009
K -12 MasterPlan Study
Table of Contents
LEXINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1. Executive Summary
1. Master Plan Introduction
2. Recent Facilities History
3. Why a new Master Plan is necessary
11. Impact of Enrollment Projections
4. Impact on ES needs
5. Impact on MS Capacity
6. Impact on HS needs
111. ES Short -term Needs
7. ES short -term Program Needs
8. ES short -term Facilities Needs
9. Impact of short -term needs on long -term Recommendations
W. HS Needs
10. HS Program & Space
11. HS Facilities Needs
12. High School -- Proposed scope & budget
V. Central Administration
13. Central Administration Facilities & Program Needs
VI. K -12 Master Plan
14. Master Plan Recommendations
15. Master Plan Timeline
16. Implementation of Recommendations
Appendices
(List of materials — materials are provided in separate Volume)
Design Partnership of Cambridge
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
1. Executive Summary
This is the report of a PK -12 School Facilities Master Plan study conducted for the
Lexington Public Schools by Design Partnership of Cambridge between September 2008
and January 2009. The purpose of this work is to provide a comprehensive set of
recommendations for school facilities looking 10 years into the future. These
recommendations are intended to incorporate previous recent facilities study work,
including the Design Partnership ES master plan study of 2006, the GGD High School
HVAC systems assessment of 2007 -08, and the 2008 Russo Bar roof assessment of all
school buildings.
The study and report are directed primarily to the 4 old elementary schools, the
Lexington High School, and the old Harrington School currently used for Central
Administration. As regards the elementary schools, the 2006 Master Plan study made
recommendations for the long term total renovation, replacement or closing of the 4
older elementary schools. This report does not attempt to revisit that work except to
note and assess the impact of changes in projected ES enrollments between 2006 and
2008.
However, in light of the likelihood that it may be many years before funding is available
to replace or totally renovate one or more of the elementary schools, this report
identifies and prioritizes work that will need to be done for those older elementary
schools that remain in service up to 10 years into the future. The estimated total cost of
recommended scopes of work at 4 schools, undertaken according to the schedule put
forth in this report (construction in 2010 and 2011) is approximately $19.5 million.
As regards the Lexington High School, this report addresses two major categories of
work needing to be addressed. One category is physical building deficiencies either not
addressed by or that have occurred since the renovations completed in 2002. Major
work in these categories include roof and HVAC systems work.
The other major category of work is the need for additional space, resulting in part from
enrollment growth that has occurred beyond what was projected when renovations
were done, changes in space use and program needs, and from the fact that not all
recommended work was included in prior renovations. The cost of the work has been
calculated as if it would be undertaken as a single major capital project. A preliminary
estimate of this cost is approximately $37.7 million, calculated to June 2012, which is
the estimated mid -point of construction according to the proposed schedule.
The recommendation of this study is to proceed with projects that address the short -
term needs of the elementary schools and the long -term needs of the High School.
Costs, implementation strategy and time -frame are addressed.
Design Partnership of Eamhridga
a
O
V
O
LM
i
i
m
a
i
N
5
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
2. Recent Facilities History
With the exception of ongoing maintenance and repair work, the most
significant recent improvements to Lexington's school buildings have been the
major projects which followed the prior Master Plan prepared in 1997. The
facilities work which followed that effort include construction of two new
elementary schools, renovation and expansion of the two middle schools, and
renovation and expansion of the High School.
The major elementary school work consisted of constructing replacement school
buildings for the Fiske and Harrington Elementary Schools. As a result of this, the
Old Harrington building became available for other uses, and currently houses
Central Administration and related functions of the Lexington Public Schools.
The four other functioning elementary schools received no significant work, and
they continue to function with ongoing maintenance and repair and selective
system upgrades. However, they have never undergone major renovations and
are due for major renovation or replacement. This was the subject of the K -5
Master Plan prepared in 2006, updates to which are presented in this report.
Both the Clarke and the Diamond Middle Schools received major renovations
and expansions pursuant to the 1997 Schools Master Plan. However, in both
cases the scope of work was significantly reduced from what was recommended
in the Master Plan, by 12,000GSF and 16,700 GSF at Clarke and Diamond
respectively. Modular classroom installed to accommodate the construction
were left in place and remain at the Diamond School. Capacity questions in this
regard are discussed in this report.
Major renovation and expansion work was completed at the High School in
2002. However, some significant items of recommended work were not
included in those renovations. Notable items in this category include major
mechanical system components, which were deemed not to have exceeded their
useful life and therefore not to be in need of replacement at the time. Many of
those items and system components are now beyond their life expectancy and
are in many cases non - functional or marginally functional.
In addition (as described more fully elsewhere), actual High School enrollments
have exceeded the design enrollments, which were based on projections
developed as part of the 1997 Master Plan. As a result, the High School has
significant current space needs.
Design Partnership of Eamhridga
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
3. Why a new Master Plan is Necessary
In order to be useful, Facilities Master Plans must be renewed periodically. A
facilities master plan is essentially a framework to guide the maintenance, repair,
upgrading, replacement or augmenting of facilities. The circumstances that
dictate how this needs to occur over time will change over time, and so a Master
Plan typically has a fixed life of 10 years or so before it needs to be renewed.
This is particularly true for school districts, where the factors that dictate
facilities needs, including enrollments, cannot be reasonably projected more
than 10 years into the future.
The last complete K -12 Master Plan undertaken for Lexington was the HMFH
Master Plan Study completed in March 1997. That report is now more than 10
years old, and many of the assumptions that went into it, including the
enrollment projections, are out of date. As an example, enrollments at the High
School at that time were 1,443, projected to increase to 1,842 in 10 years. By
comparison, the HS enrollment now (2008 -09) is 2012 and projected to remain
fairly steady.
The Elementary School Master Plan: An Elementary School Master Plan study
was completed by Design Partnership of Cambridge in 2006. That report was
completed at the time that the last of two new elementary schools, the
Harrington and Fiske , were completing construction. The study examined the
educational space needs on a district -wide basis and the facilities needs at the
four remaining older schools and at old Harrington, which was serving as swing
space during construction of Fiske School.
The recommendation was made to undertake major projects, either to build
replacement schools or to renovate existing schools to as -new standards, at
three of the four older elementary schools. The expectation, based on
enrollment projections, was that declining elementary school enrollments would
make advisable the reduction to five in the number of elementary schools
operated by Lexington and thereby the closing of one of the four older schools.
This current K -12 Master Plan builds on the work of that study. As regards the
long -term elementary needs of the school district, this study is limited to
examining the potential impact of changed enrollment projections relative to
what was the basis for the 2006 study. In addition, because the availability of
school building funding assistance from the state is a matter of uncertainty, it is
unclear at what point the Town of Lexington will be willing to undertake the
major projects recommended in the prior study. With this in mind, the current
study examines what will be needed to allow the four older elementary schools
to remain in service for up to ten years prior to commencement of major
projects.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
6 March 2009
Middle School Implications: Projects have been undertaken at the Middle
Schools, and no major work is expected to be recommended in this study. What
the study does look at is the capacity of the middle schools relative to the
projected enrollments, with particular regard to the question of for how much
longer the modular classrooms are likely to remain in service.
High School Implications: The current Master Plan study does recommend
significant work at the High School. This is the result of both of programmatic
needs and of facilities needs. Major work was undertaken at the High School as
a result of the previous Master Plan study. However, a combination of
enrollment increases and educational program changes do leave the high school
in need of additional space. There are also facilities needs, due both to the
passage of time and to limitations imposed on the scope of prior projects, which
this report recommends need to be addressed.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
a
O
V
4�
O
LM
a
a�
E
0
W
O
V
m
a
E
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
4. Enrollment impact on ES needs
Analysis of the impact of projected enrollments on elementary level space needs is
based on the Four and Ten Year Enrollment Forecasts prepared by Dr. Paul Ash,
Lexington Superintendent of Schools dated December 10, 2008. As was the case with
the 2006 enrollment projections use for the 2006 ES Master Plan, the most recent
enrollment projections show an impending marked decline in total Lexington
Elementary School enrollments. This is significant in its implications, both for the
number of elementary schools likely to be needed in the future and for the ability to
undertake major elementary school replacement or reconstruction projects using
existing schools as swing space.
Capacity Analysis
Answers to both of these questions require a comparative analysis of the capacities of
existing elementary schools with the projected trend in elementary school enrollments.
The elementary school capacity analysis dated 10/16/06 as part of the ES Master Plan
shows the following capacities with the schools as -is (modular classrooms remaining):
Total elem school capacity: (Kg plus grades 1 -5) 2822 pupils
Range of individual capacities of older schools
(Bridge, Bowman, Estabrook & Hastings): 444 to 512 pupils
Range of capacity available with any ONE of the
Older schools taken out of service: 2310 to 2378 pupils
What this means is that, with any one of the older schools taken out of service, the
elementary school system continues to have capacity for at least 2310 pupils. This is
significant for two reasons:
1. It means that, if enrollments dip to below 2310 pupils for one or more years, it
will be possible to do major projects, requiring the shutdown of a school for a
year, at one or more of the existing elementary schools.
2. It means that, if enrollments drop below 2310 pupils on a long -term basis, it will
be possible to close a school and operate the elementary school system as a 5-
school system.
If we look at the ES system with the modular classrooms removed, the figures are
somewhat different:
Total elem school capacity: (Kg plus grades 1 -5) 2523 pupils
Range of individual capacities of older schools
(Bridge, Bowman, Estabrook & Hastings): 260 to 466 pupils
Design Partnership of Eamhridga
Range of capacity available with any ONE of the
Older schools taken out of service: 2057 to 2263 pupils
As regards ES capacities for new or reconfigured schools, the 2006 ES Master Plan
recommends that the older schools be replaced with or reconfigured as schools with
individual K -5 capacities of 450 pupils. The cumulative capacity of an ES system with
new or reconfigured schools will be slightly less than the existing capacity for the same
number of schools, because of the reconfiguration and the elimination of modular
classrooms. The proposed capacity of a 5- school system with 3 new or reconfigured
schools is 2284 pupils.
Prognosis for Swing Space and Closing a school
The current enrollment projections differ from the earlier projections in several regards
(see graph). First, although both projections show a sharp decline in ES enrollments, the
more recent projection shows this starting two years later. Secondly, where the earlier
projection shows enrollments leveling out at a lower number, the more recent
projections show a potential upturn in enrollments toward the end of the projection
period.
In both sets of projections, those done in 2006 and those done in 2008, alternate
projections of high, mid -range and low options were developed„ For the 2006 ES
master plan, the proposed ES design enrollment of 2175 relates closely to the mid -range
projection, which showed ES enrollments leveling at 2138.
Looking now at the most recent enrollment projection, the mid -range projection shows
ES enrollments dropping to 2311 in FY13 (the 2012/13 school year) and staying in the
2200 range until FY 2019, when it shows an upturn to 2278. Even the High projection
shows ES enrollments hovering at or below 2358 for the five years from FY2014 to
FY2018 before climbing to 2417.
As regards availability of swing space, it is possible to conclude from these projections
that there should be sufficient excess capacity within the system to allow for the closing
of one school at a time for renovation or replacement purposes from FY 2014 through
FY 2018. However, given that actual enrollments have not followed the track of the
downturn projected in 2006, it would be prudent to avoid committing to this path until
an actual decline in enrollments has been observed that tracks the projections over a
period of time.
As regards the possibility of permanently closing a school, all of the alternatives in the
current projections show an upturn in enrollments at the end of the projection period
which, if sustained beyond the range of projections, could exceed the capacity of a five
ES school system. Given this circumstance, it is difficult to maintain with any confidence
that Lexington Public Schools. will be able to operate for an extended period of time as a
five ES system.
Design Partnership of Eamhridga
70
U
N
O
70
(6
U
L
O
U)_
2
U)
E
O
L
w
w
O
0)
C:_
X
N
J
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
OM N co co N N N
O
O
O
r
u
i
O
O
co
O
O
co
O
LO
O
O
M
O
N
O
_O
O
O
_9)
co
9)
r-
9)
co
O
LO
9)
O
M
O
N
m
m
O
O
m
co
co
ao
r-
20
co
ao
LO
ao
ao
m
ao
N
a0
4
co
O
O
N
C
O
U
a)
O
Q
O
v)
c
a�
O
L
C
w
U)
w
I
C
a)
E
0
c
a)
U
0
D
2
U)
w
co
O
O
N
C
O
U
A)
O
d
L
0
2
C
a)
E
O
L
C
U)
w
I
co
O
O
N
C
O
y+
U
a)
O
Q
a)
O)
C
co
v�
c
a)
E
0
c
w
U)
w
C
O
U
a)
�o
O
O
N
m
O
L
a)
C
O
U
a)
O
O
O
O
N
Q
O
a)
2
C
O
U
a)
�o
O
O
N
0
O
L
a)
G
C
O
U
a)
O
O
O
O
N
U
O
a)
5
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
5. Enrollment impact on MS needs
Projects have recently been undertaken at the Middle Schools, and no major
work is recommended in this study. What we will do here is look at the
educational space requirements and pupil capacity of the middle schools
relative to the projected enrollments, with particular regard to the question of
the degree to which the remaining modular classrooms are required, and at
what point in the future might they no longer be needed.
As noted earlier, both middle school buildings underwent major renovation and
expansion projects following the 1997 Master Plan. However, as also noted, the
scope and cost of these projects was significantly reduced from what was
recommended in the Master Plan.
A block of six modular classrooms was installed at the Diamond School,
reportedly at the time of the renovation /expansion project to provide swing
space so the building could remain in use during construction. Those modular
classrooms, which were left in place following completion of construction,
remain in service today, and they are increasingly in need of maintenance and
repairs. However, they do remain somewhat necessary. To explain why, it is
necessary to digress briefly on the difference between a Middle School and a
Junior High School.
The pure concept of a Middle School includes the concept of Student Teams and
Team Teaching, in which students are grouped into Teams of perhaps 60 to 100
students in 3 to 5 sections and a Teacher Team of 3 to 5 dedicated core subject
teachers works with the Team.
In a pure purpose -built Middle School, self- contained "team space" would
usually be provided, consisting of a Science classroom and general classrooms so
that the total provides for one room per section, allowing instruction in the core
subjects to occur on a rotating basis within the team space for all students within
the team. For other subjects, including Art, Music, Foreign Language (sometimes
but not always), Health, PE and others, students would travel outside their
"team space" to specialized instruction areas.
By virtue of the amount of time students spend outside the team space, this
model has a lower efficiency of space utilization than a High School or Junior
High School model, where students rotate through classrooms that are assigned
by discipline, and therefore a higher degree of scheduled utilization is possible.
Design Partnership of Eamhridga
Lexington's middle schools, roughly speaking, are organized on the basis of
Teams averaging 85 pupils, which is generally equivalent to 4 sections per team
and would typically be housed, in a "pure team" model, in a team space of three
general classrooms, a science classroom, and support space.
Diamond and Clarke are each intended to have the capacity for 3 teams per
grade in 3 grades, for a total of 9 teams. Both schools currently function
according to this model, but with some compromises. Probably their most
difficult period in this regard was the 2006 -07 school year, when total MS
enrollments peaked at 1569. Enrollments have dropped since then, and
projections show them continuing to drop to 1200 or less by FY 2019.
The reason that compromises are necessary is that the scope of the built
projects was reduced. As presented in the 1997 Master Plan, the expansion
projects for Clarke and Diamond provided enough classroom and science room
space to accommodate 9 teams in a pure "team- taught" model. However, the
projects as approved and constructed were significantly reduced in size, by
12,000 GSF in the case of Clarke and by 16,700 GSF in the case of Diamond. This
was accomplished largely by reducing the number of general classrooms.
The educational impact of this is that, while the number of science classrooms
per school remains at 9, allowing science rooms to be assigned to each team, the
number of general classrooms is insufficient for this. It is therefore necessary
that both students and teachers rotate or "hot -bed" through classrooms. This
situation is somewhat more complicated at Diamond because Diamond has
insufficient teacher planning space to allow each teacher a "home base"
(minimally, a desk and a secure place for coat and personal belongings). This
means that, even with the extra modular classrooms, some teachers must
"double up" with desks in classrooms.
Because of the degree of operational accommodation that has become routine
at these two schools over the years, it is difficult to say with precision how many
additional classrooms Diamond actually needs to function. However, It is safe to
say that, with current enrollments, Diamond would be seriously disadvantaged if
it could not retain at least 3 of the 6 modular classrooms currently in place.
On the question of when in the future Diamond could fully function without the
modulars, the answer is probably that this can only occur when the number of
teaching teams is reduced from 9 to 8 (which, among other things, will probably
require that at least one team be multi- grade). If we assume 85 pupils per team,
this will happen when the enrollment at Diamond drops to 680 or below. We
can project this happening in either of two ways:
1. If we assume no re- districting at the MS level, then this enrollment drop at
Diamond probably will not occur until the District -wide MS enrollments drop
Design Partnership of Eamhridga
proportionately. This equates to a total MS enrollment of 1375 or below,
which is projected to occur in FY 2016.
2. If we assume some level of MS redistricting, so that Clarke enrollments
remain at current levels and all enrollment reduction occurs at Diamond, this
equates to a total MS enrollment of 1445 or below, which is projected to
occur in FY 2015.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
70
U
N
O
O
O U_
O L-
0
O1�
O U)
�X =
N �
J to
E
O
L
W
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O LO co O 1,-
r r r r r
O
O
LO
u
i
O
O
co
O
O
O
O
LO
O
O
M
0
N
O
0
O
O
rn
rn
co
rn
r-
0')
O
O
LO
9)
9)
M
9)
N
9)
O
O
O
O
M
co
20
r-
20
co
20
LO
20
20
M
20
N
co
4
co
O
O
N
C
O
U
N
O
Q
O
i
N
C
N
E
O
c
W
PEI
7V',
N
E
O
C
N
U
O
J.
T
i
co
O
O
N
C
O
U
N
O
d
L
0)
i
C
N
O
c
N
PEI
co
O
O
N
c
O
U
N
O
Q
N
0)
C
Co
L
N
C
N
E
O
L
W
m
i
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
6. Enrollment impact on HS needs
As noted earlier, HS enrollments at the time of the 1997Master Plan study were
1443, projected to increase in 10 years to 1842. This last number appears to be
the design enrollment for which the most recent HS expansions and renovations
were planned. In point of fact, by FY 2007, 10 years after the 1997 Master Plan,
HS enrollments had grown to 1967, and they have continued growing slightly to
the current HS enrollment of 2012.
The most recent enrollment projections suggest that those enrollments will hold
fairly steady, oscillating between 1950 and 2000 until FY 17, at which point the
projection shows a slight decline (to 1821) for the last three years of the
projection. However, the current enrollment, at 2012, represents an increase of
170 students, which is a significant increase over the design enrollment for which
the most recent renovations were planned, and the HS does have significant
space needs as a result of this and other considerations. These HS space needs
are addressed in more detail in a later section.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
70
U
O
L
(6
O U_
O L-
0
O U)
x 2
N
J U
O
N
O
O
W
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
co O I— LO M O r—
N N
O
O
LO
u
O
co
O
O
O
O
LO
O
O
M
O
N
O
O
O
O
rn
rn
co
rn
r-
CF)
O
LO
9)
rn
CV)
rn
N
O
O
O
O
O
20
co
20
r-
20
O
co
LO
20
20
M
20
N
co
4
a�
E
0
L
VJ
2
y-+
U
N
O
Q
O
O
r
co
O
O
N
C
N
E
0
c
a�
a�
U
N
0
d
U)
2
N
C
N
E
O
C
N
U
O
N
U)
y
z
i
L
s
W
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
7. ES short -term Program Space Needs
The elementary school needs to be addressed in this study include only those
which need to be addressed in the time preceding implementation of a long -
range project as recommended in the 2006 ES Master Plan study. Because of
this, and because the elementary level enrollments are essentially stable and
likely to start to decline in the near future, we have not addressed any
educational space needs at the elementary level in this report.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
8. ES short -term Facilities Needs
In order to determine what the elementary school needs are prior to
commencement of major projects at some future time, architectural and
engineering teams did surveys of each building and compiled detailed reports of
building needs. These scope lists were then individually priced and compiled
according to a prioritized hierarchy.
These lists are aimed to identify all work which can anticipated to be required, ,
based on observations and building knowledge, within the next 10 years. The
goal is to identify only those work items which are necessary, whether from a
health and safety standpoint, a legal or code standpoint, a building preservation
and maintenance standpoint, or simply to maintain a minimally acceptable
"quality of life" for building occupants. For the most point, these work items will
not improve the buildings beyond their current condition, but will rather prevent
from degrading to an unacceptable level of deterioration.
The priority categories were determined and priority assignments of work items
made in consultation with Town Facilities staff. The priority categories are as
follows:
Priority O: Work to be done under the operating budget as part of ongoing
building upkeep. These are mostly small work items, often with
implications for safety and health.
Priority 1: Work considered necessary from a health and safety standpoint,
a legal or code standpoint, or a building preservation and
maintenance standpoint. These are considered "must do's ".
Priority H -1: Work required under MA. Accessibility codes whenever other work
at a building exceeds $100,000.
Priority 2: Work considered necessary to maintain a minimally acceptable
"quality of life "for building occupants. This work is strongly
recommended if a building is to remain in use for a significant
time.
Priority H -2: Work required under MA. Accessibility codes whenever other work
at a building exceeds 30% of the building's value, usually taken to
mean its assessed value.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
9. Impact of short -term ES needs on Long -
Term Recommendations
The priority categories for short -term elementary school needs can be
considered in two categories:
• Priority 0, which are to be addressed in the operating budget and will
not be part of capital projects.
• All other priorities, which will need to be addressed as capital
projects.
In considering how to implement recommendations from Priority
categories 1 & 2, it is important to note that scopes of work to address
building accessibility become required by law when certain dollar
thresholds are reached.
Thus the work of HC -1 becomes required whenever the value of other
work exceeds $100,000 (with certain limited exemptions such as HVAC,
roof and window work under $500,000). The work of HC -2 becomes
required whenever the value of other work exceeds 30% of "full & fair
cash value of the building" (determined by dividing the assessed value by
the Mass DoR "sales assessment ratio" for the town).
This becomes a significant consideration for the 4 older elementary
schools, where the combined value of Priority 1 work and HC -1 work
(made necessary by the value of Priority 1 work) is close to or above the
value that triggers the requirement to perform HC -2 work. Any
escalation due to starting work after the June 12009 baseline date is
likely to push the cost of work over that threshold. Accordingly, we have
assumed for planning purposes that work which exceeds the Priority 1
value will trigger the requirement for full accessibility at all schools.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
ES cost summary -- Potential Capital Projects
Lexington Public Schools
1.8.09
rev. 1.12.09
rev. 2.26.09 Haz Mat.
Note: All estimated costs assume a benchmark construction start date of June 2009
unless otherwise noted.
TOTAL
Bowman Bridge Estabrook Hastings four schools
Priority 1 $3,218,998 $1,694,672 $2,675,457 $1,930,270 $9,519,397
HC -1 $322,390 $280,167 $227,640 $116,892 $947,089
subtotal- -
Priority 1 & HC1 $3,541,388 $1,974,839 $2,903,097 $2,047,162 $10,466,486
Priority 2 $2,482,101 $2,648,731 $2,782,429 $2,828,679 $10,741,940
HC -2 $467,084 $511,582 $572,617 $491,394 $2,042,677
TOTAL by School -- Priority
1, HC -1 & HC -2 $4,008,472 $2,486,421 $3,475,714 $2,538,556 $12,509,163
TOTAL by School -- Priority
1 & 2, HC -1 & HC -2 $6,490,573 $5,135,152 $6,258,143 $5,367,235 $23,251,103
TOTAL by School --
Priority 1, HC -1 & HC -2 --
Escalated to June 2010.
TOTAL by School --
Priority 1 & 2, HC -1 & HC -2 --
Escalated to June 2011
$3,736,393 $2,728,948 $6,465,340
$7,301,895 $5,777,046
Lexington's 2006 DOR Sales Assessment ratio (average):
2008
Assessed Value $8,774,000 $6,313,000 $4,309,000 $4,250,000
30% of Assessed Value
/sales assessment ratio $2,770,737 $1,993,579 $1,360,737 $1,342,105
$13,078,941
95%
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
BRIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY O -OPERATING BUDGET
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST
1A /1D
Replace exterior door @ double classroom to swing in the direction of egress.
$414
2H
Remove (4) sets of double doors from corridor. Creating dead end corridor.
$703
6E
Replace damaged louver.
$1,480
6J
Repair broken exterior window /window hardware.
$11,373
6L
Rake out ETR expansion joint material and provide rubber compression seal at expansion
joint.
$1,463
6M
Replace damaged blind.
$3,335
6T
Replace broken window.
$2,166
3RA.1
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented. (68,000
SF until warranty expires in 2019)
$21,330
EBR1.1
Generator does not start automatically upon normal power failure. Generator is currently
started manually. Code requires generator to start automatically and assume load within 10
seconds.
$3,950
EBR1.2
Various kitchen receptacles not GFI.
$2,370
EBR1.3
Portable men toilet, receptacle not GFI.
$158
EBR1.4
Service electrode requires jumper around water meter for proper grounding.
$790
EBR1.5
Electrical items under kitchen hood are required to shutdown upon activation of hood's
suppression system.
$3,950
EBR1.7
Add receptacles to eliminate extension cord use.
$15,800
EBR1.8
I No pull station at gym exterior door.
$1,185
F HBR1.4
Sprinkler head in kitchen hood is not installed
$395
PRIORITY O TOTAL $70,863
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BRIDGE ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
BRIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 1 - HIGH PRIORITY (0 -5 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
3C
Provide window screens @ all operable windows
$10,392
3 RA.4
Repair and replace wet mod. -bit. in Roof Areas B & C and repair base flashing in Roof Areas A
$12,640
& C. As recommended by Russo Bar Associates.
PBR2.1
A new gas fired water heater along with a thermostatic mixing valve that will supply 120
$23,700
A new natural gas service will be installed to the building to provide fuel for heating and
PBR2.2
domestic hot water. Natural gas will also be provided to a generator if one is provided as part
$7,900
of the design.
PBR3.3
A new domestic 140 degree F. hot water and hot water recirculating piping system will be
$7,900
included to supply the kitchen needs.
In approximately five years the heating plant will be at the end of its serviceable life
H BR2.1
therefore, within that time frame we recommend the installation of (2) new gas fired steam
$410,800
boilers with modulating gas for energy savings. ($10,000 added from Haz Mat Report
02/26/09)
■ The recently installed heating plant will be reused and converted from steam to hot water
while reusing the modulating gas burners and adding boiler water reset for additional energy
savings.
■ All unit ventilators will be replaced with hot water unit ventilators reusing CO2 demand
HBR3.1
ventilation controls.
$1,221,340
■ All steam piping will be removed and a new schedule 40 black steel hot water system will
be installed.
■ Provide a direct digital control system with internet access and colored graphics.
PRIORITY 1 TOTAL $1,694,672
PRIORITY H.1
"Per 521 CMR provide accessible toilet room. Including toilet fixtures, grab bars &
5H
accessories. (Renovation of two existing single user toilet rooms adjacent to Gym, one for
$280,167
each sex).
PRIORITY H.1 TOTAL $280,167
PRIORITY 1 & H.1 TOTAL $1,974,839
"Work required per 521 CMR 3.3.1.b is only applicable if complete scope of work exceeds $100,000 and involves the
"alteration of any elements or spaces required to be accessible ". Work which is limited solely to electrical mechanical or
plumbing system, abatement of hazardous materials, and retrofit of automatic sprinklers will not prompt this requirement.
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BRIDGE ES 2
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
BRIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 2 (6 -10 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
1D
Provide panic hardware @ 3 exterior doors.
$6,135
2C
Provide rated door.
$2,710
2D
Provide smoke stopping at top of wall.
$363
2F
Provide smoke stopping at door.
$228
2G
Provide new house curtains and valance, remove existing.
$51,502
21
Provide new door and frame and wall.
$7,206
3A
Replace exterior windows.
$755,201
313
Replace window treatment.
$44,167
3D
Repaint exterior door.
$144
4H
Hazardous material removal as per updated Ahera Report done by Universal Environmental
$71,100
Consultants dated 1/27/09
6A
Replace 2'x4' ACT
$11,624
613
Repair crack in CMU /Brick.
$199,375
6KK
Paint entire interior (wholesale).
$56,967
61-1-
Replace all ceilings (wholesale).
$625,724
Add horn /strobes in kitchen, cafeteria and library, currently none exist. Add strobes in
EBR1.6
$11,850
toilets.
The existing fire alarm control panel, Spectronics 641 Series, late 1980's vintage, is still a
current panel for this manufacturer with available parts. Detectors compatible with this
EBR2.1
panel are still available. This will allow existing wiring and devices to remain and allow
$100,226
additional devices to be provided. In light of the building not being sprinklered it is
recommended that additional smoke and heat detectors be provided for full coverage of the
.facility. 1.00 s.f. =
The normal /emergency lighting system should be tested by simulating a power failure and
EBR2.2
confirming that adequate emergency lighting exists in egress ways and other large spaces
$25,057
where required. Additional emergency lighting should be added where required including on
the exterior at exit discharge doors. .25 s.f. =
EBR2.3
Provide full coverage of exit signs where required for safe egress out of the facility. $.10 /s.f. _
$10,022
Provide occupancy sensors to turn lights off in classrooms, toilets, offices, gym, etc. to save
EBR3.1
energy when spaces are unoccupied. Utility Co. rebates may be available for energy
$15,800
conservation measures. 50 @ $200.00 /unit =
PBR3.4
All plumbing fixtures will be replaced with new water conserving type fixtures capable of
$63,200
saving approximately 30% of overall water usage of the building.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BRIDGE ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
HBR1.1
Veeder Root oil tank monitoring system is not operating
$3,160
HBR1.2
Wasted energy resulting from pre- heating No.2 fuel oil
$3,160
HBR1.3
Steam leaks in steam tunnels
$39,500
HBR1.5
Code required ventilation air not provided in corridors
$69,520
HBR1.6
Calibration of the pneumatic temperature controls
$49,770
HBR1.7
CO2 Demand ventilation control in Classroom unit ventilators
$42,660
HBR1.8
Verify shaft trueness on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units and replace if
necessary
$20,540
HBR1.9
Verify conditions of shaft bearings on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units
and replace if necessary
$20,540
HBR1.10
Clean fan wheels, coils, dampers, and outside air louvers on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans
and air handling units
$20,540
H BR3.5
Replace all air handling units serving the Kitchen, Cafeteria, Art /Teachers Work Room, Media
Center and Administration Area.
$213,300
HBR3.6
Replace all exhaust fans and internally clean exhaust ductwork.
$107,440
PRIORITY 2 TOTAL $2,648,731
PRIORITY H.2
5A
Non HC compliant door.
$15,242
513
Remove non - accessible sink and associated casework, provide new casework unit with
accessible sink.
$80,280
5C
Provide accessible circulation desk and remove non accessible desk.
$11,355
5D
Provide accessible drinking fountain, by plumbing.
$534
5E
Remove wall mounted ETR TV, owner to place on moveable cart.
$1,142
5F
Provide guard /handrail.
$2,545
5G
Toilet room inaccessible - min. work required: accessories, handrails and new phenolic
partitions at gang bathrooms.
$28,089
5K
Provide accessible door and frame.
$81,457
5L
Provide wheelchair lift.
$30,309
5N
Provide accessible entrance - concrete ramp at 8' -0 ", including handrails.
$4,972
5P
Provide accessible door hardware.
$4,659
5Q
Relocated lockers to provide HC accessible door clearance.
$1,563
5T
Remove and replace all remaining door hardware.
$249,433
PRIORITY H.2 TOTAL $511,582
PRIORITY 2 & H.2 TOTAL $3,160,313
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
PRIORITY O, 1, H.1, 2 & H.2 TOTAL $5,206,015
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BRIDGE ES a
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
BOWMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY O -OPERATING BUDGET
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST
3RA.1
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented. (54,200
SF excluding roof areas from 3RA.2)(Refer to 3RA.3 for scheduled work)
$3,555
1A /1D
Replace exterior door @ double classroom to swing in the direction of egress.
$414
2H
Remove (4) sets of double doors from corridor. Creating dead end corridor.
$589
6E
Replace damaged louver.
$5,187
6G
Repair water damage at exterior soffit.
$264
6GG
Repair damaged foundation wall.
$6,603
6L
Rake out ETR expansion joint material and provide rubber compression seal at expansion
joint.
$1,626
EB01.1
Hood fire suppression system fire alarm conduit broken.
$474
EB01.2
Exposed wiring in freezer provide box and cover.
$474
EB01.3
Various kitchen receptacles not GFI. Provide GFI receptacles or GFI breakers.
$2,370
EB01.4
Exterior core classroom, receptacle cover missing.
$79
EB01.5
Portable classroom, men toilet, receptacle not GFI.
$158
EB01.7
Electrical items under kitchen hood are required to shutdown upon activation of hood's
suppression system.
$3,950
EB01.9
10n e (1) wire guard for smoke detector on gym ceiling is loose and ready to drop.
1 $158
EB01.11
Add fire alarm pull station at gymatorium.
1 $1,185
HB01.4
Fire suppression system in Kitchen is not compatible with sprinkler head in hood
1 $395
PRIORITY O TOTAL $27,481
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BOWMAN ES 5
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
BOWMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 1 - HIGH PRIORITY (0 -5 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
3C
Provide window screens @ all operable windows
$6,848
3RA.2
Begin phased Roof replacement in Roof Areas E & F in 2009. As per Russo Bar Associates.
$371,300
(16,800 SF)
Phased replacement of built up roofing system for roof areas'A','B','C','D', &'G', from 2010
3RA.3
thru 2013. As recommended by Russo Bar Associates. (A'& 'B'21,000 SFscheduled in 2010)
$1,185,000
('C'19,000 SF scheduled in 2011) ('D' 11,200 SF scheduled in 2012) ('G' 3,000 SF scheduled in
2013)
PB02.1
A new gas fired water heater along with a thermostatic mixing valve that will supply 120
$23,700
degree F. hot water to the building.
A new natural gas service will be installed to the building to provide fuel for heating and
PB02.2
domestic hot water. Natural gas will also be provided to a generator if one is provided as part
$7,900
of the design.
A new domestic 140 degree F. hot water and hot water recirculating piping system will be
PB03.3
$7,900
included to supply the kitchen needs.
In approximately five years the heating plant will be at the end of its serviceable life
1-11302.1
therefore, within that time frame we recommend the installation of (2) new gas fired steam
$395,000
boilers with modulating gas for energy savings.
■ The recently installed heating plant will be reused and converted from steam to hot water
while reusing the modulating gas burners and adding boiler water reset for additional energy
savings.
H B03.1
■ All unit ventilators will be replaced with hot water unit ventilators reusing CO2 demand
$1,221,340
ventilation controls.
■ All steam piping will be removed and a new schedule 40 black steel hot water system will
be installed.
■ Provide a direct digital control system with internet access and colored graphics.
PRIORITY 1 TOTAL $3,218,988
PRIORITY H.1
"Per 521 CMR provide accessible toilet room. Including toilet fixtures, grab bars &
5H
accessories. (Renovation of two existing single user toilet rooms adjacent to Gym, one for
$322,390
each sex).
PRIORITY H.1 TOTAL $322,390
PRIORITY 1 & H.1 TOTAL $3,541,377
"Work required per 521 CMR 3.3.1.b is only applicable if complete scope of work exceeds $100,000 and involves the
"alteration of any elements or spaces required to be accessible ". Work which is limited solely to electrical mechanical or
plumbing system, abatement of hazardous materials, and retrofit of automatic sprinklers will not prompt this requirement.
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BOWMAN ES 6
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
BOWMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 2 (6 -10 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
1D
Provide panic hardware @ (3) exterior doors.
$6,990
2G
Provide New house curtains and valance, remove existing.
$51,499
3A
Replace exterior windows.
$605,202
313
Replace window treatment.
$36,512
3E
Demo modular classrooms.
$39,105
4H
Hazardous material removal as per updated Ahera Report done by Universal Environmental
$118,500
Consultants, dated 1/27/09
6A
Replace 2'x4' ACT
$4,753
613
Repair crack in CMU /Brick.
$54,282
6D
Repair /repoint damaged brick.
$67,006
6KK
Paint entire interior (wholesale).
$47,409
61-1-
Replace all ceilings.
$617,968
E1301.6
Service electrode requires jumper around water meter for proper grounding.
$790
E1301.8
Add horn /strobes in cafeteria and library, currently none exist. Add strobes in toilets.
$11,850
E1301.10
Add receptacles to eliminate extension cord use.
$15,800
The existing fire alarm control panel, Simplex 4002, 1980's vintage, has reached the end of its
life. Although some replacement parts are still available, other parts are not. Detectors
compatible with this panel are still available. Should the panel fail and the replacement part
E1302.1
not be available it would force the school to be under a fire watch. We recommend replacing
$100,226
the 4002 control panel with a current Simplex zoned 4006 panel on a one for one swap. This
will allow existing wiring and devices to remain and allow additional devices to be provided.
In light of the building not being sprinklered it is recommended that additional smoke and
heat detectors be provided for full coverage of the facility. $1.00 /s.f.=
The normal /emergency lighting system should be tested by simulating a power failure and
E1302.2
confirming that adequate emergency lighting exists in egress ways and other large spaces
$25,057
where required. Additional emergency lighting should be added where required including on
Ithe exterior at exit discharge doors. $0.25/s.f. =
E1302.3
Provide full coverage of exit signs where required for safe egress out of the facility. $0.10 /s.f.
$10,022
Provide occupancy sensors to turn lights off in classrooms, toilets, offices, gym, etc. to save
E1303.1
energy when spaces are unoccupied. Utility Co. rebates may be available for energy
$15,800
conservation measures. 50 @ $200.00 /unit =
P1303.4
All plumbing fixtures will be replaced with new water conserving type fixtures capable of
$63,200
saving approximately 30% of overall water usage of the building.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BOWMAN ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
1-11301.1
Veeder Root oil tank monitoring system is not operating
$3,160
HBO1.2
Wasted energy resulting from pre- heating No.2 fuel oil
$3,160
111301.3
Steam leaks in steam tunnels
$39,500
1-11301.5
Code required ventilation air not provided in corridors
$69,520
1-11301.6
Calibration of the pneumatic temperature controls
$49,770
1-11301.7
CO2 Demand ventilation control in Classroom unit ventilators
$42,660
HB01.8
Verify shaft trueness on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units and replace if
necessary
$20,540
HB01.9
Verify conditions of shaft bearings on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units
and replace if necessary
$20,540
HB01.10
Clean fan wheels, coils, dampers, and outside air louvers on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans
and air handling units
$20,540
HB03.5
Replace all air handling units serving the Kitchen, Cafeteria, Art /Teachers Work Room, Media
Center and Administration Area.
$213,300
111303.6
j Replace all exhaust fans and internally clean exhaust ductwork.
$107,440
PRIORITY 2 TOTAL $2,482,101
PRIORITY H.2
5A
Non HC compliant door.
$32,025
513
Remove non - accessible sink and associated casework, provide new casework unit with
accessible sink.
$89,248
5C
Provide accessible circulation desk and remove non accessible desk.
$11,355
5D
Provide accessible drinking fountain, by plumbing.
$267
5E
Remove wall mounted ETR TV, owner to place on moveable cart.
$1,332
5F
Provide guard /handrail.
$2,545
5G
Toilet room inaccessible - min. work required: accessories, handrails and new phenolic
partitions at gang bathrooms.
$12,552
5K
Provide accessible door and frame.
$47,447
5L
Provide wheelchair lift.
$30,311
5N
Provide accessible entrance - concrete ramp at 8' -0 ", including handrails.
$5,701
5P
Provide accessible door hardware.
$4,659
5Q
Relocated lockers to provide HC accessible door clearance.
$1,563
5T
Remove and replace all remaining door hardware.
$228,079
PRIORITY H.2 TOTAL $467,084
PRIORITY 2 & H.2 TOTAL $2,949,185
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
PRIORITY O, 1, H.1, 2 & H.2 TOTAL $6,518,044
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated BOWMAN F"
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
ESTABROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY O -OPERATING BUDGET
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST
2H
Remove (2) sets of double doors from corridor. Creating dead end corridor.
$179
3RA.1
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented. ('H' & '1'
20,825 SF until warranty expires in 2025) (54,555 SF excluding roof areas from 3A.5)(Refer to
3RA.6 & 3RA.7 for scheduled work)
$9,164
6CC
Patch concrete.
$2,961
6D
Repair /repoint damaged brick.
$2,888
6F
Repair water damage at exterior soffit.
$1,561
6L
Rake out ETR expansion joint material and provide rubber compression seal at expansion
joint.
$1,340
6Q
Replace ETR expansion joint at floor.
$3,182
6QQ
Fasten down loose window muntin.
$201
611
Patch and paint gyp. ceiling at window damage.
$295
6S
Patch wall at removed display case.
$2,496
6U
Refinish metal panels.
$207
6YY
Remove and replace portion of metal decking.
$626
6ZZ
Remove and replace accordion door.
$1,049
EES1.1
Receptacles in kitchen not GFI.
$2,370
EES1.2
Provide lens in light fixture over servery counter.
$158
EES1.5
Add pull station at toilet exterior door.
$1,185
H ES1.1
No actuator on one of the combustion air ducts in the boiler room. Duct termination heights
are not code compliant.
$4,740
PRIORITY O TOTAL $34,602
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated ESTABROOK ES 9
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
ESTABROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 1 - HIGH PRIORITY (0 -5 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
3C
Replace (8) missing window screens @ operable windows
$7,437
Phased replacement of built up roofing areas in 'D', 'E', 'F', & 'G', from 2010 thru 2013. ('D'
3RA.6
8,500 SF scheduled for 2010) ('E'3,930 SF scheduled for 2011) ('F'8,400 SF scheduled for
$502,243
2012) ('G'6,200 SF scheduled for 2013)
3RA.7
Roof replacement of roofing areas in Part 'A' & 'B', scheduled for year 2014. (6,700 SF)
$125,800
3RA.5
Phased replacement of built up roofing areas 'C' scheduled for 2009. As recommended by
$335,948
Russo Bar Associates. (17,510 SF)
■ A new gas fired water heater along with a thermostatic mixing valve that will supply 120
degree F. hot water to the building.
■ A new natural gas service will be installed to the building to provide fuel for heating and
PES2.1
domestic hot water. Natural gas will also be provided to a generator if one is provided as
$454,250
part of the design.
■ In approximately five years the heating plant will be at the end of its serviceable life
therefore, within that time frame we recommend the installation of (2) new gas fired steam
boilers with modulatiniz gas for enenzy savinizs.
PES3.3
A new domestic 140 degree F. hot water and hot water recirculating piping system will be
$7,900
included to supply the kitchen needs.
PES3.4
All plumbing fixtures will be replaced with new water conserving type fixtures capable of
$63,200
saving approximately 30% of overall water usage of the building.
■ The recently installed heating plant will be reused and converted from steam to hot water
while reusing the modulating gas burners and adding boiler water reset for additional energy
savings.
■ All unit ventilators will be replaced with hot water unit ventilators reusing CO2 demand
HES3.1
ventilation controls.
$1,178,680
■ All steam piping will be removed and a new schedule 40 black steel hot water system will
be installed.
■ Provide a direct digital control system with internet access and colored graphics.
PRIORITY 1 TOTAL $2,675,457
PRIORITY H.1
5H
"Per 521 CMR provide accessible toilet room. Including toilet fixtures, grab bars &
$227,640
accessories. (Renovation of two existing single user toilet rooms, one for each sex).
PRIORITY H.1 TOTAL $227,640
PRIORITY 1 & H.1 TOTAL $2,903,097
"Work required per 521 CMR 3.3.1.b is only applicable if complete scope of work exceeds $100,000 and involves the
"alteration of any elements or spaces required to be accessible ". Work which is limited solely to electrical mechanical or
plumbing system, abatement of hazardous materials, and retrofit of automatic sprinklers will not prompt this requirement.
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated ESTABROOK ES 10
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
ESTABROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 2 (6 -10 Years)
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST
1D
Provide panic hardware @ (3) exterior doors.
$9,316
21
Add double doors and partition @ entry to Gymnasium. To Eliminate dead end corridor.
$33,924
2D
Provide smoke stopping at top of wall.
$523
3A
Replace exterior windows.
$656,207
3B
Replace window treatment.
$43,241
3E
Demo modular classroom.
$55,401
3P
Re -grout precast panel mortar.
$776
3Q
Repair exterior lintels.
$6,968
311
Repair aluminum siding.
$65,829
4D
Remove VAT flooring, provide new VCT with underlayment.
$846,624
4H
Hazardous material removal as per updated Ahera Report done by Universal Environmental
Consultants, dated 1/27/09
$319,950
6A
Replace 2'x4' ACT
$2,007
6B
Repair crack in CMU /Brick.
$31,527
6KK
Paint entire interior (wholesale).
$56,374
6M
Replace damaged blind.
$15,476
6MM
Repair and replace HM doorframe.
$897
6P
Demo existing ceiling tile and provide new mylar face tile.
$16,448
EES1.3
Electrical items under kitchen hood are required to shutdown upon activation of hood
suppression system.
$3,950
EES1.4
Add fire alarm strobe to toilets.
$7,900
EES2.1
The existing fire alarm control panel, Gamewell Flex 300, 1980's vintage has reached the end
of its life. Replacement parts are still available until they run out. New parts are no longer
manufactured. Replacement smoke detectors are still available although UL Listed smoke
detectors may not be. Existing panel is not expandable. In light of the building not being
sprinklered it is recommended that a replacement panel be provided with expansion
capability for full coverage of smokes and heats. Strobes visible within the same space are
.required to be synchronized. 1.00 s.f. =
$102,700
EES2.2
Provide additional self contained battery units in egress ways and other large spaces. Provide
emergency lighting over exterior doors. $.20 /s.f. =
$20,540
EES2.3
Provide full coverage of exit signs where required for safe egress out of the facility. $.10 /s.f. _
$10,270
EES3.1
Provide occupancy sensors to turn lights off in classrooms, toilets, offices, gym, etc. to save
energy when spaces are unoccupied. Utility Co. rebates may be available for energy
conservation measures. 55 @ $200 /unit =
$17,380
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated ESTABROOK ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
HES1.2
Code required ventilation air not provided in corridors /cafe
$50,560
HES1.3
Calibration of the pneumatic temperature controls
$51,350
HES1.4
CO2 Demand ventilation control in the classroom and media center unit ventilators
$33,180
H ES1.5
Verify shaft trueness on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units and replace if
necessary.
$20,540
H ES1.6
Verify conditions of shaft bearings on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units
and replace if necessary.
$20,540
H ES1.7
Clean fan wheels, coils, dampers, and outside air louvers on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans
and air handling units.
$20,540
H ES3.5
Replace all air handling units serving the gym, computer classroom, administration area,
music /lecture area and kitchen.
$154,840
HES3.6
Replace all exhaust fans and internally clean exhaust ductwork.
$106,650
PRIORITY 2 TOTAL $2,782,429
PRIORITY H.2
5A
Non HC compliant door.
$29,683
5B
Remove non - accessible sink and associated casework, provide new casework unit with
accessible sink.
$92,446
5C
Provide accessible circulation desk and remove non accessible desk.
$8,513
5CC
Demo inaccessible stair in entirety. Provide new concrete stairs and rails.
$7,255
5D
Provide accessible drinking fountain, by plumbing.
$1,322
5E
Remove wall mounted ETR TV, owner to place on moveable cart.
$95
5F
Provide guard/handrail.
$2,190
5G
Toilet room inaccessible - min. work required: accessories, handrails and new phenolic
partitions at gang bathrooms.
$64,897
5K
Provide accessible door and frame.
$41,652
5L
Provide wheelchair lift.
$29,875
5N
Provide accessible entrance - concrete ramp at W -0 ", including handrails.
$20,453
5Q
Relocated lockers to provide HC accessible door clearance.
$7,674
511
Provide accessible serving line and remove non - accessible serving line.
$20,812
5T
Remove and replace all remaining door hardware.
$228,484
5W
Infill accessible seating area.
$17,266
PRIORITY H.2 TOTAL $572,617
PRIORITY 2 & H.2 TOTAL $3,355,046
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
PRIORITY O, 1, H.1, 2 & H.2 TOTAL $6,292,745
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated ESTABROOK ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
HASTINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY O -OPERATING BUDGET
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
1E
Standing water @ concrete pit, cemetitious waterproofing required.
$943
2A
Replace door closer.
$754
Cracks in exterior wall to be sealed to prevent further water infiltration. Monitoring cracking
3L.A
shall be done on a regular basis as recommended by Lim Consultants Inc. See attached report
$3,950
for further information.
Perform recommendations required by Lim Consultants Inc. to fully understand the cause of
the cracking within the exterior wall and determine lasting remedial recommendations;
3L.B
including observing seasonal variations of crack size, mapping relative movements of the
$15,800
structure and reviewing existing record drawings. See attached report for further
information.
3 RA.8
Trim back trees brushing the roof along the north side of Roof Area 'A' and repair shingle roof
$12,640
at intersection of roofing areas 'A' &'B'. As recommended by Russo Bar Associates.
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
3RA.1
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented. (43,600
$35,076
SF excluding roof areas from 3RA.8 & 3RA.9) ('R'& 'S'600 SF to be inspected until scheduled
work in 2020)
6AA
Refinish fascia /soffit.
$1,074
6CC
Patch concrete
$593
6DD
Wood rot at window, wood window head to be replaced.
$149
6D
Re -point brick veneer @ chimney. As recommended by Russo Bar Associates.
$2,966
6HH
Refasten lifting fascia.
$1,296
6JJ
Provide (3) galvanized metal grates @ exterior areaways
$992
6MM
Repair HM doorframe.
$449
6NN
Repair wood flooring. Patch existing seal as required.
$1,779
6PP
Provide steel lintel at existing CMU opening.
$390
6SS
Remove biological growth.
$1,787
6V
Repair water damage at floor
$5,013
6Y
Replace damaged downspout and /or gutter.
$2,738
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
EHA1.1
Receptacles in kitchen not GFI.
$2,370
EHA1.2
Add pull station and exit sign at lower level stairwell exterior door.
$2,370
EHA1.3
Add pull stations at lower level classroom exterior doors, 1960 addition.
$7,900
EHA1.6
Add exit signs at all exterior doors.
$7,900
PHA1.1
Repair seals and venting of the sewage ejector to eliminate the sewer smell in the building.
$3,950
HHA1.3
Room #10's unit ventilator steam valve was not operating.
$948
HHA1.5
The library thermostat is located within the corridor next to the main entrance rather then
within the space.
$1,580
PRIORITY O TOTAL $115,406
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES 14
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
HASTINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 1 - HIGH PRIORITY (0 -5 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST
3C
Replace (12) missing window screens @ operable windows
$1,417
3RA.9
PVC Roofing located @ Roof Area 'P' to be replaced in year 2010. As recommended by Russo
$134,300
gar Associates. (6,500 SF)
4C
Remove counter top (mold evident) and associated casework unit.
$101,583
■ A new gas fired water heater along with a thermostatic mixing valve that will supply 120
degree F. hot water to the building.
■ A new natural gas service will be installed to the building to provide fuel for heating and
domestic hot water. Natural gas will also be provided to a generator if one is provided as
PHA2.1
part of the design.
$442,400
■ In approximately five years the heating plant will be at the end of its serviceable life
therefore, within that time frame we recommend the installation of (2) new gas fired steam
boilers with modulating gas for energy savings.
($10,000 added from Haz Mat Report 02/26/09)
PHA3.3
A new domestic 140 degree F. hot water and hot water recirculating piping system will be
$7,900
included to supply the kitchen needs.
■ The recently installed heating plant will be reused and converted from steam to hot water
while reusing the modulating gas burners and adding boiler water reset for additional energy
savings.
■ All unit ventilators will be replaced with hot water unit ventilators reusing CO2 demand
HHA3.1
ventilation controls.
$1,242,670
■ All steam piping will be removed and a new schedule 40 black steel hot water system will
be installed.
■ Provide a direct digital control system with internet access and colored graphics.
PRIORITY 1 TOTAL $1,930,270
PRIORITY H.1
"Per 521 CMR (MAAB Accessibility) provide accessible toilet room. Including phenolic
5G
partitions, toilet fixtures, grab bars & accessories. (Renovation of two existing gang toilet @
$116,892
ground level, one for each sex).
PRIORITY H.1 TOTAL $116,892
PRIORITY 1 & H.1 TOTAL $2,047,162
"Work required per 521 CMR 3.3.1.b is only applicable if complete scope of work exceeds $100,000 and involves the
"alteration of any elements or spaces required to be accessible ". Work which is limited solely to electrical mechanical or
plumbing system, abatement of hazardous materials, and retrofit of automatic sprinklers will not prompt this requirement.
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES 15
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
HASTINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRIORITY 2 (6 -10 Years)
DPC ITEM #
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST
1D
Provide panic hardware.
$9,317
21
Provide new door and frame and wall.
$12,164
3A
Replace exterior windows.
$977,511
3B
Replace window treatment.
$55,431
3E
Demo modular classrooms.
$104,045
3F
Provide new hardware and 180 degree door swing @ (2) egress doors located @ the
Auditorium & Gymnasium.
$10,191
3P
Re -grout stone hard mortar.
$7,251
3Q
Repair exterior lintels.
$4,748
4B
Remove wood shelf with VAT adhered to it.
$107
4D
Remove VAT flooring and provide new VCT with underlayment.
$458,543
4H
Hazardous material removal as per updated Ahera Report done by Universal Environmental
Consultants, dated 1/27/09
$120,080
6A
Replace 2'x4' ACT
$14,051
6B
Repair crack in CMU /Brick.
$211,614
6136
Provide break -metal closure.
$4,219
6E
Replaced damaged louver.
$10,657
6GG
Repair damaged foundation wall.
$7,108
6KK
Paint entire interior (wholesale).
$50,355
6P
Demo existing ceiling tile and provide new mylar face tile.
$11,367
6RR
Replace aluminum faced plywood sheating with aluca bon system.
$12,324
6W
Repaint CMU.
$3,745
6X
Replace entire ceiling.
$3,211
6Z
Replace fascia /soffit.
$11,188
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES
EHA1.4
Add horn /strobe in library.
$1,580
EHA1.5
Add globes to kitchen hood fixtures.
$790
The existing fire alarm control panel, Edwards EST LSS1, early 1990's vintage, has reached the
end of its life. Although some replacement parts are still available, other parts are not.
Replacement detectors compatible with this panel are still available. Should the panel fail
and the replacement part not be available it would force the school to be under a fire watch.
EHA2.1
We recommend replacing the existing control panel with a current EST addressable panel on
$106,713
a one for one swap. This will allow existing wiring to remain and allow new addressable
devices to be added. In light of the building not being sprinklered it is recommended that
additional smoke and heat detectors be provided for full coverage of the facility. Strobes
should be synchronized to meet ADA. $1.00 /s.f. =
The normal /emergency lighting system should be tested by simulating a power failure and
EHA2.2
confirming that adequate emergency lighting exists in egress ways and other large spaces
$26,678
where required. Additional emergency lighting should be added where required including on
the exterior at exit discharge doors. $.25 /s.f. =
EHA2.3
Provide full coverage of exit signs where required for safe egress out of the facility. $.10 /s.f. _
$10,671
Provide occupancy sensors to turn lights off in classrooms, toilets, offices, gym, etc. to save
EHA3.1
energy when spaces are unoccupied. Utility Co. rebates may be available for energy
$18,960
conservation measures. 60 @ $200 /unit =
HHA1.1
Boiler #2 burner control panel needs to be replaced.
$3,950
HHA1.2
Teachers work room /General classroom has no exhaust system.
$5,530
H HA1.4
The computer room has no exhaust or ventilation air also the wall mounted cooling unit is not
$13,430
o er ting correctly and has a tendency to allow the room to over heat.
HHA1.6
lCocle required ventilation air not provided in corridors
$37,920
HHA1.7
Calibration of the pneumatic temperature controls
$52,930
HHA1.8
Installing CO2 demand ventilation control in classroom unit ventilators.
$37,920
HHA1.9
Verify shaft trueness on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units and replace if
$26,860
necessary.
HHA1.10
Verify conditions of shaft bearings on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans and air handling units
$26,860
and replace if necessary.
HHA1.11
Clean fan wheels, coils, dampers, and outside air louvers on all unit ventilators, exhaust fans
$26,860
and air handling units.
H HA3.5
Replace all air handling units serving the gym, computer classroom, administration area,
$158,000
music /lecture area and kitchen.
HHA3.6
Replace all exhaust fans and internally clean exhaust ductwork.
$110,600
PHA3.4
All plumbing fixtures will be replaced with new water conserving type fixtures capable of
$63,200
saving approximately 30% of overall water usage of the building.
PRIORITY 2 TOTAL $2,828,679
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES
Lexington Public Schools
ES Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
PRIORITY H.2
5A
Non HC compliant door.
$16,190
5B
Remove non - accessible sink and associated casework, provide new casework unit with
accessible sink.
$10,856
5D
Provide accessible drinking fountain, by plumbing.
$1,853
5E
Remove wall mounted ETR TV, owner to place on moveable cart.
$381
5F
Provide guard /handrail.
$23,392
5H
Toilet Room inaccessible - min. work required: accessories, handrails and new phenolic
partitions at gang bathrooms.
$86,126
5L
Provide wheelchair lift.
$60,219
5N
Provide accessible entrance - concrete ramp at 8' -0 ", including handrails.
$10,765
5Q
Relocate lockers to provide HC accessible door clearance.
$412
511
Provide accessible serving line and remove non - accessible serving line.
$520
5T
Remove and replace all remaining door hardware.
$280,497
5V
Provide pipe insulation at sink, under counter.
$183
PRIORITY H.2 TOTAL $491,394
PRIORITY 2 & H.2 TOTAL $3,320,073
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
PRIORITY O, 1, H.1, 2 & H.2 TOTAL $5,482,641
01/08/09
02/26/09 Haz Mat Updated HASTINGS ES 18
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
10. HS Program & Space Needs
As noted earlier, although many of the space needs were addressed in the renovation
project completed in 2002, significant space needs do remain at the High School.
Enrollment growth, which has continued beyond the enrollment number projected in
the 1997 Master Plan, is one reason for this.
Beyond enrollment growth, however, the small average size of existing classrooms,
which was a concern recognized but not fully addressed in the earlier project, has
become a matter of greater significance. The greater use of technology in classrooms,
combined with a greater emphasis on individual and group work within the classroom,
have caused a general "raising of the bar" for classroom size at the secondary level.
To illustrate this point, at the time of the previous master plan study, the recommended
average size range for a HS classroom was 750 to 850 SF. More recently, in space
standards adopted by the Massachusetts School Building Authority, this range has
increased to 850 -950 SF. By comparison, the size of the average classroom at LHS is
707 SF.
Because there is clearly a tradition of successful teaching in smaller classrooms at
Lexington HS, we are not recommending that all classrooms be brought up the most
recent recommended range. We are recommending, however, that a number of the
smallest classrooms be expanded or replaced with classrooms that meet the current LHS
classroom average size. We are also recommending the provision of additional
computer labs, some additional specialized instructional space, and the provision of
additional space to support current SPED programs, including the LABBB collaborative.
The May 2008 NEASC report on "School Site and plant support" confirms the need for
additional space at LHS. Among the space needs identified in that report are needs for
teacher planning and preparation space, conference space, and storage space. Much of
this space need is tied to the growth in enrollments. Growth in enrollments leads to
increasing intensity of classroom utilization, so that classrooms are less available for
activities such as teacher preparation, student meetings, "extra help ", teacher computer
use, and meetings & conferences. As a more efficient alternative to adding classrooms
to return to a condition where every teacher has a dedicated classroom, we are
recommending an increase in the amount of faculty work space and departmental
conference space.
In developing our analysis of space needs, we have evaluated existing available
educational space against applicable standards, including MSBA's educational space
standards. We have met with educators at the High School and have reviewed the
above - mentioned NEASC report. The outcome of this is a Program of Recommended
Spaces which shows the need for an additional 29,360 net square feet. In rough terms,
Design Partnership of Cambridge
9 March 2009
this translates into additions totaling approximately 45,850 GSF. The proposed
additional net space needs are as follows:
Core Academic Space (classrooms): 3,500 nsf
Special Education:
9,110
nsf
Art & Music:
2,800
nsf
Health & PE:
1,200
nsf
Media Center:
3,000
nsf
Auditorium /drama:
1,500
nsf
Dining & Food Service:
2,000
nsf
Admin. /Guidance (workspace):
3,500
nsf
Computer Labs:
2,700
nsf
TOTAL: 29,360 nsf
NOTE: The itemized square footages above represent the increases needed for each
space type, but are not necessarily translated into new construction. The proposed
plans include the re- assignment of existing spaces for better utilization, fit and location
within the existing buildings that results in a corresponding net increase, but different
allocation of new construction.
Design Partnership of Cambridge 2
0
0
ti
2
E
0
ti
m
ti
a
a�
0
0
a
a
0
0
v
a
0
a
co
a
Q
M
2
a
a
iii
■ice,
III■
a
co
a
Q
M
2
a
a
III■
loom
0
so
MEMEMEM
MENOMONEE
a
co
a
Q
M
2
a
a
0
0
v
co
2
R
co
d
v
R
a
a�
y
O
O
a
v
a
0
p I 3
d
a
co
a
Q
co
2
I�■III
a
co
a
Q
co
2
0
0
ti
2
E
0
ti
m
ti
a
a�
0
0
a'
0
0
v
a
0
a
a
Q
m
a
a
0i■ititrr
oi■itit
IIIII�■■
a
a
Q
m
a
a
0i■ititrr
IIIII�■■
a
a
Q
m
a
a
0
0
ti
2
E
0
ti
m
ti
a
a�
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
V
aLL
a=
E ()
K -
a
a
Q
a
a
IIi11■
of
�i■
aLL
a=
E ()
K -
a
a
Q
a
a
IIi11■
aLL
a=
E ()
K -
a
a
Q
a
a
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
11. HS Facilities Needs
In addition to the HS space needs described above, significant facilities needs
also exist at the Lexington HS. GGD engineers completed a study for Lexington
in 2008 that identifies and prioritizes HVAC systems needs at the High School.
As part of this study, GGD has extended that work to include electrical,
plumbing and fire protection systems needs. A separate assessment of roof
needs has been done by Russo Bar Associates.
DPC technical staff have completed a review of the building for architectural
deficiencies, including building enclosure, building interior finishes and
specialties, doors & hardware, code compliance, and disability access
requirements. We have also had an inspection and report of food service
requirements done by Crabtree Mcgrath Associates and a site review and
assessment by Warner- Larson Associates.
Consistent with the report structure for the elementary schools, the scope and
cost information from the architectural, electrical, plumbing, fire protection and
roof assessments has been tabulated in a prioritized matrix. This allows these
categories of work to be addressed as stand -alone projects over time if desired.
HVAC work was not included in this prioritized matrix, as some of that work is
proceeding on a separate track.
It is important to note that this matrix represents only a portion of the work
that appears to be necessary at the high school. A more comprehensive
depiction of work recommended for the high school, including work to address
the space needs described in the previous section, as well as food service, site
improvement and HVAC systems needs, is presented in the summary cost
estimate in Section 15. This estimate represents a preliminary assessment of
the cost to undertake this work, including HVAC work, as a major single stand-
alone project.
For the sake of consistency, costs for the High School are estimated to a date of
June 2012, which would be the midpoint of construction according to the
proposed implementation schedule presented in this report.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
Lexington Public Schools
HS Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
PRIORITY 1 - (0 -12 Months)
DPC ITEM
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
#
TRADE COST
COST
6D
Repair /patch hole in brick veneer ( <1sf) @ egress stair.
$4,763
$7,526
3RA.10
Replacement of flat built -up roofing in roofing area 'J' as recommended by Russo Bar
$95,000
$150,100
Associates. (7,600SF)
3RA.11
EPDM repairs at various roofing areas; 'E2', 'D2', 'D4' &'B1'. As recommended by
$3,500
$5,530
Russo Bar Associates.
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
3RA.1
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented.
$12,500
$19,750
(222,750 SF exluding roof areas from 3RA.10) ff, , Bridge roof areas 1,2, & 3 and
EPDM roofs to be inspected until scheduled work in 2016 & 2020)
ARCH TOTAL $115,763 $182,906
ELE1.1
Emergency closet near kitchen has contactor very loud, near failure condition.
$1,000
$1,580
ELE1.2
One hood light fixture missing protective globe.
$100
$158
ELE1.3
Servery has two (2) open recessed cans, need lens.
$500
$790
60A /2P breaker for photovoltaic system is not GFI. Breaker to be changed to GFI
ELE1.4
$750
$1,185
Itype.
ELEC TOTAL $2,350 $3,713
PLE1.1
Provide proper maintenance of the ph neutralization systems so they may operate as
$2,500
$3,950
designed and discharge waste at an acceptable level.
PLUMB TOTAL $2,500 $3,950
FPLE1.1
Provide modifications to the existing fire protection sprinkler system to eliminate
$10,000
$15,800
sprinkler coverage deficiencies.
FIRE PROTECTION TOTAL $10,000 $15,800
Total HVAC cost for PRIORITY 1, 2 & 3
$3,776,000
$5,966,080
HVAC TOTAL $3,776,000 $5,966,080
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
NO3101I:ejril►li:01
Lexington Public Schools
HS Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
PRIORITY 2 - (1 -5 Years)
ESTIMATED
DPC ITEM
ESTIMATED
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
#
TRADE COST
COST
21
Add door and partition @ Admin Suite. To Eliminate dead end corridor.
$33,907
$53,573
2K
Remove door for storage area within egress stair. Unoccupied space.
$651
$1,029
2P
Remove screen door @ Kitchen. Swinging opposite egress direction.
$75
$119
1A
Change direction of door swing @ print shop to swing in direction of egress.
$1,495
$2,362
1F
Replace (2) F.E.C. not code complaint.
$1,955
$3,089
2S
Provide missing fire blanket @ Lab.
$236
$373
3G
Repair /Replace water damaged wood trim. Multiple locations
$1,140
$1,801
4H
Hazardous material removal as per updated Ahera Report done by Universal Environmental
$140,000
$221,200
Consultants, dated 1/27/09
6NNN
Repaint exterior wood trim throughout.
$99
$156
Phased replacement of built up roofing system for roof areas Part D8, D1, J, H, and C
3 RA. 12
from 2011 thru 2015. As recommended by Russo Bar Associates. ('D8'scheduled for
$770,000
$1,216,600
2011) ('D1'scheduled for2012) ('J'scheduled for2013) ('H'scheduled for2014) ('C'
1,;chpdijlpd for 2015)
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
3RA.1
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented.
$43,500
$68,730
(Refer to 3RA.12 for scheduled work) ('F', Bridge roof areas 1,2, & 3 and EPDM roofs
to be inspected until scheduled work in 2016 & 2020)
ARCH TOTAL $993,058 $1,569,032
ELE2.1
Exterior lighting not controlled with photocell "ON ", timeclocks only. Photocell and
$5,000
$7,900
contactors need to be added to system.
ELE2.2
Selective kitchen loads including refrigeration should be reconnected to the
$25,000
$39,500
generator.
ELE2.3
Provide automated lighting control system for common area lighting and exterior
$100,000
$158,000
lighting.
Provide occupancy sensors to turn lights off in classrooms, toilets, offices, etc. to save
ELE2.4
energy when spaces are unoccupied. Utility Co. rebates may be available for energy
$40,000
$63,200
conservation measures. 200 @ $200 /unit =
ELEC TOTAL $170,000 $268,600
PLE2.1
All plumbing fixtures will be replaced with new water conserving type fixtures capable
$60,000
$94,800
of saving approximately 30% of overall water usage of the building.
PLUMB TOTAL $60,000 $94,800
"High School has already been renovated providing minimum accessibility requirements.
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
LEXINGTON HS 2
Lexington Public Schools
HS Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
PRIORITY 3 - EXCLUDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL HC ACCESS (6 -10 Years)
DPC ITEM
#
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
TRADE COST
ESTIMATED
PROJECT
COST
2C
Provide rated door.
$1,714
$2,708
2L
Demo hollow metal door frame and associated glazing.
$688
$1,087
211
Head height issue at stair, not to code, rebuild stair in its entirety.
$226,800
$358,344
3A
Replace exterior window(s).
$673,072
$1,063,454
3B
Replace window treatment.
$11,637
$18,386
3H
Repair failing window glazing w/ low E insulated pane
$254,382
$401,924
31
Replace hollow metal frame and door.
$17,062
$26,958
3K
Patch electrical penetration.
$406
$641
3M
Provide insulated aluminum soffit.
$2,957
$4,672
3P
Regrout 25% of precast panel joints.
$86
$136
4B
Remove wood shelf with VAT adhered to it.
$846
$1,337
6A
Replace 2x4 ACT, see plans for quantities
$24,085
$38,054
6AAA
Replace damaged ceramic tile
$922
$1,457
6B
Repair crack in CMU /Brick -to be reviewed by structural engineer
$20,883
$32,995
6BBB
Provide new acoustic seal on door
$277
$438
6CC
Patch concrete
$862
$1,362
6CCC
Replace flashing
$791
$1,250
6E
Replace damaged louver
$815
$1,288
6G
Repair soffit
$277
$438
6GGG
Repaint exterior wood siding, see plans for extent
$346
$547
6H
Paint Room
$3,647
$5,762
6HH
Refasten lifting fascia, see plan for extent
$834
$1,318
6HHH
Replace wood fascia /trim, see plan for extent
$2,505
$3,958
6111
Clean paint off brick
$108
$171
6KKK
Provide new HM door to replace wood door
$3,146
$4,971
6L
Rake out ETR EJ material and provide rubber compression seal @ EJ
$5,503
$8,695
6LLL
Replace metal panels, see plan for extent.
$1,222
$1,931
6MM
Repair HM doorframe, to be replaced, UON.
$23,846
$37,677
6MMM
Repaint vertical mullions @ ETR translucent wall panel system
$128
$202
6000
Provide custom interior signage.
$5,062
$7,998
6PPP
Provide dock bumper
$1,154
$1,823
(continued on next page)
4WX10In to] ►1:161
Lexington Public Schools
HS Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
LEXINGTON HS 4
6Q
Replace ETR EJ at floor
$2,018
$3,188
6QQQ
Re- fasten MB /TB
$293
$463
6SS
Remove biological growth
$1,078
$1,703
6SSS
Existing wood floor to be refinished
$8,112
$12,817
6UU
Provide new walk -off mat
$10,296
$16,268
6000
Repaint GWB ceiling
$2,719
$4,296
6VV
Replace vinyl base
$1,611
$2,545
6VVV
Adjust door hardware
$271
$428
6W
Repaint CMU, see plans for extent.
$1,082
$1,710
6WW
Patch hole in GWB wall & repaint
$784
$1,239
6WWW
Repair patch VCT, see floor plans for extent
$72
$114
6XXX
Provide missing locker door, see plans for extent.
$249
$393
6Y
Replace damaged downspout and /or gutter, see plans
$841
$1,329
6YYY
Provide new door louver
$186
$294
6ZZZ
Patch athletic rubber flooring & provide striping as shown
$37,994
$60,031
3RA.1
Roofing annual inspections and preventative maintenance work for roofing area. As
recommended by Russo Bar Associates until roof replacement work is implemented.
(excluding roof areas in 3RA.13) (Bridge roof areas 1,2, & 3 and EPDM roofs to be
$21,600
$34,128
3 RA. 13
Replace shingles in roofing area 'F' in year 2016. As recommended by Russo Bar
Associates. 17 000 SF
$200,000
$316,000
ARCH TOTAL $1,575,269 $2,488,925
PLE3.1
A new gas fired water heater boiler will be provided for the core buildings of the
school independent of the heating boilers to eliminate the need for the heating
boilers to fire during non - heating months.
$25,000
$39,500
PLUMB TOTAL $25,000 $39,500
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
LEXINGTON HS 4
Lexington Public Schools
HS Short Term Work -- Scope Cost
LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
PRIORITY 3 - FULL HC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - (6 -10 Years)
DPC ITEM
#
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED
TRADE COST
ESTIMATED
PROJECT
COST
5A
Non HC compliant door
$88,612
$140,007
5AA
Provide accessible expansion joint cover plate
$1,006
$1,589
5B
Remove non - accessible sink and assoc. casework, provide new casework unit w/
accessible sink.
$178,762
$282,444
51313
Provide accessible controls at elevator
$15,226
$24,057
5D
Provide accessible drinking fountain, by plumbing
$1,845
$2,915
5E
Remove wall mounted ETR TV, owner to place on moveable cart
$963
$1,522
5F
Provide guard /handrail
$51,121
$80,771
5G
Toilet Rm inaccessible - min. work req'd: accessories, handrails & new phenolic
partitions @ gang bathrooms
$98,896
$156,256
5GG
1 Replace reception desk not to code
$24,279
$38,361
5H
Toilet Rm inaccessible - to be completely renovated including: new fixtures, finishes,
grab bars and accessories
$238,843
$377,372
5HH
remove non accessible floor transition strip & provide new
$4,057
$6,410
5JJ
Relocate fire blanket
$1,124
$1,776
5K
Provide accessible door and frame
$4,172
$6,592
5L
Provide wheelchair lift
$18,988
$30,001
5M
Provide handrails at existing stair /ramp
$57,544
$90,920
5MM
Remove door and frame. Infill opening with concrete block.
$3,108
$4,911
5N
Provide accessible entrance - concrete ramp @ 8' -0 ", including handrails (UON noted
on plans)
$39,211
$61,953
5NNN
Remove and replace lockers and benches.
$41,922
$66,237
5P
Provide accessible door hardware
$2,456
$3,880
5X
Provide accessible casework & hardware
$5,782
$9,136
5Z
Provide accessible portion at reception desk
$5,240
$8,279
ARCH TOTAL $883,157 $1,395,388
All costs estimated to June 2009. For A/E costs - trade costs are increased 58% to cover general conditions, overhead & profit,
escalation to June of 2009, bidding and construction contingences and indirect costs.
1.6.09 TOTAL - ALL PRIORITIES (LEXINGTON HS) $12,028,693
LEXINGTON HS 5
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
12. High School— Proposed Scope and Budget
The proposed scope of the High School project includes the space needs and the
facilities needs previously described. To address the space needs, several plan
studies were undertaken . The recommended plan is the one which makes best
use of existing space to meet program needs, thereby requiring the least
amount of new built space.
The recommended plan calls for 45,850 GSF of new built space and
approximately 27,000 GSF of space renovated to better serve program needs.
As part of the preliminary project budget, parametric cost estimates were done
on the proposed renovated and new space.
In addition, to address basic facilities needs such as the HVAC system, a detailed
base renovation estimate was done. The results of these separate estimates
were compiled, with appropriate markups for general contractor costs,
inflation, contingencies and indirect costs, to give the total project budget.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
...................
0
V)
LL.
-j
0
0
U
Ln
LLI =
U 0
Z=
0
U
LU 0 z
X
LU
F
S J
r 0
O 0
O
Y = J
AV
`I C� U LL
" ~ X
w
V
i
iyYa
At
�} N
d 40
' e
q 0ay�
h o0
(n. rid td�Z H e( LL O O O O
ti g O Vi V) O Vf
p oc l R N
cco co V1
LLI
r N 0 0 a Ln
sv a w8 Ln 0 N m
!� ° ti m
LL
$ ~ ~ sk 2 Y N
4t w O 0
O w
w w p
W m ti N
O
�zQ
p O
-5 L c . HIM z w
O N
Of O �Dw
<
t " c4 :'a M Q w 0
"? pt a< z
u v Q O
�� � d rye •� aq' N � p Q in
v 3"d .a • s • ,Re : ° fir_ ar ` z Q O
l9G p o m
uyl tY `fix Y.;' Q O 0 0 O
p Q Q D U
�w °o
D
~ J p z z
z ww w w
z z p Q N U vwi
W W
F
LLI �J' 1 0
O
00
= O
U LL
� 0
= Z
2 N
_
Z
O
H
C7
Z_
X
w
J
Lexington HS
1/8/09
rev. 2.26.09
DRAFT
Master Plan Cost Estimate
Building Area--gross SF:
GSF $ /GSF
Renovations
New construction
A. BUILDING TRADE COST
Base Renovation
LS
$2,281,150
Program Alteration (Adjusted Base)
LS
$1,912,381
Roof work
$973,500
New Addition - -large
27,400
$155.64
$4,264,536
New Additions - -small
18,450
$189.69
$3,499,781
Pedest. bridges
600
$330.49
$198,294
MEP/FP- -new
46,450
$65.00
$3,019,250
Food Service
LS
$250,000
Casework
45,850
$5.00
$229,250
Fire Protection
$10,000
Plumbing
$87,500
HVAC
$3,776,000
Electrical
$172,350
SUBTOTAL
$9,462,881
$11,211,111
B. SITEWORK TRADE COST
Hazardous Materials Abatement & Monitoring
Earthwork / Site Improvements (courtyard, roads, parking)
Utilities -- Civil (mitigation of add'l impery surface).
C. TOTAL TRADE COST
General Conditions
Overhead & Profit
D. SUBTOTAL CONTRACTOR'S COST
Escalation @ 5.7% /year to construction
midpoint date of 6/2012
E. TOTAL CONTRACTOR'S COST
Bidding Contingency
F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID
Construction Contingency
G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 45,850
TECHNOLOGY 45,850
INDIRECT EXPENSES
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
8.5%
6.2%
20.0%
3.0%
7.5%
$10.00
$8.00
v.3
TOTAL
$2,281,150
$1,912,381
$973,500
$4,264,536
$3,499,781
$198,294
$3,019,250
$250,000
$229,250
$10,000
$87,500
$3,776,000
$172,350
$20,673,992
$140,000
$523,000
$100,000
$21,436,992
$1,822,144
$1,442,066
$24,701,202
$4,927,890
$29,629,092
$888,873
$30,517,965
$2,288,847
$32,806,812
$458,500
$366,800
$4,057,100
$37,689,212
Lexington HS
1/8/09
Notes to Cost Estimate:
Master Plan Cost Estimate
The following assumptions were made in preparation of this cost estimate:
* A construction start in Fall 2011.
* Lump sum competitive bid procurement.
* The renovation scope is selective, addressing only items of work
identified in the 1.4.2009 preliminary plans and associated cost estimate
detail.
* The scope of new construction is as shown in the 1.4.2009 preliminary
plans.
L�J
L
b
m
L
V
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
13. Central Administration Facilities &
Program Needs
The Lexington Schools Central Administration has occupied the Old
Harrington School since 2007. As an element of this Master Plan study,
we evaluated options for implementing additional scopes of work over
time.
As part of this effort, we did a re- evaluation of space needs for Central
Administration, which basically consists of an update of the space
needs assessment done for the 2006 K -5 Master Plan. In addition to
small adjustments required because of changes in staffing to
administrative departments overtime, several more significant changes
have been made or are planned that impact Central Administration
space needs. Among these are:
• The decision to consolidate School Facilities and Town Facilities
Departments and house them in the new DPW building. This move
is expected to occur in the late Spring of 2009.
• The relocation of the central print shop, formerly at the high school,
to space in Old Harrington.
• The need to provide additional space for LABBB and for Pre -
Kindergarten support functions with Central Administration.
The attached Old Harrington Space Program (2.17.09) shows the total
net space requirements with these adjustments made. Also included
are two alternative layout plans showing different approaches to
accommodating these space needs in Old Harrington. As stated in the
2006 K -5 Master Plan, upgrades to the building will be required at some
time in the future.
Option I is essentially an extension of the current space use at Old
Harrington, adjusted for future changes which include the ex- migration
of Facilities to the new DPW Building and provision of space for LABBB
and Pre - Kindergarten support requirements. This plan assumes some
renovation for building preservation and to allow the continued
functioning of the building with the aforementioned use changes,
including building envelope repairs, hazardous materials abatement,
accessibility improvements and building systems improvements.
Option II shows a more extensive adaptive renovation which will fit
Central Administration functions more tightly and efficiently into the
existing building. This approach would require replacement of old
Design Partnership of Cambridge
building systems and is considerably more expensive, as can be seen
from the attached estimates of probable cost.
It should be noted that, in either plan approach, the aggregated space
requirements for Central Administration and related functions occupy
considerably more space than is available on the upper floor of Old
Harrington. In the case of Option I, it is significant that, of the usable
space on the lower floor, school functions occupy all except 6
classrooms and a portion of the old cafeteria.
In Option II, by virtue of greater consolidation of functions on the upper
floor, 4 additional classroom spaces are available for other uses on the
lower floor. However, the undesignated net usable space in that option
is still only 10 classrooms plus half the cafeteria, for a total of
approximately 10,800 NSF. It is our expectation that, based on the
observed pace of change in school space needs, particularly for District -
wide services, the School Department may well have need for at least
some of this space in the coming years.
Based on these considerations, and on the significant implementation
cost differences of Option I and Option II, it is our recommendation that
Central Administration continue to occupy Old Harrington according to
Option I. The opportunity to gain 4 additional classrooms worth of
space for potential use for other purposes does not seem to justify the
additional cost of Option II. The recommended approach has the
advantage that necessary repairs and improvements can be made on
an ongoing basis, without the need for major relocation of activities.
In assessing available space, we have disregarded the modular
classrooms, as they are in poor condition, and their original quality of
construction strongly suggests that attempts to renovate for continued
use are not cost effective.
For reasons explained later in this report, we do not think that future
use of Old Harrington as swing school space should figure heavily in
decisions on the future of Old Harrington. However, if this remains a
concern, it may be of interest that the recommended Option I involves
less alteration of the plan of the building, and thus leaves open to a
greater extent the option of returning some or all of the building to
school service in the future.
Town of Lexington - Old Harrington Program Study - Central Admin
2.13.2009
New Program rev. 2.26.09
Room Name No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Subtotals
Central Admin Spaces
Student Services (SPED)
250
2 100
Assist. Director
1
150
K -8 Coordinator
2
150
Out of District Admin
1
120
IEP Processing
1
120
Financial
1
120
Conference Room
250
Admin Assist
2
75
Director of Student Services
1
250
Behavior Specialist / Visually Impaired
1
120
ABA Coordinator / Data Specialist
1
120
BCBA Analysts
3
120
Altec Contractor/ Hotel
1
120
subtotal
Human Resources
Asst. Superintendent
1
250
Conference Room
200
Benefits
1
120
File Room
700
Licensure
1
150
Reception
1
150
Supplies / Mailing
120
subtotal
Business / Finance
Business
Asst. Superintendent
1
250
Assistant
1
100
Conference Room
200
Transportation
1
120
Admin Asst.
1
100
Print Shop
1
1,400
Finance
Finance Manager
1
200
Acct. Manager
1
200
Accounts Payable
2
150
Payroll
2
150
subtotal
District -wide Curriculum
Deputy Superintendent
Assistant
Conference Room
Assist. Superintendent
subtotal
K -5 Curriculum
Coordinator Offices
Materials Library
ELL Coordinator
(Shared with Student Services)
subtotal
150
300
120
120
120
250
150
250
120
120
360
120
2,180
250
200
120
700
150
150
120
1,690
250
100
200
120
100
1,400
200
200
300
300
3,170
1 250
250
2 100
200
250
250
1 250
250
950
5 150 750
1,000 1,000
1 120 120
1,870
0
U
Town of Lexington - Old Harrington Program Study - Central Admin
2.13.2009
New Program rev. 2.26.09
Room Name No. Ea. (sf) Total (sf) Subtotals
Superintendent
Conference Room 200 200
Superintendent 1 400 400
Admin Assistant 1 75 75
Professional Development
Prof. Development/Community Room
1,200 1,200
Resource
250 250
subtotal
1,450
1,450
LABBB
Classrooms
800 1,600
1,600
1,600
PK Support Functions
OT
850 850
Speech Therapy
300 300
Parent Waiting
200 200
subtotal
1,350
1,350
Other
Copy Room
180 180
Storage
300 300
Kitchen
150 150
Lunch Room
180 180
subtotal
810
Total Space requirements for Central Administration 1 15,745 NSF
VA
0
H
a
M
z
O
z_
w
a
O
z
O
z_
X
wi
�l
�I
m
LU
IL
O
O
LL
O
z
O
C,
Q
2
q�
�6
oN
q� oN
0
G
w
0 0
W F ~
F z
z CL
CL Z
W W X O W
K
oo�
dwo� oin
N�
o NIA
o�
o0
N6
3
O
m
0
0
K
w
Icy-
�
w
O
Q
m
�
v
IL
.
O
Y�G
LL
=
w
z
Nam
ci
d
N
o
�Q
z
O
w
Q
l�
z
OL
Z
K
O
z
LU
�
�
O®
z�
p
7z�
x
o
-AI
N
0
H
a
O
z
z_
O
z
z
X
LU
I,
'�R-I�Hpp
II
u
FN
Z Z
O O
W � ~
p CL z ~
> :j z W
O C',
W W x 0 W
(Y L) W F z
w
VN
F�
wF
�O� o
W �
�V
3
O
w
m
O
z
W
o
W
o
J
U n C
w
V W
Q zU
Q�
00 =o
w N w
V o
z� �N
W
z
v
v
I V Z
9®
Ufill,
Q�
a°
wm�
Q�
z
Z (Y
1 —
W O
Z � �
� a
w o-
o
ly
ci
u
z
p�
� Z
® L
p-�
z�
�LLI�/
LU
�z
z
0
H
a
0
LLA
IL
z
O
z
O
II CY
z0
00
�LL
z
LLA
-�
Old Harrington
Option 1- - "low- impact" renovation
2.20.09
Master Plan Cost Estimate
V.1
C. TOTAL TRADE COST $3,199,723
General Conditions
finished occupied unfinished or
$271,976
Overhead & Profit
space unoccupied space
TOTAL
Building Area - -gross SF:
26,496 17,190
43,686
A. BUILDING TRADE COST
Base Renovation
2.9%
$105,078
Life safety
$1,736
$1,736
Building code
$66,680
$66,680
Exterior
$845,500
$845,500
Hazardous materials
$266,120
$266,120
HC Access
$672,896
$672,896
Finishes
$228,661
$228,661
Fire Protection
$218,430
$218,430
Plumbing
$60,000
$60,000
HVAC
$821,000
$821,000
Electrical
$18,700
$18,700
SUBTOTAL
$3,199,723
$3,199,723
C. TOTAL TRADE COST $3,199,723
General Conditions
8.5%
$271,976
Overhead & Profit
6.2%
$215,245
D. SUBTOTAL CONTRACTOR'S COST
$3,686,945
Escalation @ 5.7% /year to baseline date of
6/2009.
2.9%
$105,078
E. TOTAL CONTRACTOR'S COST
$3,792,023
Bidding Contingency
3.0%
$113,761
F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID
$3,905,783
Construction Contingency
7.5%
$292,934
G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$4,198,717
FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
$10.00
$0
TECHNOLOGY
$8.00
$0
INDIRECT EXPENSES
$679,200
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$4,877,917
Old Harrington Master Plan Cost Estimate
Option II- -Major renovation
2.20.09 V.1
C. TOTAL TRADE COST $5,308,020
General Conditions
finished occupied unfinished or
$451,182
Overhead & Profit
space unoccupied space
TOTAL
Building Area - -gross SF:
24,434 19,252
43,686
A. BUILDING TRADE COST
Base Renovation
2.9%
$174,314
Life safety
$1,736
$1,736
Building code
$66,680
$66,680
Exterior
$845,500
$845,500
Hazardous materials
$266,120
$266,120
HC Access
$672,896
$672,896
Finishes
$228,661
$228,661
Program Alteration (Adjusted Base)
$552,709
$552,709
Fire Protection
$218,430
$218,430
Plumbing
$258,410
$258,410
HVAC
$1,441,638
$1,441,638
Electrical
$755,240
$755,240
SUBTOTAL
$5,308,020
$5,308,020
C. TOTAL TRADE COST $5,308,020
General Conditions
8.5%
$451,182
Overhead & Profit
6.2%
$357,071
D. SUBTOTAL CONTRACTOR'S COST
$6,116,273
Escalation @ 5.7% /year to baseline date of
6/2009.
2.9%
$174,314
E. TOTAL CONTRACTOR'S COST
$6,290,586
Bidding Contingency
3.0%
$188,718
F. TOTAL ESTIMATED BID
$6,479,304
Construction Contingency
7.5%
$485,948
G. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$6,965,252
FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
$10.00
$0
TECHNOLOGY
$8.00
$0
INDIRECT EXPENSES
$998,800
H. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$7,964,052
a
m
a
i
N
G
N
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
14. Master Plan Recommendations
Lexington High School:
Information collected for this study points to the need to proceed with a
substantial project at the Lexington High School. This is needed both as a
result of improvements, such as HVAC systems work, deferred at the time
the prior renovation project was undertaken, and because enrollment
growth beyond what the prior renovation was designed for has led to
serious overcrowding at the High School.
The proposed project is presented in Section 10. The proposed Educational
Specifications were developed based on a review of the existing facility,
interviews & meetings with the HS Principal and senior educators, and
benchmarking against MSBA space standards and industry standards. The
proposed expansion plan was developed from a series of studies looking at
alternate strategies for making best use of existing space to meet overall
space needs, so as to minimize requirements for new space.
The preliminary budget is based on a cost estimating process that includes
detailed quantity takeoffs for the facilities deficiencies identified in Section
11 and parametric cost estimates for spaces renovated to meet different
program needs and for new construction.
Bowman, Bridge, Estabrook and Hastings Elementary Schools:
At the elementary schools, the previous ES master plan study illustrated the
long -term need to either replace or renovate to as -new standards the older
elementary schools (either three or four, depending on the enrollment
trend) as a long -term goal. Since then, changes to both the health of the
economy and the structure of Mass. school funding have altered the
prospect of those recommendations being implemented quickly.
Accordingly, this study has looked at what needs to be done to keep the
elementary schools minimally serviceable until those recommendations can
be implemented.
In our view, that question needs to be looked at slightly differently at each
of the elementary schools. In particular, we need to consider the suitability
of each of the four existing elementary schools to remain as elementary
schools in the Lexington public school system over the long term.
In the case of the Bowman & Bridge schools, these buildings, although old
and designed to different educational standards than what is current, are
essentially well constructed and well configured. The previous ES master
plan pointed out reasons to consider replacing these single -story buildings
Design Partnership of Cambridge
II March 2000
with modern, efficiently planned energy - efficient two -story buildings. The
reasons for doing this, although strong, are not absolutely compelling. It is
possible to continue these buildings in service, either with full as -new
renovations or with periodic upgrades, including systems replacement and
alterations to meet program requirements, for the long -term.
The advantage of contemplating the continued use of the existing buildings
is that the district maintains the option, if funding cannot be made available
for complete renovation or replacement, to maintain the building with
periodic upgrades (such as for HVAC systems) that can be planned for
incorporation into anticipated future full renovations.
By contrast, the Estabrook and Hastings school buildings have more
substantial fundamental shortcomings and are much less adaptable to the
long term needs of the Lexington Schools. The Estabrook is smaller than the
Bridge and Bowman and is lacking a cafeteria. Both the configuration and
the structural system of Estabrook (steel frame depending on infill masonry
panels for lateral stability) make it difficult to incorporate additions to the
building effectively.
The Hastings School is a two -story building with the lower level partially
buried. The configuration of the building and its proximity to the street
bordering the long edge of the site make it difficult to effectively add to the
building. The fact that the lower level is partly buried has caused significant
water infiltration and the potential for air quality problems. Unlike at
Estabrook, where the site is fairly adaptable to a replacement school, the
Hastings site, due to the level changes, ground -water issues and overall
dimensions, would not easily accommodate a new replacement school and
suitable parking and outdoor play space.
Because of these different conditions, our recommendations for the
elementary schools are as follows:
At Bridge and Bowman, undertake the renovation and systems work
needed to keep the buildings in service up to ten years, with the
expectation that these buildings will at some point undergo renovation
to as -new standards.
2. At Estabrook, undertake the minimum renovation and repair necessary
to keep the building serviceable, with the expectation that a new
replacement school will be built on the site as soon as reasonably
possible. Site access will need to be upgraded to allow construction of a
new school while the old school remains in service.
3. At Hastings, undertake the minimum renovation and repair necessary to
keep the building serviceable, with the understanding that the long -term
Design Partnership of Cambridge
II March 2000
need for Hastings will be re- evaluated in a few years. If the projected
decline in elementary enrollments materializes, it may be possible to
take Hastings out of service or keep it in service for a limited duration as
swing space while other elementary school projects proceed. If actual
enrollment trends indicate a long -term continued need for a 6t"
elementary school, a decision will need to be made whether that school
should remain at the Hastings site or if another site should be sought.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
15. Master Plan— Timeline
The potential timeline for implementing the recommended combination of High
School and Elementary School projects is dependent on a number of factors.
Among these are the timing of Town votes, the willingness of the Town to
proceed with projects, and the new MSBA process for review and approval of
projects eligible for and submitted for funding.
The new MSBA project approval process is dramatically different from the SBA
funding process that supported previous school renovation projects in
Lexington. The process is still very much in its infancy, and there are changes
and inconsistencies that have occurred in its application so far, but the major
steps are as follows:
School districts submit an SOI (Statements of Interest) for each individual
school project they want considered for funding. This are gathered annually,
nominally at a July deadline. Within a few months, MSBA will review and
vote to approve as "potential eligible feasibility projects" those they think
potentially suitable for funding.
b. Projects that are approved to proceed as "feasibility projects" are authorized
to proceed with what MSBA calls a "Feasibility Study', which is really a
combination of a feasibility study and schematic design carried to an early
Design Development level. MSBA policy states that MSBA will pay its share
of the Feasibility Study based on the district's reimbursement rate. Prior to
commencement of the study, MSBA will review the District's selection of an
OPM (Owner's Project Manager) and will undertake Designer Selection with
participation from the District.
Based on an acceptable feasibility study, MSBA will approve a Project Scope
and Budget. This fixes the scope and costs of an approvable project. At this
point the municipality has 120 days to procure, through municipal vote, the
municipality's share of the full project cost. Foilowing successful municipal
votes, MSBA will execute a Project Funding agreement (PFA). The project at
that point is fully authorized to proceed through final design and
construction. MSBA will issue its funding on a "pay as you go" basis,
reimbursing its share to the municipality periodically as invoices for project
work are presented.
Given that the High School is the largest project under consideration, and given
also that it is potentially the most eligible for funding, being needed largely to
alleviate current overcrowding, this preliminary implementation schedule is
based on the assumption that the High School, and only the High School, will be
submitted for MSBA funding.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
6 March 2009
This plan also posits that, since any major school project in Lexington will require
a debt exclusion vote, and since there are immediate needs at the four older
elementary schools as well as at the High School, it makes sense to plan for a
ballot question that addresses both High School and Elementary School needs.
The following schedule shows the shortest reasonable timeline for
accomplishing those goals:
1. Submit SOI for High School July 2009
2. Town vote to appropriate design funds for
High School "Feasibility Study" and elementary
School repairs. This assumes MSBA will have
Approved The High School to proceed with
a Feasibility Study November 2009
3. Construction proceeds for repairs at
Estabrook and Hastings. Construction at
Bridge & Bowman could proceed at the
same time or the following summer. June 2010
4. Municipal vote for design & construction at
the High School. This assumes MSBA has
previously approved the Project Scope and Budget
and has authorized a PFA. November 2010
5 Construction starts on a phased HS project August 2011
Design Partnership of Cambridge
Lexington Schools
Preliminary Project Schedule
1.12.09
Rev. 2.26.09
Notes to Master Plan Preliminary Schedule:
In developing this schedule, the following assumptions have been made:
1. High School
The Town will move ahead with the High School as an MSBA- funded project and will submit an SOI (Statement of
* Interest) by July 2009.
* MSBA will approve the High School to proceed with a Feasibility Study & Schematic Design (FS /SD) in the Fall of 2009.
* MSBA will approve the FS /SD work in the summer or fall of 2010 and invite the Town to authorize project funding and
execute a Project Funding Agreement.
* The Town will vote full design & construction funding in Fall 2010.
2. Elementary Schools
* The Town will move ahead with short -term improvements to the Elementary Schools without assuming MSBA reimbur
* Design & construction for elementary school short -term improvements will be approved in the Fall of 2009.
*
Construction will proceed in the summers of 2010 and 2011.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Task
Submit SOI for High School
TM vote: Schematic design for HS expansion
Design & construction for ES S.T. Improvements
Design: FS & SD for HS expansion
MSBA Approves HS project for PFA
Ballot for HS design & construction
Final Design for HS expansion
Bid HS Expansion
Construction for HS expansion
Design for ES S.T. Improvements
Bid ES S.T. Improvements
Construct S.T. ES Improvements
Notes to Master Plan Preliminary Schedule:
In developing this schedule, the following assumptions have been made:
1. High School
The Town will move ahead with the High School as an MSBA- funded project and will submit an SOI (Statement of
* Interest) by July 2009.
* MSBA will approve the High School to proceed with a Feasibility Study & Schematic Design (FS /SD) in the Fall of 2009.
* MSBA will approve the FS /SD work in the summer or fall of 2010 and invite the Town to authorize project funding and
execute a Project Funding Agreement.
* The Town will vote full design & construction funding in Fall 2010.
2. Elementary Schools
* The Town will move ahead with short -term improvements to the Elementary Schools without assuming MSBA reimbur
* Design & construction for elementary school short -term improvements will be approved in the Fall of 2009.
*
Construction will proceed in the summers of 2010 and 2011.
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
16. Master Plan Implementation — Implications of
the proposed solution
Recommendations for a solution to the Lexington Schools facilities needs must
take into account the current need, but also must reflect how those needs may
change overtime. Based on analysis of the information presented, a
recommendation that looks only at current needs might be structured as
follows:
High School: Proceed with an expansion and renovation project
according to the scope and schedule provided. The cost, escalated at 5%
per year to a June 2012 mid -point of construction, is estimated to be
$37.7 million.
Bridge & Bowman Elementary Schools: Proceed with recommended
Priority 1 & 2 improvements, including the disability access requirements
(HC -1 & HC -2) triggered by the dollar value. The escalated cost, based on
June 2011 midpoint of construction, is $13.1 million.
Estabrook & Hastings Elementary School: Proceed with recommended
Priority 1 improvements, including the disability access requirements (HC-
1 & HC -2) triggered by the dollar value. The escalated cost, based on
June 2010 midpoint of construction, is $6.45 million.
There are factors, however, that go beyond current need that must be taken
into account when deliberating on how to proceed. There are specific
concerns at the High School and at the Estabrook and Hastings Schools that
need to be considered in this regard:
High School: The recommended expansion project addresses a substantial
current overcrowding issue. Based on the most recent enrollment projections,
the level of enrollment will remain fairly constant through FY 2016, but then
starts to drop. Since the projections only go to 10 years, there are no
projections beyond FY 2019. It is reasonable to speculate that the HS
enrollments will follow the pattern of the Elementary school projections, which
show declining enrollments for 6 or 7 years before projected enrollments
plateau and start to rise again. However, projections don't currently exist to
support that supposition.
In this context, where the enrollments that generate the space need only persist
for 7 or so years, it may be necessary to ask which of the current space
Design Partnership of Cambridge
9 March 2009
deficiencies are likely to persist beyond that point and which of them may be
resolved by subsequent declining enrollments.
Estabrook & Hastings Elementary School: The concern at Estabrook and
Hastings is that these schools are not highly adaptable to the long -terms needs
of the District. As discussed earlier, the recommendation is to take these
schools out of service as soon as reasonably possible. Given that circumstance,
the wisdom spending the money to implement the Priority 1 recommendations,
including full HVAC replacement, and to further undertake the accessibility
renovations required because of that work, is uncertain. An alternative
approach, which may or may not address all immediate needs, is to attempt to
define immediate scopes of work which can be accomplished at significantly less
cost. Further evaluation of this approach may be required.
Design Partnership of Cambridge
V
i
4� rML
rML
El
Q
K -12 Master Plan
Lexington Public Schools
Appendices
The following documents have been published in a separate volume of this study.
■ Elementary Schools – M /E /P /FP Report GGD
■ Elementary Schools – Cost Estimates Essential Design
• Elementary Schools –Structural Report
for the Hastings School Lim Consultants, Inc.
• High School – E /P /FP Report G /G /D
• High School – Base renovation cost Estimate Essential Design
• High School – Food Service Report Crabtree McGrath Associates
• High School – Site Scope Memo Warner Larson Associates
The following documents are not included but are frequently referenced in this
report and should be considered "incorporated by reference ":
• High School – HVAC Systems Report -2008 GGD
• Elementary Schools – Master Plan -2006 DPC
• Enrollment Projections – 12.2008 Superintendent Paul Ash
Design Partnership of Cambridge