Tisbury School answers

4

To the Editor:

Here are clarifications to statements made, and answers to questions posed, at the Tisbury town meeting.

Environmental

The question was asked about the environmental impact of demolishing the existing school.

  • The recently completed demolition and construction of the Hannigan School in New Bedford had a goal to recycle 90 percent of the demolition debris; they achieved 95.69 percent. We anticipate exceeding 90 percent.
  • With only 35 percent of the existing school suitable for the renovation/addition path, the notion we would significantly reduce nonrecyclable demolition debris is inaccurate. What would be retained in a renovation/addition scheme would be brick and steel, some of the easiest materials to be recycled.
  • In either a renovation/addition or new build, both will require new mechanical systems, windows, insulation, wallboard, tile, flooring, casework, and on and on.
  • We will not be filling a landfill with the old school.

Fossil fuel and the carbon footprint of a new school building

  • Remember we will start by recycling upwards of 90 percent of our debris.
  • The mechanical systems, yes, while still fossil fuel–based, will operate at significantly higher levels of efficiency and inside a far more efficient and effective building envelope.
  • The building envelope and insulation standards will exceed the standard energy code by 20 percent. This is prior to any benefits that may be recognized through renewable energy sources.
  • With a new build, we will not be building and removing a temporary gym, as required with a renovation/addition.
  • The school will be solar-ready, and as part of our energy model, we are looking into a third-party lease of our roof for future solar installation.
  • Why, you ask, lease the roof for solar? Because as a municipal building, unlike private property, the town does not receive tax credits for the installation. The School Building Committee understands the need to control cost, and we could not justify the additional expense of installing solar in this budget. The MSBA does not reimburse for solar panels.
  • The Tisbury School Building Committee (TSBC) is committed to further improvements throughout the energy-modeling phase.
  • The TSBC and team are working with Eversource/Cape Light to obtain an energy incentive of more than $100,000, which will be used to defray capital costs related to energy improvements.

Value engineering

  • The TSBC has worked on value engineering, but that does not and will not include cutting corners that will lead to premature repair costs to the town.
  • A Tisbury resident asked, What would the school community give up to reduce the cost? The plan has been reduced by 5,000 square feet, translating to a $2.5 million cost reduction.
  • Through the efforts of our architects and the design group, workshops areas have been redesigned, reconfigured, and details simplified, realizing an additional $1 million in savings.
  • Another $1.8 million was realized with the decision to move forward with the design bid build method of procurement, rather than the costlier construction management at risk method.
  • The TSBC has included a construction-cost contingency within the reimbursed cost of $32 million.
  • On a recently completed school project, our architect and owners project manager has returned over $2.5 million to the community due to unspent contingencies and bid savings.
  • All contractors are prequalified by the commonwealth.
  • To say the committee has not been responsible to cost containment is factually inaccurate.

Cost: renovation/addition or new build

  • The estimate[s] for a renovation/addition provided by our owners project manager cost estimator, and an analysis of recently completed and funded similar addition/renovations to schools in Massachusetts, have a higher cost than a new build.
  • Further validation of this came from one of the opponents to the new-build proposal: A speaker at town meeting referred to his handout demonstrating the successful renovation/addition to the Cabot School at a cost lower than a new build, though it would cause two years of disruption to education.
  • The cost of the Cabot School example presented in the handout did not include the 12 percent higher cost of construction on the Vineyard, raising the Cabot School cost to $644. per square foot before state reimbursement.
  • The cost of the new Tisbury School before reimbursement is $612 per square foot.
  • For any renovation/addition, we will also need add the cost of temporary classrooms, offices, and a gym, with estimates ranging from $2.5 million to $3.5 million, depending on bids and duration.
  • When corrected with the above-mentioned 12 percent, the Cabot School cost comparison for a renovation/addition to the Tisbury School would burden the taxpayers with an additional $2,400,000, plus the temporary classrooms, for a total of between $5 million and $5.5 million more than a new build.
  • More information is available at tisbury-school-project-com.

We departed town meeting wanting to answer these questions for the community, and hope this helps in your decisionmaking process. Many valid opinions and concerns were brought forward during the meeting. The TSBC has no illusions about the work ahead of us, and we look forward to continued input from the community. When you vote on April 24, we ask that you vote with consideration of the facts. We, as a town, must come together to ensure the continuity of quality education and the responsible administration of the town’s financial resources to build a new school for present and future generations.

 

Reade Milne

Harold Chapdelaine

Vineyard Haven

 

Mr. Milne and Mr. Chapdelaine serve on the Tisbury School Building Committee.  –Ed.

4 COMMENTS

  1. One really has to wonder if the writers above, who are part of the building committee are all that competent.. They state above that building is being built for $612/sqft. Basic math says otherwise. Based on their own information the build cost is 39M for 76,000 sqft. = $513/sqft. The other $7M are “soft costs” as stated in their own literature. Further they state the Cabot school is $644/sqft. Wrong again, the Cabot school is being built for $426/sqft. according to literature found on the Newton school website. And if we add 12% “island factor” that adds only $50/sqft.to the cost. Still under the build cost for new construction.

    • The cost comparison in my letter above is in direct response to the hand out and presentation by Ben Robinson on Town Meeting floor. My rebuttal to this is to demonstrate the cost comparison Mr. Robinson made is inaccurate IF one ACCEPTS Mr. Robinson’s statement the Cabot School was renovated before MSBA reimbursement for $49m.
      According to Mr. Robinson the Cabot School was renovated for $49,000,000
      We must add the higher-cost-of-construction on MV factor of 12% 5,880,000
      Bringing the comparative cost to a total of 54,880,000
      The Cabot School was stated to have 85,000 square feet – my math tells me that is $645.64 per sq ft
      Comparing the New-Build Tisbury school proposal with a cost of 46,567,962
      Containing 75,390 square feet yield a square foot cost of $617.69 per square foot.
      This tells us the Cabot School model is costing $27.95 more per square than the Tisbury new-Build.
      Under Mr. Robinsons example a renovation/addition to the Tisbury School would cost $2,107,150.00 more than a new build ($27.95 x 75,390). Plus the cost of temporary classrooms, offices, a gym and food services for another 2.5 to 3.5.
      The purpose of bringing this inaccuracy associated with the Cabot School model as presented at Town Meeting is to inform the community that misinformation or mistakes in the presentation of information is damaging to the discussion and hinders the voters’ ability to make an informed decision.
      To clarify this further ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ cost have not been separated out as it is the bottom line, how much will this cost the tax paper, that is important.
      In REAL Tisbury tax dollars after reimbursement from MSBA the proposed New-Build Tisbury School will cost $31,986,520.00 at $424.28 per square foot.
      My intent is to provide the Town with the most accurate and comparative information available prior to a vote.
      Respectfully,
      Harold Chapdelaine, TSBC

      • Harold – I appreciate the contribution of your thoughtful and competent voice on the TSBC. I wish we could have had more in-depth conversations before the current preferred schematic had been chosen last June, but you only joined after that vote was taken.
        The Newton School examples speak to how they incorporated the renovation of a building of similar vintage to ours, placing value on historical preservation and making the environmentally responsible choice to maintain and restore existing facilities.
        I think it makes more sense to compare “hard costs” because “soft costs” may or may not be as relevant. Cabot School budgets show higher “soft costs” as an overall percentage of their project (26%) than Tisbury(18%). Some contributing factors to their increased “soft costs” include off-site improvements totaling $2,630,000 as well as CM-at Risk. Newton states the “hard costs” at $36,250,776 for 85,486 sq.ft. of building. As cited in their project budget that is $424/sq.ft. With a 12% “island factor” added to the Cabot school construction, cost would be $474/sq.ft.
        The Tisbury School “hard costs” are a bit harder to pin down since we are not in DD yet, but using TSBC reports its around $38,500,000 for 75,390 sq.ft. That is roughly $510/sq.ft.
        Another way to compare costs for taxpayers is by looking at the cost per student. Here we can take into account the total project cost as you have in your analysis. The Cabot School is $49,000,000 / 480 students = $102,250 per student*12% “island factor” = $114,333 per student.
        The proposed Tisbury School is $46,600,000 / 285 students = $163,508 per student. We will spend $49,000 more than Newton per student totaling $14,000,000 more for our school compared to Cabot. Taxpayers may want to know why we have not achieved a comparable efficiency.
        Given the base renovation construction costs stated by the TSBC of $17,119,724, which by the way had a possible $6,000,000 or so reimbursement from the MSBA, and the two classrooms per grade model, meant we should have looked much closer at base renovation and addition using the flexibility within the MSBA regulations to achieve that efficiency. The TSBC instead applied new construction standards to their feasibility phase renovation and addition option, which ended up 2500 sq.ft. bigger than the new construction option. It still was $1,000,000 less in construction costs than new construction as stated within the TSBC reports.
        As I pointed out in my letter to the papers this week, we can also evaluate the reasonable size for the school based on student per sqft. ratios. These show the new school proposal is oversized.
        Cost savings achieved by building a more reasonably sized school were only possible within the MSBA process through renovation and addition. If we had looked more closely at this option, the cost of disruption would likely be covered by the overall cost reductions.
        This reasonable option for the town, considering its declining school population, fiscal, environmental, and historical concerns was not given a fair chance by the TSBC.
        In the end, I am an optimist, and whatever the town chooses at the ballot, I know the caring people across all segments of the town will pull together to make the school the best it can be for our students.
        Respectfully,
        Ben Robinson

  2. The debate continues. However the basis continues to put confusing and misleading information in front of the electorate. The Cabot school is an elementary school as such is not an apples to apples comparison to our pre-k through 8 educational model. The cost of the Cabot School is the beneficiary of scale. It has one gym, one cafeteria, one administrative center, one of many core building elements that distribute the cost over a greater number of students thus reduceing the ‘cost per student’. It is also part of a larger district with multiple schools allowing the district to maximize the classroom capacity in each school. Another factor in reducing your ‘per pupil cost’. A reality that just does not apply to schools in small communities like Vineyard Haven.
    Harold Chapdelaine, TSBC

Comments are closed.