Island officials have narrowed down preliminary designs for the high school building project to four final concepts, one of which includes a new performing arts center.
By June 26, the committee must submit a renovation-only design, an addition and renovation plan, and a totally new construction option to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA).
The costs for the project are also starting to come into a clearer focus: The remaining new-construction plan is estimated at $344 million, the addition-renovations are estimated at $298 million and $352 million, and the renovation-only is estimated at $240 million. That’s according to rough cost estimates presented at an April 15 meeting, though estimates and designs will continue to change as planning continues.
The new-construction design, dubbed N13, comes with an estimated 36-month construction time and no need to temporarily house classes in modular units. Committee members also appreciated its ability to accommodate a rising student population in coming decades.
The new construction option also involves what voters down the line will likely see as a major change — a rebuild of the performing arts center, one of the Island’s largest and most popular venues.
Committee members disagreed on whether voters would endorse a new PAC, though member Tracey Overbeck-Stead, chair of the school’s Parent-Teacher Student Organization, supported the change.
“If [the new center] is going to be the same size … then maybe we take some things from the existing PAC and we incorporate it in the new PAC for nostalgia,” she said. “But it isn’t state-of-the-art anymore. It’s very much, very old. And it is sad that we’re considering that as our nicest building on-Island. We can do better, and we can give more to our community.”
The school gym would also shrink to 12,000 square feet in that design due to an MSBA limit on gym spaces. The school’s current gym is larger than 14,000 square feet.
A vote to eliminate N13 — the new build — failed after members including Superintendent Richie Smith and Principal Sara Dingledy backed the design. Only members Allen Rugg, Walter Meinelt, and Skipper Manter voted to remove the design out of 25 members.
“The more I’ve looked at the landscaping and the design and have considered how I think it would impact community, and a central heart, and access to the public, the more [N13] is the one that I prefer,” Dingledy said.
The committee also voted to bring back one previously eliminated addition and renovation design, AR6. This is the cheaper of the remaining addition-renovation options — at $298 million — but would require the use of modular units for the 42 months of construction. The building authority’s project reimbursement rate of roughly 30 percent does not cover modular units.
At the committee’s next meeting, they will decide between the two remaining addition-renovation options. AR1, estimated to cost about $50 million more, would require no modular units over a three-phase, 36-month construction period. The PAC would also be temporarily out of commission during construction, Chris Sharkey of Tappé Architects confirmed.
Dingledy supported reconsidering AR6, but added an amendment to evaluate its site-planning costs. Though the design has a smaller price tag, its estimate does not account for redoing and renovating the school’s athletic fields, unlike other options. She was also wary of the use of modular buildings being disruptive to students’ education.
“I am fearful of AR6,” she said. “I think it is the responsible thing to look at, but it is a thing that displaces this building, as an estimate, for 40 to 48 months. And there’s a cost to that as well.”
Others focused on the lower price tag. Edgartown town administrator James Hagerty doubted whether voters would approve any more expensive project. “It’s also $40 million less than the other ARs,” he said. “And there is going to be a cost to the students, but just on the simple math alone, that AR6 would cost Tisbury $1,000 more a year on a $1.5 million house … And once we start getting to some of those new construction [options], that $300 million price tag, it puts an exponential price increase that almost doubles certain tax rates in certain towns.”
Committee members also eliminated their least costly design, a renovation option, in a split vote. Any renovation-only pick has fallen out of the committee’s favor, as they determined earlier this year that a renovation-only option would seriously risk losing the project’s reimbursement from the MSBA. This is because an education plan submitted to the building authority earlier in the process reflects a minimum square footage significantly higher than the high school’s current size.
Does the building committee consider the tax consequences for each taxpayer?
Replacing the PAC because it’s not state of the art? That performance center seems pretty nice to me, but what do I know? Can we not consider keeping the PAC for now and look at it sometime down the road, after we’ve absorbed the huge cost of replacing the school itself?
Educators building buildings= $400mm
“But it isn’t state-of-the-art anymore. It’s very much, very old.”
this is the most laughable part of the article. The crown jewel and most modern thing in that HS is the PAC center. OLD?? how about the fact that our athletic fields and track are as bad as they were 40 yrs ago.
Does the design include plans for a Junior HS on campus ?
The white elephant of the housing crisis looms largest when projecting size of students in the academic facilities. Serious gamble if you can not afford housing how do you have kids ?
Comments are closed.