Fall 2009

The Question If the proposed project is not approved, what will be done at Wayland High School?

This Fact Sheet explains the HSBC’s analysis of alternative, minimum projects.

Background During the 2004 Preliminary Design Study, the High School Building Committee (HSBC) was asked to study a minimum project that would address immediate space needs, bring the facility up to building code and accessibility requirements, make it safe, and keep it standing up. It would not meet educational programming requirements. The project was called “stop gap” and was estimated to cost $37 million at the time. Details from the 2004 study, and what was included, can be found HERE: http://www.waylandschoolcommittee.org/whs/hsbc/Documents/2004%20Preliminary%20Design%20Study/Ch-13-Stop-Gap-A.pdf.

After the failed vote in January 2005, Turner Construction Company, then the owner’s project manager, prepared a three-year plan for highest priority repairs. It is available HERE: http://www.waylandschoolcommittee.org/whs/hsbc/Web_Pages/Current_Conditions.html. It included a recommended list of health, safety and accessibility items with an estimated construction cost for each item. It did not include a project plan or schedule, nor did it include a full cost budget. (The plan has not been implemented.)

The Scope Wayland High School has significant facility issues, documented HERE: http://www.waylandschoolcommittee.org/whs/hsbc/Web_Pages/Current_Conditions.html. The Turner Report listed these items as highest priority: full fire protection (sprinklers and alarms), full accessibility compliance (elevators, lifts, ramps, door openings, plumbing fixtures, corridors and stairways), new roofs, new windows in the Field House and window repairs in other areas, hazardous materials remediation (asbestos and lead paint), new carpeting, new doors and hardware (due to corrosion), hazardous waste disposal per DEP orders, HVAC and plumbing repairs and upgrades, electrical system upgrades, and technology/communications upgrades. The “stop gap” project included all of this, as well as these items required by codes and regulations: Title 9 compliance (girls locker room addition), storm water management for all parking lots, new waste water treatment plant, and structural work for seismic codes. “Stop gap” also included new science labs and other classroom space, but no enlargement or reconfiguration of existing classrooms.

Stop Gap During the recently completed Feasibility Study, the HSBC again studied the same “stop gap” project, updated for current building codes and standards. “Stop gap,” unlike the other options studied, would not meet educational programming requirements. It also would not meet the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) guidelines, nor address all the issues identified during the school’s accreditation review.

“Stop gap” costs were updated during the comparative cost analysis of construction options. (According to the Turner Construction Index, costs rose 40% from the time of the 2004 study until the beginning of 2009, then came down 10% this year. More available HERE: http://www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/content.asp?d=20 .) Construction costs of “stop gap” would be about 30% less than the preferred option, though the total project costs would only be 15% less. Like the other renovation options studied, “stop gap” would take longer, be more complex and require temporary space and multiple moves, which increases costs.

In accordance with the MSBA grant process, no further design work was done for “stop gap” and the team proceeded with Schematic Design for the preferred option. A full project plan and budget was only developed for the option approved by the MSBA. Based on that budget, KV Associates, now the owner’s project manager, estimates that the total project budget for “stop gap” would today be $62.3 million.

Incremental If the proposed project is not approved, the facility issues must still be addressed. Wayland will face

Repairs significant capital expenditures in the coming years to keep the school operational and accredited. However, there are an infinite number of possible repair projects. Which items would be addressed, and in what order, and over what time frame? Even a smaller renovation project could trigger requirements to bring the entire facility up to current codes and standards. For example, spending $14 million over 3 years would require full accessibility compliance for the entire facility. Without a project plan, an analysis of applicable codes and discussions with permitting authorities, other triggers cannot be estimated. Establishing a cost for the “incremental repairs” approach will require additional planning and analysis, as well as funding for professional input.

State Aid The $25 million grant is not transferable to an alternative project. According to the MSBA, if the proposed project is not approved, the grant process must be repeated for an alternative project, and reimbursement would not be at 40%, but at 31%. KVA estimates that about $11 million of “stop gap” would be excluded based on current MSBA rules, so the grant would not exceed $16 million. Neither “stop gap” nor a more limited scope repair project would conform to the MSBA regulations and guidelines, making any MSBA grant uncertain.

Conclusion Even in a best-case grant scenario, the net cost of “stop gap” would be $46.3 million, compared to $45.1 million for the proposed project. The cost of an “incremental repairs” approach cannot be estimated today, but the scope of such a project can grow sizably due to codes and regulations, with little likelihood of state aid, and deliver limited educational benefit. Neither approach is cost-effective.