Mount Greylock Committee Decides on Addition/Renovation Plan
 The Mount Greylock School committees have chosen this model as the preferred option for a new high and middle school. |
At a joint meeting with the School Building Committee, the seven-member School Committee voted unanimously to accept the recommendation of the building committee, which voted 8-1 in favor of the design dubbed R1c.3.
The "preferred option" that the district sends to Boston calls for the demolition of most of the existing academic space and the construction of a new three-story academic wing off the east side of the existing structure.
The proposed building would be made up of 40 percent existing structure and 60 percent new construction.
The School Building Commitee started Thursday's meeting with three options — two add/reno projects and a new build.
But those choices were quickly narrowed to two after it became clear that the other add/reno, R1c.1, would have virtually the same impact on local taxpayers despite producing a building that would be 80 percent renovation and 20 percent new.
The complicated phasing of the more extensive renovation was the argument that drove the building committee to eliminate it from the process.
"On a number of levels, that's a problematic option," co-Chairwoman Paula Consolini said. "The estimates show it doesn't save us a lot of money. In terms of efficiency down the road, there's no payoff there either."
After a 9-0 vote to nix R1c.1, it came down to a clear choice: build new or save some of the existing junior-senior high school, principally the auditorium and the gymnasium.
The preliminary cost projection for each project (adjusted after a meeting with independent estimators this week) showed that local taxpayers would pay between $6 million and $7 million more for the new build.
After the MSBA's projected contribution, the estimates came in at $38 million to $42.7 million for R1c.3. The estimates for the new build were $44 million to $49 million.
In terms of taxpayer impact, the R1c.3 option was projected to impact Lanesborough's tax rate by $2.20 per $1,000 of assessed value ($460 per year for the average home in town. In Williamstown, the add/reno would add $1.90 to the tax rate ($650 for an average home).
The new build was projected to impact Lanesborough's tax rate by $2.50 ($525 for the average home) and Williamstown's rate by $2.20 ($750 for the average home).
|
|||||||||||||
The differing impacts on local taxpayers appeared to be a driving force for several of the committee members.
"The impact to the towns is 16 percent," building and School Committee member Richard Cohen said, referring to the higher cost of a new build. "To me, as a Lanesborough resident, I think it would be hard to gain community support for a new build when we have a viable option that would allow us to reuse significant portions of the building."
There were other factors weighing in the favor of the add/reno.
A couple of committee members noted that while the new academic wing in the add/reno plan is built some distance from classroom space, the proposed site for a new build would put the construction project up against classroom space on the existing building's west side.
School Building Committee member Robert Ericson said the add/reno plan makes sense from an ecological standpoint.
"If we go to a new school, what we're saying to the children is, 'Don't worry if you throw everything away,' " Ericson said. "The message we should be giving to kids is: Try to reuse as much as you can as you go through life."
The add/reno option did not have unanimous support on the School Building Committee.
Thomas Bartels, the only architect on the panel, argued that there is more risk with a renovation and more reward with a new build.
"I've done a lot of new construction and a lot of renovations and additions," Bartels said. "I've found very often that renovations and additions often cost nearly as much ... and you always end up making compromises, initially and as it unfolds, which are not justifying the savings you think you're getting.
"Having said that, I feel the new construction is a better value when you look at the big picture. That is a very small difference in the amount of money for what I think is a far superior solution."
School Committee member Wendy Penner pointed out that while unexpected costs may crop up during a renovation, they are not unheard of in new construction. And Trip Elmore of Dore and Whittier, the district's owner's project manager, told the committees that a larger contingency fund was built into his cost estimate for the add/reno project.
But the danger of the "compromises" Bartels alluded to also was a concern for Williamstown resident Rebeccah Kamp, one of several people who addressed the committees from the floor.
"When you start doing renovation, you have the best of intentions, but there are so many things that could go wrong in that scenario," Kamp said. "If you have a budget and in the renovation scenario you run into a problem, what you have to do is take away, take away, take away. In new construction, you don't run into problems like that."
School Building Committee Chairman Mark Schiek said that while it is conceivable the district could come back to the towns to seek additional bonds if significant cost overruns occur, the more likely scenario is that the committee will have to find a way to scale back and live within the budget it sets at the project's outset.
Assuming the addition/renovation plan picked Thursday night continues to develop to the schematic design phase, the district should have a final price tag by Dec. 1, Elmore told the committees on Thursday.
That is the date the final schematic package and cost would be due to the MSBA.
If the state authority approves the project at that point, it could come back for a bond issue vote in both member towns sometime next spring.
The R1c.3 option has an estimated 25-month timetable, which would put its completion date some time in 2018.
Tags: MGRHS, MSBA, school building committee, school project,
