Building Committee Receives Preliminary Cost Estimates For New Elementary School
Rendering of one of four preliminary design concepts for the new elementary school - this one for a new three story building at Fort River. Photo: Elementary School Building Committee
Report On The Meeting Of The Elementary School Building Committee, March 4, 2022
This meeting was conducted over Zoom and was recorded. The website for the project is here.
Preliminary Design Possibilities Outlined
Owners’ Project Manager (OPM) Margaret Wood and Chief Designer Donna DiNisco of Dinisco Design presented drawings of possible designs for a new 575-student K–5 elementary school at either the Wildwood or Fort River site. These options will be discussed at a public forum on March 9. The Elementary School Building Committee (ESBC) will meet again on March 11 to vote on the Preliminary Design Program prior to submission to the Massachusetts School Building Association (MSBA) on March 15.
The possible designs include both addition/renovation and all new construction at both sites, resulting in four possible designs. The MSBA required that the town submit a design for a 165-student school at Fort River, so that is included in the tables presented but is not a viable option. Since the previous presentation, the square footage of all the preliminary designs has been reduced by about 8,000 square feet, but still meets the needs of the Educational Program, according to Superintendent Michael Morris.
The current 105,750 square foot proposal involves decreasing each classroom by 50 square feet to 900 square feet, the gym by 2,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet, and the special education programming space by 850 square feet, to a total of 12,100 square feet. The gyms at Wildwood and Fort River are about 3,700 square feet each. The designers are confident that these space reductions do not compromise the educational programs, but Morris thought that further space reductions would significantly affect them. The School Committee must approve the Educational Program and Space Summary at its Tuesday, March 8 meeting. Even though the size of the proposed new building is less than the combined size of Wildwood and Fort River, there will be fewer students in it because the sixth grade is moving to the Middle School and redistricting will send some student to Crocker Farm instead.
DiNisco noted that a combination renovation and addition might result in slightly more total space because the design must incorporate the existing building, but the total cost might be less than totally new construction. She stressed that the drawings provided in the packet are for comparison only, and are not actual designs. Each representation is for net zero construction with photovoltaic canopies, 180 parking spaces, and natural light in all classrooms
After the preliminary designs are submitted to the MSBA, the ESBC will continue to evaluate each one to select a preferred plan and site in June. The selected plan will be reviewed by the MSBA and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to ensure it meets the need of Amherst students. A final design will hopefully be approved in January 2023.
Cost Estimates For Design Options
Tim Cooper of DiNisco Design said that each site was tested for the adequacy of space, playing fields, parking, drainage, and suitability for geothermal wells and photovoltaic panels. Both sites remain viable options. Site-specific work includes raising the building at Fort River to permit construction of a two- or three-story building there because of the high-water table, while at Wildwood, complicated phasing is required to address the fact that the best site for a geothermal well field is atop one and a half of the existing parking lots and the entrance driveway. The estimated site costs at Wildwood were significantly lower than at Fort River (by $2.1 million). When asked by committee member Phoebe Merriam why that was, Cooper said it was because there are no playing fields at Wildwood while there are many at Fort River. The cost estimates given do not include replacing the outdoor bathrooms at Fort River or adding a second exit to Wildwood. At both sites, the existing school could be occupied during construction.
Estimated total project costs, which the designers stressed were very preliminary, range from $81.3 million to $100.3 million, depending on whether it is an addition and renovation or all-new construction, Construction Manager at Risk or Design-Bid-Build, and Net Zero or not.
Wood said that, although net zero features add to the upfront costs, they have benefits in regard to climate change mitigation and ongoing operating expenses. She added that some savings could be achieved by using a Design-Bid-Build (DBB) contract rather than Construction Manager at Risk. However, the DBB option would not be advisable for an add/reno plan because of the additional phasing requirements of construction in an occupied building.
Reimbursement For School Projects Not Keeping Up With Costs
Wood and DiNisco stressed that costs of school construction are rising much faster than reimbursement from MSBA. In 2017, towns were reimbursed for about 75% of their cost, but recent projects are less than half. MSBA currently pays $360 per square foot, but the Amherst school projects a cost of between $670 and $760 per square foot. The design team has included contingency factors to protect against cost overruns and inflation. Cooper said that construction costs should stabilize over the next few years, as opposed to the 11% increase last year. Once the schematic design is accepted in January 2023, the reimbursement from the state will not change.
Based on everything that has been shown so far, a new two-story building on the Fort River site with 100% geothermal HVAC system seems to be the logical choice.
toni Cunningham, Parent
Public Comments
Toni Cunningham, whose children attend Wildwood School, said, “Based on everything that has been shown so far, a new two-story building on the Fort River site with 100% geothermal HVAC system seems to be the logical choice. I would reduce the square footage by about 5,000 square feet and limit the site work to get this project closer to the $80 million budget. You’ve defined the Fort River site scope as far larger, including fields which I would argue should not be in scope for this project. At the very least, the cost of developing those fields should be a separate line item at the bottom, and the Town can look at other ways to address those. Net Zero Ready is not an option here. All of this makes me wonder what forces are at play behind the scenes here to make Wildwood look like a viable contender? What plans do some people in town have for Fort River that precludes locating the school there?”
Former Fort River principal Russ Vernon-Jones said he was alarmed that some town councilors spoke publicly at the February 28 meeting about not complying with the net zero bylaw, on the same day that the IPCC released its report that the climate emergency is even worse than previously thought. He stated, “Climate delay is the new climate denial. Anything less than net zero is climate delay. Not complying with the net zero bylaw would shame our town and negatively influence others who are working for net zero in their towns. I don’t want our children to learn that when we had a chance to build a net zero building, we chose to rely on dirty fossil fuel energy.”
Rudy Perkins agreed, and noted that geothermal is not an energy system according to the net zero bylaw, because it does not produce energy. He thought an air-to-air system might be less expensive. He emphasized that, though he was not ready to choose one of the four options, he did feel that the two sites were not comparable, since there are many more playing fields at Fort River.
Responding to hostility that he perceived in the previous comments, School Committee member Peter Demling decried “the paranoia and absolute distrust of the public process, which may interfere with the completion of the project.” He said, “The designer of the Cathedral in Milan could not have achieved 100% agreement in Amherst.” Demling seemed to be condemning those who had questions about the project, implying that they were holding up the process, when he shouted, “Go ahead and ask your questions…but then vote.” He urged ESBC members to cast their votes on what they support, despite what he said was vocal opposition.
Fellow SC member Jennifer Shiao said that compromise was necessary for the success of the project, and that decision makers should take the opinions of others into account.
ESBC chair Cathy Schoen assured the public that documents are posted as soon as the committee achieves them, and that she wants the process to be as transparent as possible. She encouraged committee members and residents to submit their questions to her so that she can forward them to the OPM and DiNisco.
The project will be discussed again at the SC meeting on March 8 and at the community forum on March 9. The ESBC will meet again on March 11 at 8:30 a.m.
Thank you, Maura Keene, for covering this meeting.
I am posting in full what I said in Public Comment at the end of the meeting as it will provide more context on the excerpt that Maura quoted:
“I have a lot of thoughts and am having difficulty organizing them and fitting them in 3 minutes.
Donna said jokingly she’d love if you picked an option today. Based on everything that has been shown so far, a new 2-storey building on the Fort River site with 100% geothermal HVAC system seems to be the logical choice. I would reduce the square footage by about 5,000 square feet and limit the site work to get this project closer to the $80 million budget.
Thank you to Phoebe for asking questions about why the site costs for Fort River are so much more than Wildwood, and to Ellisha for asking for the pricing narrative that was provided to the cost estimator to come up with these numbers. It is really not transparent or acceptable that some people receive information while others on this committee and the public do not.
This cost comparison is not apples-to-apples. You have assumed a larger building for add/reno which makes that option look more expensive. And you’ve defined the Fort River site scope as far larger, including fields which I would argue should not be in scope for this project. At the very least, the cost of developing those fields should be a separate line item at the bottom and the Town can look at other ways to address those.
I would agree with Jonathan that geothermal should be built into the construction cost and not separated out. And the use of the term “Turn-key” for PV worries me as it seems to indicate you are planning to leave it out of this project and instead be handled as a separate project — maybe — if the Town can get a grant or other funding down the road.
From everything you’ve found so far, it seems to me that Fort River is clearly the better choice here. As Mike noticed, the test fits at Wildwood show very little green space for kids, which will not meet the educational priority to have extensive outdoor learning space.
And as Tim said, the Wildwood site poses more challenges than Fort River in terms of phasing. It’s far more complicated to put in geothermal, which is a town priority to make this a fully Net Zero school. Net Zero Ready is not an option here.
All of this makes me wonder, what forces are at play behind the scenes here to make Wildwood look like a viable contender? What plans do some people in town have for Fort River that precludes locating the school there? I think we all need to know what’s going on.”
Does the Town – or “forces” allied with the Town – have “designs” on the Fort River site for some alternative use?
Alternative uses might include:
1) A new DPW facility?
2) An affordable housing complex?
3) Another fire station?
4) Anything else?
In any event, Toni’s thinking in right direction:
What do we need to know?
The Shadow knows!
Rob, I abhor conspiracy theories and would prefer not to speculate, but if it quacks like a duck…etc.
I fear there are plans afoot to sell Fort River, the larger of the two sites, hence the need to make Wildwood work, even if that starts to look like it really doesn’t make sense.
There are many space needs for programming in town, for example, a Senior Center, BIPOC Youth Center, Multicultural Center, Early Childhood Center, ESL Tutoring, etc. When I compare the suitability of the Wildwood and Fort River locations for these various potential uses, it seems to me like Wildwood would be the more logical option. Middle and High School students could easily walk there after school to participate in intergenerational programming with seniors, or events at a Youth Center. Amherst Recreation perhaps could move there too to free up more space at the Middle School for the sixth grade.
When I asked at an Educational Visioning session if potential uses of the vacated school would be part of the decision making process when evaluating the two sites, I was told no, that would come later. But why wouldn’t it be a part of the site discussion? Isn’t it a little too late to figure that out after you pick a site?
The seeming cost difference between Fort River and Wildwood in these early estimates is due to two things: Site Costs at Fort River are shown as being $2.1 million more than at Wildwood, and new construction at Fort River is shown as $738,000 more than at Wildwood.
But the Site Cost information provided by the designers so far is incomplete, and there has been no justification yet for the higher cost of new construction.
The Wildwood Site Cost estimate does not yet include the following:
– cost of a second curb cut on Strong Street and a second entrance road that would have to descend the steep hill to the north
– cost of temporary parking and a driveway while ground source heat pump wells are dug (if that source of HVAC is selected)
– cost of relocating utilities and a culvert at the southern border of the property
– cost of altering the grade of the hill between Wildwood and the Middle School fields
– cost of excavation into the hillside near Strong Street, if the building is to be nestled into the hill to free up some green space (there’s very little flat, safe green space on the 14 acre, hilly Wildwood site).
The Fort River Site Cost estimate includes excess work that arguably should be outside of the scope of the school project:
– raising the level of all the fields by one foot (it’s a 31 acre site)
– adding drainage to all the fields
– developing two softball/baseball fields and two ultimate frisbee/other sport playing fields.
Fort River has a LOT more room to build while the existing school is occupied, space for a ground source heat pump (geothermal) well field that doesn’t take out the playgrounds or current parking, and lots and lots of green space for outdoor play and learning, as well as community playing fields.
We are fortunate to have so informed and committed a commentator as Toni Cunningham to keep us up to date on the school project. Her arguments are compelling, not least the appropriateness of Wildwood for a variety of important needs. The adjacency of the Middle School and the possibilities of intergenerational activities are important reasons not to squander town needs by siting the new school there.
Signs that back room discussions may be steering the choice of a new elementary school location to Wildwood and away from Fort River are worrisome. The analysis of which site is better should be completely transparent, consistent and honest.