HANOVER – The Building Committee is advocating new construction, instead of renovating and adding on to South Shore Tech, the panel decided at its meeting on Thursday, Feb. 15. The Committee voted to remove the so-called add/reno option from consideration.
The new construction option the Committee favors is known as Option 2.0 –the district’s share would be $174 million if designed for 805 students or $176 million for 900 students – with the enrollment capacity to be further discussed at the Thursday, Feb, 22 meeting.
Broken down by towns for preliminary comparison only, Whitman taxpayers by Fiscal 2029 would see a cost of $559.53 on the average home each year for an 805-student school and $564.23 on a 900-student school. The monthy impact could be either $46.63 or $47.02. In Hanson, the fiscal 2029 taxpayer impact could be $399.90 or $404.90 per $1,000 depending on the building size – or between $33.33 and $33.74. The MSBA official reimbursement won’t be available until this August.
The estimates are based on a level principal payment (which is more costly up front) using 3.75 percent interest and do not include the share of the debt that Marshfield, which begins contributing in 2026, will take on over the life of the note.
The school committee is developing a regional agreement amendment for Fall town meeting consideration that would make debt share adjustable over a four-year rolling average to reflect changes in student enrollment over time.
Option 2.0 would look no different than the current school building, but would be built behind it so instruction would not be interrupted.
Owner Project Manager Jen Carlson of Left Field attended remotely to update the committee on costs of the various design options.
“We were going to take a little closer look at the risk of the add/reno option and try to put a cost on two of the major factors that we think are a concern,” Carlson said of underslab plumbing and for modular classrooms as that work is done.
The work would bump the estimated cost to $272.5 million for the total project budget, with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) reimbursement now estimated at $106.5 million and the district’s estimated share at $172 million for a school with 805 students.
The add/reno was rejected for two reasons – the high cost of modular construction at $20 million, which the MSBA does not reimburse and a 52-month construction window and the disruption it could cost to student instruction. “[The Add/Reno] was seen by the building committee as very challenging to have an active construction zone, near an occupied school on a small site.” Superintendent-Director Dr. Thomas J. Hickey said this week. “Also, the considerable amount of costs that are not reimbursable brought the costs very close to the new construction estimates.”
The MSBA does not reimburse for modular classrooms, so the total new budget cost of $81 million – for an estimated project budget of $110 million – would be the district’s responsibility.
Whitman Committee member Dan Salvucci said he did not favor an addition/renovation plan.
“I’ve seen that done in my town in the past and, for the amount of money we spend, you don’t get 50 years out of it,” he said. “When you do an add/reno and you have to [join] the old section with the new and you get them together, for some reason there’s always issues with water leaks and damage and mold.”
Hanson member Robert Mello voiced similar concerns.
“There’s a lot of unknown things that aren’t or may not be repaired,” he said. “I initially think of things like the plumbing system, whether it’s in the ground or in the walls that currently exist, that we don’t really have good access to and are 60 years old.”
Mello said that, for a little bit more money, they would have the “security of knowing we’re not going to have any major issues for some time.”
Cohasset member George Cooney added that the lack of MSBA funding and disruption caused by an add/reno to the school routine is concerning.
“If you could build a separate structure and everybody does business as usual [during construction], I think that’s a win,” he said. “Yes, money is always tight, but when you look at expenses and potential hidden ones, the add/reno could actually turn up being more money than going new.”
Principal Sandra Baldner said a new school would better enable the school to maintain a moslty regular function. She said it could rob an entire generation of SST students of the educational experience they deserve.
Chair Robert Mahoney also noted that, at a timeline of five years, the add/reno would take more time than new construction.
“It’s a bad idea,” said Norwell member Dustin Reardon of the add/reno plan. “We can’t do a disservice to these students who are fighting so hard to come here.”
“I haven’t heard one positive reason to go add/reno,” said Hanover member Robert Heywood.
Salvucci and Reardon both voiced concerns about enrollment capacity of a new school.
Citing the need to discuss it as a School Committee and to keep in mind that Marshfield is joining the district – and Pembroke is signaling and interest to do the same – Salvucci said he did not want to have to turn away Whitman students who might want to attend SST.
“I’m really split between 805 and 900,” he said. “I wouldn’t go any lower than that.”
Reardon agreed that enrollment is the biggest issue.
“That’s where we’re going to be deciding what makes financial sense,” he said.
The project has been carrying over $1 million in advance, but an a$3.5 million has been added to the carry-over for the renovation plan because of the need for plumbing under the slab.
“This is not just a cosmetic fix,” Carlson had said of the plumbing situation. “It’s a very invasive plumbing activity, it requires lot of planning to avoid undermining the footing of the existing building. … There’s a lot of risk involved with this work.”
When another closer look at logistics and things that needed to happen on-site and within the building for an add/reno would mean doubling the amount of modular classrooms needed to be brought onto the site.
“We had been carrying just under $10 million for that, so we added another $10 million,” she said. “Typically, to get into this level of detail, the construction manager, once we bring them on board, would be able to get into this level of detail, which is why this cost was not identified in the earlier estimates.”
Code concerns
Code updates for an add/reno project would also affect costs and could eat into the useable space already existing for teaching and learning.
The scope of this updates include: adding sprinklers to the original building; a full ADA accessibility upgrade; a major HVAC upgrade and replacement of all non-compliant plumbing and replacement of all electrical infrastructure. Not included are new finished beyond patching where electrical and plumbing work had to be done, nor for new furniture, technology or equipment. Site upgrades would likewise not be included.
“Because of the reuse of the existing building in this option, we really don’t think you could go much beyond 5-percent enrollment growth for the add/reno option,” Carlson said.
The add/reno budget estimate was calculated on the assumption that the district would be done on the same timeline as the add/reno.
The existing building is appraised at $26.4 million. Work over $8.7 million, or 30 percent of the appraised value – within a three-year timeframe would trigger the need to fully address ADA accessibility.
“There are other thresholds that do apply, depending on what work is being done, that may trigger the need for the full scope of the code upgrade to be done in one shot if this option becomes a reality,” Carlson said.
“There actually may be less space available,” Carl Franchesci of architectural firm DRA said in light of the fact that no future enrollment growth could be accommodates under an add/reno option. “Educational space could actually be reduced slightly.”
Hickey asked for a breakdown on the increased number of modular classrooms, seeking information on whether they are for classrooms or specialized space because certain shops might be included in the renovation.
“I think it really had to do with looking at the phasing,” Franchesci said. “The way that option wraps around the gym creates a construction zone, that at first we did not include the [five or six] science labs as part of the first phase.”
He said the phasing could have them consumed by the adjacent construction zone.
