HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-08 ad Hoc School Building Committee MinutesReading School Building Committee
Minutes of RSBC Meetinq Held on Januarv 8 2003, 7:30 p.m.
(In the RMHS Guidance Career Center)
Committee Members Attending:
,
Russ Graham, Chair (RG)
Bill Carroll (BC)
-
Rich Radville RR
}
Tim Twomey (TT) p/t
-
Jeff Struble (JS)
Dennis LaCroix (DL)
s
Paula Perry (PP)
W
Alex McRae (AM)
Michael Scarpitto (MS) p/t
Featured Guests:
Frank Orlando (Staff)
Sid Bowen (Flansburgh Associates, Inc.)
RG began by recognizing TT, who read a letter of disclosure addressed to the Town
Clerk (copy attached). In the letter, he explained his belief that his position as a principal
in an architectural firm that employs relatives of principals of other architectural firms that
might apply for the (possibly) upcoming RMHS project did not constitute a conflict of
interest concerning his participation in the architect selection process (as a member of
the Reading School Committee and the School Building Committee). He wrote that he
had checked with the State Ethics Commission on this matter and that they concurred
with this belief.
RG reported that WC had asked that the SBC be prepared to address the subject of
what would have to be done to RMHS should the proposed renovation scheme not pass
(either Town Meeting or the debt exclusion election). Sid Bowen said his firm had
prepared an itemized list of prioritized recommendations and their costs that he
characterized as "The Cost of Doing Nothing" (copy attached). He discussed the various
items that he said were derived from the production of the existing conditions report, as
well as their reimbursability by the State. He emphasized that the list did not contain
upgrades for the educational program or the surrounding grounds; only the physical
infrastructure of the existing building. The compiled costs did not contain any provisions
for phasing or for inflation. Committee members discussed the items and compared
them with the estimates made by a sub-committee a year ago. RG asked RR to go over
FAI's list in depth to see if any significant differences were present.
Mr. Bowen then passed out copies of the summary of the independent cost estimate
performed on the schematic design for Option 3 by Atkins Hanscomb Faithful & Gould
(AHFG).
Reading School Budding Committee ~
Meeting Minutes ftom .lanuan, 8, 2003
The total construction cost (without non-construction costs like furnishings,
equipment, fees, contingencies, etc.) was $38,424,778, which agreed closely
with FAI budget estimate of $38,470,710. However, AHFG also
recommended carrying $1,005,600 to account for cost inflation that would
occur over the hiatus between estimating and actual bidding and construction
(approx. 3% for a year's wait). Mr. Bowen said that he felt that such
escalation could be absorbed by fine-tuning the design in the next design
phase without affecting the basic programs (physical or educational).
He noted that the estimate and budget figures included recent revisions
(reductions) that had been coordinated with the administration. He would
show those revisions later in the meeting.
He pointed out that it was common in his firm's experience for cost estimates
at the schematic level of design to be 10-15% over the budget estimate,
requiring changes in the scope planned for such projects. A 3% overage
would be much less troublesome to eliminate, he reasoned, and the budget
still reserved a 10% design contingency ($3.8M) which could conceivable
replace any items eliminated due to this $1 M escalation. Thus, Mr. Bowen
recommended that no changes to the project be made at this juncture.
Several Committee members with design/construction experience remarked
that these results were encouraging and could indicate a favorable school
construction "market" for this project. Mr. Bowen agreed.
Included in the materials distributed with the estimate summary was a copy of
a letter from FAI to the Superintendent calculating the estimated SBA
reimbursement for the project (copy attached). Based on allowable square
footage and declared dollars/sq. ft. amounts from 2002, the maximum
reimbursable project cost was $50,758,700. All project costs over that
amount were assumed to be 100% paid by the Town of Reading. With a
calculated reimbursement rate of 58.05% (based on the base rate plus
applicable incentive points), this resulted in a total reimbursement of
$29,465,425 of the budgeted total cost and a (resultant) total cost to Reading
of $24,452,320. No incentive points for maintenance or energy efficient
design were expected.
JS asked what would have to be done to bring the project cost down to equal
the maximum reimbursable amount allowed by the SBA. Mr. Bowen replied
that program items would have to be cut. He gave examples of likely items,
such as eliminating the football and practice field upgrades or reducing the
number of seats in the Auditorium. BC said that he thought no reductions
should be made and that the decisions should be made on the project with all
of its program revisions. JS agreed, citing the apparently favorable current
market for construction that made deferment of desired program changes a
bad move economically.
- RG asked if the consensus of the Committee was to put forward the full
budget cost of $54,305,000 as the recommended amount for the motion at
Town Meeting. No objections were noted.
Mr. Bowen passed out revised plans (copies attached), which he noted were not
substantially different from previous versions. FAI had reduced a corridor, mechanical
Reading School Building Committee
Meeting Minutes from Janucoy 8, 2003
space and a back entry and had opted to use the area above the present media center
as storage, all of which had reduced the cost estimate. He explained expected
circulation patterns and security planning in answer to questions about them.
Points to make in Town Meeting were discussed with Mr. Bowen. Emphasis on the cost
estimate and analysis of the phasing issues were seen as being crucial to presenting the
schematic design.
AM asked for a copy of the latest education specifications, expressing discomfort with
not having reviewed them prior to this. Frank Orlando was asked if he was satisfied with
the ed. specs. produced thus far. He said he was. Sid Bowen said the spec's were still
being changed due to the Special Education requirements, which were difficult to
predict. He said, however, that he would produce them for AM the next day.
Observer Jackie Mandell expressed concern over the extent of the subsurface boring
information over the intended addition sites. Only two borings could be made, due to the
Engineering Department's refusal to allow drilling in areas where the buried utilities could
not be located with confidence. Mr. Bowen and JS explained that what was found in
those few borings was sufficient to make an confident assumption of the type of
foundations that would be needed in those areas, allowing reasonable predictions of
their cost.
The Committee went over its future schedule and activities up to Town Meeting and
beyond (if necessary). It was the consensus that the SBC should be available for
informational sessions if and when such sessions were organized. RG asked that
Committee members to think about the role of the SBC and the high school should the
project get to a Special Election and fail.
RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the November 6, 2002 RSBC meeting.
RR so moved and was seconded by DL. He called for any additions, deletions or
corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the
result was unanimous in the affirmative.
RG called for a motion to accept the minutes of the November 19, 2002 RSBC meeting.
DL so moved and was seconded by PP. He called for any additions, deletions or
corrections desired by the Committee. With none appearing, a vote was taken and the
result was unanimous in the affirmative.
With no other business appearing, DL called for a motion to adjourn. PP so moved and
was seconded by BC. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the affirmative (time
unrecorded).
V
Minutes prepared and submitted by: Jeffrey W. Struble, Secretary
Reading School Building Committee
Timothy R. Twomey
23 California Road
Reading, MA 02138
6 January 2003
Ms. Cheryl Johnson
Town Clerk
Town of Reading
Mr. William Griset
Chair
Reading School Committee
Mr. Russell Graham
Chair
Reading School Building Committee
Re: Chanter 268A Section 23(B)(3) Disclosure
Dear Ms. Johnson, Mr. Griset and Mr. Graham:
As you know, I am an elected member of the Reading School Committee, and the School
Committee's appointed member to the Reading School Building Committee.
I am also a principal of and the chief administrative officer and general counsel to
Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott Incorporated, a 180 person architectural firm
located in Boston, Massachusetts.
As you are aware, on or about 30 May 2002 the Reading School Building Committee
selected Flansburgh Associates as architect for the Schematic Design of the Reading
Memorial High School project. Mr. Sid Bowen, a principal of Flansburgh Associates, is
a principal for the high school project.
Subsequent to Flansburgh Associates' selection as architect, and as a result of the efforts
of an independent personnel recruiter retained by my firm, my firm hired Mr. Bowen's
spouse, an architect, as an employee on 2 September 2002. I was not involved in any
manner in the recruitment or selection of Mr. Bowen's spouse.
Ms. Cheryl Johnson, Mr. William Griset, Mr. Russell Graham
6 January 2002
Page 2
I have also recently become aware that in the last few months my firm has hired the son
of an owner of Tappe Associates, Inc., ,a Boston architectural firm, as a model builder
employee of my firm.. Tappe Associates, Inc., was one of the firms who submitted a
proposal for the Schematic Design of the Reading Memorial High School project. Again,
I was not involved in any manner in this individuals employment with my firm.
It appears reasonable to me that both Flansburgh Associates and Tappe Associates, Inc.,
may submit proposals to the Reading School Committee in connection with the
anticipated completion of the High School project should Town Meeting and the voters
approve of the debt exclusion override on 13 January and 25 February, 2003,
respectively.
I do not believe, and it is my position, that my firm's retention of these two individuals in
any way poses a conflict of interest in connection with my role as a member of either the
Reading School Committee or the Reading School Building Committee, and, as a
member thereof, does not prohibit my participation in the anticipated upcoming architect
selection process.
I have spoken with an attorney at the State Ethics Commission who concurs in this
position.
Sincerely,
Timothy R. Twomey
_ Reading Memorial High School
Estimated Costs Associated with Existing Conditions Recommendations - "The Cost of Doing Nothing"
Must Be Done
$Construction $Project SBA $
• Replace synthetic sports floor at the Field House.
$320,000
• Replace latex rubber surface at track.
$150,000
• Reconfigure lower parking and mark a pedestrian route.
$80,000
• Replace fencing around football field.
$25,000
• Replace tennis court surface.
$110,000
• Replace basketball court.
inc above
• Apply new epoxy membrane at concrete roof overhangs.
$20,000
• Seal existing cracks in exterior masonry, install control joints.
$120,000
• Seal existing cracks in concrete foundation, install control joints.
$60,000
• Further investigate damage to, and repair solutions for, cracking at pre-cast column covers.
$80,000
• Rebuild the deteriorated exterior wall at the `link'.
$80,000
• Replace sanitary and storm piping in crawl spaces.
$50,000
• Replace expansion tank.
$5,000
• Test and possibly replace existing steam piping throughout the building.
$1,700,000
• Replace exhaust air systems - complete
$1,400,000
• Install master gas shut off valves at science labs.
$30,000
• Remove gas incinerators and eliminate abandoned `live' gas lines.
$15,000
• Remove unused stoves and eliminate abandoned 'live' gas lines.
$5,000
• Install a dedicated hot water heater at the kitchen to eliminate `dangerous' hot water conditions.
$65,000
Subtotal
$4,315,000 $6,500,000
Should Be Done
• Address Title 9 Conditions at Fieldhouse
$500,000
Reconstruct bathrooms to meet accessibility requirements.
$300,000
• Replace doors and hardware for accessibility
$200,000
• Provide an accessible route to the stage, by chair lift or ramp.
$15,000
Provide a ramp or chair lift to the gymnasium and locker rooms.
$250,000
• Provide an elevator to the library mezzanine, or close the space.
?
• Modify lab stations to provide for accessibility.
$150,000
Reconfigure ramps at Science/Math wing to lessen the slope.
$40,000
• Replace fire alarm system, clock System, telephone System
$600,000
• Replace emergency generator and modify emergency power distribution.
$200,000
• Install chemical storage cabinets in the science labs.
$80,000
Subtotal
$2,335,000
$3,520,000
Recommended
• Replace site lighting.
$180,000
• Replace or augment interior lighting.
$1,450,000
• Replace windows throughout the school and Field House.
$1,200,000
• Install automatic temperature control system.
$300,000
• Install sprinkler unit substations and upgrade normal power distribution.
$700,000
• Replace roofs, as necessary
$500,000
Subtotal
$4,330,000
$6,525,000
TOTAL
SBA$ @50%
Town of Reading$
$16,545,000
$4,335,000
$12,190,000
Flansburgh Associates, Inc.
1/8/03
READING HIGH SCHbOL.
Renovation & Addition
Reading, MA
SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
6-Jan-03
W&G
K7, 6,
I P)
'k, I
Atkins Hanscomb Faithful & Gould
2067 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02140
Telephone 617.576.3591, Fax 617-576-6583, web www.atkinsamericas.com
READING HIGH SCHOOL
Renovation & Addition
Reading, MA
oCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
INTRODUCTION
6- Jan -03
This Schematic Design Cost Estimate was produced from drawings, specifications and other documentation dated December
18, 2002 prepared by Flansburgh Associates and their design team and forwarded to Atkins Hanscomb Faithful & Gould
(formally known as Hanscomb Inc) on the same date. Design and engineering changes occurring subsequent to the issue of
these documents have not been incorporated in this estimate.
This estimate is based upon the measurement of quantities where possible: For the remainder, parametric measurements
were used in conjunction with references from similar projects recently estimated by Atkins HF &G
BASIS FOR PRICING
i nis estimate reflects the Tair construction value Tor the construction OT tnis project ana snouia not De construes as a preaiction
of low bid. Prices are based on probable local prevailing union wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared,
however an escalation line item is included to project the current costs to the projected construction start approximately 12
months from the date of this report. Pricing assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for every portion of the
construction work, which is to mean a minimum of 4 bids including for all subcontractors and materials /equipment suppliers. If
fewer bids are solicited or received; prices can be expected to.be higher. Please note that this estimate assumed
Subcontractor's markups have been included in each line item unit price. Markups cover the cost of field overhead, home
'office overhead and subcontractor's profit. Subcontractor's markups typically range from 5% to 15% of the unit price depending
on market conditions.
General Contractor's general conditions' cost is calculated on a percentage. basis. General Contractor's overhead and fees is
based on a percentage of the total direct (trade) costs plus general conditions, and covers the contractor's bond, insurance, site
office overheads, building permit applications, and profit.
Unless identified otherwise, the cost of such items as shift premiums, and allowances for temporary occupancy permits, police
details or street/sidewalk permits are excluded.
We have included a Design Contingency /Design Reserve percentage to cover cost increases that will occur during design
elaboration or unforeseen design issues. As the design develops, the design contingency is reduced, and is eliminated at the
final Construction Document estimate.
A Construction Contingency or GIMP contingency is excluded from this estimate. However, in finalizing the project budget, it is
recommended that the Owner should add a construction contingency to the Total Estimated Construction Cost in anticipation of
change orders likely to occur during construction.
ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS ESTIMATE
Items not included in this estimate are:
Land acquisition, feasibility, and financing costs
`r. ^ All professional fees and insurance
F
Site or existing conditions surveys investigations costs, including to determine subsoil conditions
Items identified in the design as Not In Contract (NIC)
Owner supplied and /or installed items (e.g.. draperies, furniture and equipment)
Tel /data, security and AV networks, equipment or software (unless identified otherwise)
file 1 - additi ... 7j;inMema 2 Page 1 AtklnS HFG
READING HIGH SCHOOL
Renovation & Addition
Reading, MA
SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST ESTIMATE
Hazardous materials investigations and abatement
Utility company back charges, including work required off -site
Work to City streets and sidewalks, (except as noted in this estimate)
Construction or occupancy phasing or off hours' work, (except as noted in this estimate)
Owners Construction Contingency for scope changes
ITEMS THAT MAY AFFECT THIS ESTIMATE
Such items include, but are not limited to the following:
Modifications to the scope of work subsequent to the preparation of this estimate.
Unforeseen subsurface conditions
Incomplete or poorly coordinated final construction documents
Special requirements for site access, off -hour work or phasing activities
Restrictive technical specifications, excessive contract or non - competitive bid conditions
Sole source specifications for materials or products
Bid approvals delayed beyond the anticipated project schedule
Market Contingency
Remote Project Location
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
6- Jan -03
Atkins HF &G requests that the Owner and Architect carefully review this estimate, including all line item descriptions, unit
prices, clarifications, exclusions, inclusions and assumptions, contingencies, escalation, and markups to ensure that
requirements have been correctly identified. If this estimate does not correspond to the Owner's budgetary objectives, Atkins
HF &G strongly suggests that evaluations of other design alternatives /project procurement options should be made before
proceeding further.
Atkins HF &G has prepared this estimate in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices to reflect the fair
market value of the project. This estimate is made on the basis of the experience, qualifications, and the best judgment of
professional consultants who are familiar with the construction industry.
However, Atkins HF &G has n.o control over the method of determining prices adopted by any individual general contractor,
subcontractor or supplier. Atkins HF &G cannot control the cost of labor and materials, the bidding environment or other market
conditions, and it is not possible to provide any guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not deviate from
this or subsequent cost estimates.
Any requests for modifications to this document must be made to Atkins HF &G within ten (10) days of receipt.
Otherwise, it will be understood that the contents are fully concurred with and accepted. Notifications of any
apparent errors or omissions should be made to Atkins HF &G as soon as they are discovered.
file 1 - additi ... 7janOema 2 Page 2 AtklnS HFG
M
O
C
(Q �
M N
Q
LL
U
h
y
w
F
J 0 U
O 0
0 c
=.2 _
L) 'v N
= C O
t9 ,�
S c Q V
C 0 v w
W d w U
E�
N
Zcl
Lo
O N
64
O 2
N X
o Q
N
C_
N
M N
a
U
N 69 N
0
0
O
co
N
C
(hD 00
N
N O X
O N
0
N
C
ON)
O � N
0
c
0: j.
m
N cam) X
O 6q, N
o
O
N
G
U
C >�
Z � C
g •o
U •�
U •S o
a 2
w °
m��
w. aN N O
(7.0 w U
z
z
Z
O
U
N
C
.Y
Q '
P2
M
Q1
h
co
N
664
N
N
h
64
m
Obi
n
M
!f m T
O ° w
CL
N
6A4
a I ro
N
r
O
U
O
ti
j
z
U
J
0
E
n
V' O
W
N M
O N N (D M
O.0
O N
�f
N M
O O O O O
V' Q)
N
(0
W 0) 0)
d O)
N V: N
N N N W
(D N '7 (3
O c0
N W
:id of
r-L"
O
0)
tl'
t 0)
O O ffY O O
h IQ O O O h
co Cl)
(D
N(D 'ct
(D h t
r
N 0 �} h
O N
O
N
(Z
M" W
of
h
N m 0 W
1
V'
M
h
o
00 N M
N
W
N
(D
h
0
W
o M
N
O
~
(V
V 6* c
cp" 64 d'
69 69
til
�"
ni
by 1 64 tl•
Hi VA 64
dd 64
ER 64 6.
64
M
69
64
0
V'
.y
iA In
Q
N h
2 ON
a
c
Q) m
A" ti
3
M
�
o 0
�
w
m
6hs»
M O
O
<0 C)
O pp N
O 0 N M 0
O O
O O
O
N
M d'
L)
M
N V M
O W 0)
0 0 cD
W N
64 O h W
O N N V'
6H 60
69 O
C)
p
O
(j
h
4) N
(0
M
d' N m m
(fl
p
N� 69
N
69 64 69
69
fR
O O
O
,
69
4)
( �
N O
O N N
O O O
0 0 0 0 —
O N
p (D
O
Q
O tH
N
O O
N M N
h O N
(!) N N
V! C of of 'N M
O �-
O O
N f0
64 0)
M
�
cD' (!')
10 (D
to
cJ cV
c0 O c0
n
M
O co CN')
.0
(ND
M N N O
N 6
69
V
�
00
co (D
IT cli
0 Oi
00 co
O
fH 6% b%
t9 64
6% N-
64
tY
(fY tH
LL
I
O
U
O O
O 64
N O
O h M
O N ch
0) N
0 0 0 M N
O c0
O (D
O
h
m M
O
Z O
O
O cD N
ry
h M er
O 0) O N M
O N M M
fiY O
r
64 N
d)
69
co h
r W
Cf O
r C
In
M Cl) W
(V (D M
O' N h N
M
69
c0
c0
(D
N (NA
7 n
>
�
Hi`69 (A
69
64
O N M
6Y N'69
7
W3
40
N
(D M
H3 64
N"
N 64 �m'I.
U
69 64
69
6�4 c9 �'
�a
Z
D O
N N a
t O d
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
.0
C.
N N
O O O
(� (�
O
M O
(0 M
(D
n
to h O N 1%
V n O
C .-
N
W tR
64
y
p M
O O O
N O O h
Z
U O
(D
N t O
h N N
(.0 fN
h 00
�.f1 0]
(D N N cD
(A 0
h
m c0
O 0)
m O of
N (D 00 M (n
(O M
d3 lfl
h 0) O
N 64
N N
N
64 7 W } W
bH N kA
to
64 6%
cn
M h
to
0I h O
C 69 6�v9 (n
p
69
6h 69
69 �
i
�
6q 69
(S
Z
z
E N o O
O
OD
w
U
V-
U
U
W
U
C7
W o
X = -a
v
a
V)
a 0
w
x
t- Z
m O
m
r
O Q m c m vc 2
v7 px
�- O
Z 2
> E
U) J
?
o a`
U m =i N °D U
O U
U
w
w J
0
ZO m
q
y
'a �
tT
C7
h
CL
C
Q w
0 0
Z
o Q
O
} z O U
w x
J>
w
a
U
y h- C o m N p
Z
w LL
_O
a' a' 0=
> a V
a
a
W
w
x n
W
aF O
w Q w
U
z= Q w
Z
x a
U I1
w
U
w
d '�
:i '� O N N O U
00 J
O Q
.7 X O
E"' E- 1'
W
O J > Lx .J
O O
w_
a W
0:
c o
N>
m
J �` C C (p A N
2
LL
nwa
?v)?
Un xLLw
wa
mm
m
p
jOO
��. W o
•off
.2 2 m vWi
J00
O N M
O N M
p N OM V (On
O N
O N
O
Q
O •O O N N C N WI
m
QQ'
mmm
UUU
00000
wW
LL LL
U
ti
H CQ`K D: w 1%
I
N
Zcl
Lo
O N
64
O 2
N X
o Q
N
C_
N
M N
a
U
N 69 N
0
0
O
co
N
C
(hD 00
N
N O X
O N
0
N
C
ON)
O � N
0
c
0: j.
m
N cam) X
O 6q, N
o
O
N
G
U
C >�
Z � C
g •o
U •�
U •S o
a 2
w °
m��
w. aN N O
(7.0 w U
z
z
Z
O
U
N
C
.Y
Q '
P2
M
Q1
h
co
N
664
N
N
h
64
m
Obi
n
M
!f m T
O ° w
CL
N
6A4
a I ro
N
r
O
U
O
ti
j
z
U
J
0
E
n
FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES
Reading Memorial High School Study
Project Cost Breakdown
FAI Project Number 2204.00
October 2, 2006
Projected Capacity 1480 Students
Item
Unit S.F.
Cosi
Construction
Estimated Amount Reimbursed
$29,465,425
New Construction
$145 120,000
$17,400,000
Basic Renovation
$70 79,588
$5,571,160
Extensive Renovation
$90 41,471
$3,732,390
Major Renovation
$120 31,493
$3,779,160
(Total Size)
272,552
Phased Construction Cost
Temporary Facilities
Sitework: Fields, Parking, & Landscape
$5,100,000
Site Utilities
$800,000
Building Demolition
$1,988,000
Hazardous Materials Abatement
$100,000
Design Contingency
$0
Total
$38,470,710
Contingencies
Estimating Contingency (10 %)
$3,847,071
Construction Contingency/ New 5%
$870,000
Construction/Rennovation 10%
$1,308,271
Owner's Contingency /1%
$384,707
A/E Services Contingency n 5% Fee
$173,118
Total
$6,583,167
Design and Engineering Fees
Architect Fee
$3,462,364
Total
$3,462,364
Furniture and Equipment
Furniture Acquisition a 1000 /student
$1,480,000
Fees and Expenses
$148,000
Total
$1,628,000
Computer Technology: Infrastructure & Equipment
Equipment @ 1200 /student
$1,776,000
Infrastructure
$545,104
Fees and Expenses
$177,600
Total
$2,498,704
Additional Project Costs
I Surveying
$55,000
2 Geotech. Cons. +Testing
$20,000
3 Civil Engineering/Landscape
$200,000
4 Food Service
$40,000
5 Acoustics
$12,000
6 Cost Estimating
$80,000
7 Graphics
$0
8 Testing and Monitoring at Construction
$200,000
9 Bidding Printing, Adendum & Distribution
$100,000
10 Legal
$50,000
11 Reimbursable Expenses - Architect
$0
12 Construction Manager
$680,000
13 Security Consulants
$15,000
14 Environmental Testing
$10,000
15 Enviromental Impact Report
$0
18 Utility Costs
$10,000
19 Model / Rendering
$25,000
20 Traffic Consultant
$25,000
21 Asbestos Report and Monitoring Services
$65,000
22 Budget/ Auditing Services
$0
23 Building Commissioning
$50,000
24 Auditorium/Studio Consultant
$25,000
Total: Additional Project Costs
$1,662,000
Total Project Cost
$54,304,945
Estimated Amount Reimbursed
$29,465,425
COST TO TOWN
$24,839,520
FLANS BURGH ASSOCIATES
November 22, 2002
Dr. Harry Harutunian
Superintendent
Reading Public Schools
82 Oakland Road
Reading, MA 01867
RE: Estimate of SBA Reimbursement for RMHS Project
Dear Harry:
In order to determine the maximum reimbursement by SBA for the high school
project, we have calculated the maximum capacity of the project based on classroom
counts and an efficiency factor of 85 %. As a result of this analysis, the capacity of
the proposed building, for planning purposes, is as follows: 1420 high school students
and 60' RISE students. This is consistent with our presentation to the School Building
Committee.
Based on these enrollments, the following calculations provide our best estimate of
the available SBA reimbursement, based on Option 3. Please note that, in calculating
this estimate, we are using 2002 reimbursement rates. If SBA increases square foot
allowances in 2003, the state's contribution will be larger. However, in order to
maintain a conservative posture, we have not assumed any increase.
Square Foot Calculation
Enrollment x SF Allowance = Total SF
High School 1420 x 155sf = 220,100 sf
RISE 60 x 115sf - 6,900 sf
.Plus Allowable Excess
Special Needs (HS and RISE) 6,500 sf
Remedial 3,300 sf
Community Use 2,000 sf
Tecllnology (750 computer stations x--30 sf) 22,500 sf
TOTAL 261,300 sf
Maximum Allowable Reimbursable Construction Cost Calculation
RISE 8,400 sf x $173 = $1,443,200
HS 252.900 sf x $1.95 = $49,315,500
Maximum Reimbursable $50,758,700
Architecture
Master Planning
Programming
Interior Design
Principals
David S. Soleau, AIA
Alan S. Ross, AIA
Duncan P. McClelland, AIA
Sidney R. Bowen, III
Chairman
Earl R. Flansburgh, FAIR, NA
Senior Associates
Samuel Bird, AIA
Jorge M. Cruz, AIA
Rose M. Fiore, Assoc. AIA
Associates
Valerie M. Curtis
David R. DeFilippo, AIA
Vincent E.J. Dube, AIA
James A. Highum, AIA
Peter W. Lambert
Thomas J. Mueller, AIA
Dominic I. Pedulla, Assoc. AIA
Robert E. Peirce, AIA
James B. Williams, Jr., AIA
Flansburgh Associates, Inc. 77 North Washington Street Boston, MA 02114 -19 10 T 617- 367 -3970 F 617- 720 -7873 www.faiarchitects.com
FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES
The renovation and addition option. selected by the School Building Committee would
be reimbursable at the rate of 58.05% up to the maximum amount. The following is
a comparison of estimated Total Project Cost and the part of the total for which
Reading would be responsible. The figures do not include interest.
Total Project Cost SBA Reimbursement Town of Reading Cost
$53,917,745 $29,465,425 $24,452,320
Sincerely,
FLANSBURGH ASSOCIATES, INC.
0,
Sidney R. Bowen III
Principal
Cc Beth Klepeis, Town of Reading
2002/112202/srb
Fti
FMMMAMIJ
0
0
U-
IT
10 ME
IMINI
Ls
0
0
0
C)
W
FA
HOME
0
0
LL
-0
I 3d
I El Ed ❑ El El 0 ME
c
cz
0
0
LL
r10