Here’s an interesting pair of emails Newton Board of Alderman President Scott Lennon sent to the board relative to Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and plans to build a new Angier Elementary School…
Hello Colleagues
I received this email from the MSBA and had the Board reps on the Angier Working Group/Buliding Committee take a look before sending it out. As expected, one of the comments is that the preliminary cost estimates are high relative to similar projects. These estimates include site construction costs which are relatively high (e.g., the retaining wall along the MBTA tracks). Please see the comments below.
If you have questions, please direct them to Aldermen Fuller, Gentile and Rice.
Thank you
Scott [Lennon]
And here’s the original email from the MSBA, which appears to have been dated March 20…
Good Afternoon Dr. Fleishman:
I would like to thank the District members and consultants for participating in the Facilities Assessment Subcommittee (the “FAS”) meeting this morning regarding the A.E. Angier Elementary School project in the City of Newton.
The following items were topics of discussion at the FAS meeting:
- Preliminary estimates for construction costs are high relative to similar projects;
- Potential for the creation of garden space on the plaza area with access from science classrooms;
- Adequate quantity of restrooms throughout the proposed facility; and
- Sufficient lighting in the shared cubby spaces on the hallway side of the classrooms.
We look forward to reviewing these items with the District and consultants during Schematic Design
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Kathryn DeCristofaro
Senior Field Coordinator
Mass School Building Authority
Frankly, we should be happy this is happening; it shows the MSBA is performing one of its important oversight functions .
My guess is at least some of the cost issue will the small footprint we have to work with at Angier. Bring it on, MSBA.
That might be true, but it highlights that we don’t know what we’re doing, yet. I still believe we should have a committee of volunteers of newton residents with all kinds of construction experience to overlook and document everything that’s going on. Construction is going to be a major part of Newton’s life in the next 20 years, lets get better oversight, besides relying on the MSBA.
I totally agree. Newton has many citizens who are highly qualified to give advice on a broad spectrum of technical matters. And yet, the City, in a kind of arrogance, rarely draws on their expertise. I personally encountered this many years ago when, as a citizen, I questioned the purchase of a large number of obsolete computers for the schools. It was an area I knew something about, and yet I was treated condescendingly by the “powers that be”. The computers were purchased and, indeed, had to be ditched within a short time because they were inadequate.
Besides pure cost, however, is the matter of equity. Newton saved, for a while, some money by closing and selling off the Emerson school. This money was made on the backs of Upper Falls kids who had to be bused to disparate parts of the city. Now it turns out, as predicted before Emerson was closed, that the decision was, in the long run, disastrous, and that the “savings” produced by ill-considered school closings and the irrevocable selling off of their buildings and land now have to be paid for. That’s because the city “didn’t know what [they] were doing”; it took 35 years, maybe, for them to find out.
I’ve done this professionally, and I can say that to overlook/document/review everything on a project running 10’s of millions is a full-time job for 2+ people who know what they’re doing. That’s why, I believe, Newton is hiring owner’s reps for their projects.
I am qualified to do what you’ve proposed – but to tackle even one of the projects Newton is proposing is more than all of my non-working, non-sleeping time in a year – and I wouldn’t take that on for 2x my annual salary. Given that we’ll have 3 schools, 1 fire station, roads, sidewalks, etc. (and different types of construction have different pitfalls you need to watch out for) I’d guess that you’d need at least 10 full-time volunteers (40+ hours/week) with a variety of construction management backgrounds. Good luck with that.
The goal of such oversight is to identify and correct problems before they become intractable. For example, requiring a fully-sequenced schedule where each activity has an associated cost that is updated each month – along with someone on the owner’s side to analyse it – can identify lower/slower productivity even if a GC is trying to hide it by rearranging the schedule, or keep billing up by pre-ordering materials. Given how long it took me to get to the point where I could complete an analysis like this in 1-2 days, I can’t see a volunteer with no background accomplishing it (not to mention, they probably won’t/can’t pay the $1000s per seat for the software in the first place).
Owner’s Reps are the industry standard and are used by the federal government (DoD, DoE, etc.), state government (DCAM), and many local companies (Harvard, Genzyme, etc.).
Oh no. We really need to show our residents that we know how to be cost sensitive. NOW is the time to really figure out what we NEED and what would be NICE. We need to figure out the costs NOW before we break ground. We will be doing construction ALOT in Newton and we need to get a procedure BEFORE we start overspending – again.
We did a home renovation with a group that did a design build concept. We told them what our important factors were and what would be nice. One of the MUST haves was STICK TO THE BUDGET. That was the pot of money. If it ran out, we were doomed. We decided on every appliance, every backsplash, the counter, the cabinets, before we started construction. When we saw the budget, and what we needed to do in order to maintain our budget we made adjustments BEFORE construction started. That was we reduced the cost of the change.
I don’t want to say I told you so, but I did, a long time ago, and I think that it was Anne who was the only one who supported what I said. I compared the costs of Cabot, Angier and Zervas to other schools that I could find on the web. We seemed high, and many people were of the opinion that projects like these are likely to get more and not less expensive once they begin. I voted Yes on the two DE overrides, but with a lot of concern that we were giving an untrustworthy Setti Warren a free pass to spend what he wanted and create mini versions of overpriced NNHS. This, in spite of Steve Siegel’s insistence that the projects were sufficiently well thought out that we needn’t be in fear of this. The chickens are coming home to roost faster than I thought. Angier is the only one so far that has a more concrete project cost and scope, and it’s already being criticized. The others were, in my opinion, prematurely put up for vote. The only thing I had some faith in on the two DE overrides was that the MSBA was involved because of the state assistance. At least that is working out somewhat.
Interestingly, here’s an old blog
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2012/11/too-soon-to-ask-newton-voters-for-debt-exclusion-overrides/#comment-10320
note that both Anne and Newton Mom are participants with me
It is presumptuous to say “we still don’t know what we are doing” without having any facts. For the past year we have been estimating the cost of the Angier work based on historic cost data and bumped by site- and neighborhood-specific conditions that make this a more costly project. At this point in the design review process the MSBA is formally making note of this fact, along with some other routine considerations (Should there be additional bathroom stalls? Can the entry plaza be configured to further facilitate outdoor learning? Consider providing sufficient lighting so that small group learning may take place in the locker alcoves….). Newton must either justify our cost estimating or the price must come down before the MSBA will agree to continue.
This is exactly the healthy process that we have been advertising all along. In addition, it has all been public process. The Angier School Building Committee, the Newton Design Review Committee, the Angier public forums and hearings, the MSBA board project review, are all public and these topics are discussed among trained staff, our experienced project architects and owner’s project manager, and public citizens who are both formally and informally part of this process.
I am happy to provide additional information here of to answer questions directly. I can be reached at [email protected]
Hi Barry, I considered the available information to decide how I would vote on the overrides (which I don’t think is the norm for many voters). Like you, I also looked for cost comparisons with very recently completed and in-progress elementary school projects, including on the MSBA website. A while back, I had even contacted the pro-override group in response to their rebuttal when someone had blogged that other towns were building schools for less. The pro-override group emailed me info that actually proved the point that the estimated costs for Angier are high compared to other towns. In fact, the Angier school cost per sq ft was in line with a combined elementary-middle school in Cambridge that had lots of duplicate spaces. They did not reply to me when I pointed this out. I even asked Mayor Warren about this at a Town Hall meeting – he brushed this off – his response made me determined my vote.
“Frankly, the Emperor IS WEARING NEW CLOTHES!”
First reaction before reading comments: LOL! Who can can justify overspending public funds in the Commonwealth better than Newton?
Second reaction: Abracadabra! Now that (highly qualified) Stephanie Gilman is no longer the Commissioner of Public Buildings, is Nick Parnell available to manage this project? 😀 Perhaps he can sign a few $1M+ change orders with no notice to those paying for it (like he did with NNHS)!
Another citzens’s oversight group Tom? Really? How about people taking responsibility for their work?
Does anyone feel like they just had their panties ripped off (again)? Sheesh, the property tax override vote was only 3 wks ago. Great timing by the MSBA – huh?
Please note the MSBA is NOT flagging an issue as to potentially higher costs [vs other projects] that we don’t already know. My understanding is we’ve identified what in our view are the reasons why, and i think it healthy for the MSBA to be saying let’s review that in greater detail. If our views on this are misguided [there’s no evidence that’s so] then MSBA helps us deal with this differently and that’s a good thing.
Leaping to a conclusion from their desire to review this that we must not not know what we’re doing is frankly disingenuous.
@Steve: The BOA is well represented on the Angier working group, by Ald. Fuller, Ald. Gentile and Ald. Rice, who I trust will follow up on this issue at the next meeting to provide some clarity for their colleagues and the public. But I would be interested in your thoughts, if any, on the following:
With respect to substance as well as process, my concern involves the impact of the MSBA’s comments on reimbursement and/or approval of site construction and overall project costs. Generally, I agree that the MSBA’s enhanced role in and authority over the planning process is a good thing. That is, the MSBA and the city must reach agreement about the project and price prior to approval. In addition, the MSBA puts a limit on the proportion of site construction costs it will reimburse. But, beyond that, if the MSBA does not approve certain site construction costs, which the city considers essential, can Newton decide to take on the cost itself or could that jeopardize MSBA assistance to pay for site construction costs or even for the project as a whole?
With respect to transparency, my concern is twofold. First, the meetings with the MSBA are not public meetings, so the public must rely on comprehensive and timely communication from the city and schools regarding issues that may arise. Second, my understanding is that some decisions will need to be made over the summer–when many people (e.g., public school parents) go on vacation and may not be able to follow the deliberations–in order to keep Angier on schedule for September 2016. (This is one reason the BOA has a “black out” period over the summer on scheduling public hearings of special permit applications for major projects.) How will the public be kept informed about and allowed to participate effectively in the final approval process for Angier?
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.
@Steve, besides answering Ted’s good question, can you also explain why there is a question about whether there are adequate bathrooms?! Isn’t that something prescribed by building codes based on maximum occupancy, etc? Or does it have to do with not just absolute number of stalls, but how they are distributed around the building, e.g. maximum distance a kid has to walk to go to the bathroom?
Just curious, is gender equity ‘potty parity” a consideration in elementary schools? I’m guessing most girls wear pants instead of skirts, but they still don’t get to pee standing up. 😉
I can’t believe that there was a question whether we would have enough stalls.
Frankly, I feel Newtonians have been treated disingenuously by the pressure and guilt put upon voters in getting this Debt Exclusion Property Tax override passed. What’s wrong with expecting value for our tax dollars without the necessity of a cast of 1000’s overseeing public building projects?
Janet,
Here’s my reason for another committee to overlook construction projects: A mistake in construction can cost us $10’s of millions. As we have seen over the past few weeks city employees come and go, but a committee can be here throughout all of the construction, pass down good things we’ve done as well as bad. A city employee usually takes what he/she learns with him/her out the door and the new person/people involved start from scratch. Do you honestly think that a construction manager who takes over 10 years from now will know about the mistakes that were made from NNHS? A committee can document it and pass that information from committee to committee.
@All
I think Janet Sterman said it best with regards to this latest piece of news.
Tom – That’s why you have owner’s representatives. A full project manager may look at 1-2 major projects every 3 years, but when I was working as one it wasn’t uncommon for me to have 4-5 projects at any given time. Some were looking for initial estimates, others needed bid evaluation, change order evaluation, or monthly schedule review. In the 7 years I saw over 100 different projects – each with different needs and problems (some places wait to hire until the trouble is already present, requiring a full-project audit to try to apportion blame, and recovery plans). I worked with smart, capable people, who had years more experience than I.
.
If you’re worried about having an employee with 10years/3 major projects worth of experience walk out the door, I think you’re worrying about the wrong problem. Newton could re-hire an in-house PM with that much experience – but that much experience alone isn’t going to save us from cost over-runs. (Again, I think for every $100M of concurrent construction projects you’re going to need ~3 people for oversight, and $100M of design projects you’ll need at least 1. There’s a limit on both how much one person can handle, and how many projects they can track. And this doesn’t include the additional needs of a pubic project, such as public hearings/presentations)
.
Also, was there ever a full audit of Newton North? It’s the sort of thing that I might do if I had a spare month … ut it would be so much easier to read someone else’s 100 page report.
Ted, my understanding is that the MSBA limits the level of site cost “participation” (love that term) but that they don’t limit what we do on our own. This is different than building costs, where they have a firm say in what we put into the building even if we want to pay for it ourselves. There is something paternalistic about this but I can defend it regardless. Their mission is to assist in building affordable quality school space across the state and they don’t want to see a wide disparity in features from one school district to the next.
I have attended two MSBA meetings in person and although one must register in advance and sign in, both meetings had members of the public in attendance. I believe they are all open meetings although I may be mistaken.
Your colleagues are working hard with the OPM to schedule as little as possible over the summer while honoring the fall 2016 move-in schedule. If you have not seen the draft meeting schedule yet it will be coming out soon. I appreciate your concern and all I can tell you is that the schedule is an extremely difficult balancing act between competing needs and interests, and we are working hard to get it right, and to keep people as informed as possible along the way.
Julia, minimum fixture counts are determined by the building code. The comment about bathrooms came from an MSBA board member who was a long time teacher and wanted to remind the designers to place enough stalls close enough to classrooms to handle the “rush” (she said students tend to go to the bathroom in groups). The planwork is just starting to get refined but rooms, including bathrooms, have not been detailed yet. This was taken by our designers as a helpful comment.
Tom – what Anne said. Also, remember that the OPM (owner’s project manager) has deep experience working with multiple towns and the MSBA on many school projects. They bring in lessons-learned from all of this experience.
Anne and Steve, are you two telling me that we are doing everything we can to make sure we don’t duplicate mistakes? If not, what more can/should we do?
Thanks, Steve. How does one get a schedule of and register to attend meetings between city and school staff and the MSBA? And where are they held?
Ald. Fuller has informed me she is following up on the issue of site construction costs. It was not clear to her whether the MSBA can veto site construction costs as well as building construction costs. Either way, it would be good to have some clarity.
My understanding is that once the MSBA and city agree on the project and price (sometime in June, yes?), there is a fairly tight period of time within which to obtain approval from the Design Review Committee and the Board of Aldermen. Holding public hearings is an essential part of this process. Unfortunately, I am informed by some of my colleagues who are working on reforming and streamlining the Section 5-58 site review process that these efforts have been sidelined because of the Angier School. That could be counter-productive.
In addition, at a budget meeting with the Mayor yesterday, one of the concerns expressed by the aldermen in attendance was that the city has a number of positions that are vacant. In particular, I am very concerned that the city does not have a permanent commissioner of public buildings at this time. With the ambitious school construction scheduled that the city has undertaken, it seems obvious to me that this position has to be filled pronto.
Thanks again for responding.
Here is the update from the Angier Working Group. Unfortunately, my question about the extent of MSBA’s control over site construction costs is not answered.
Here is the link to the Angier Working Group update.
Ted, please stay on them about that.
All,
With regards to the MSBA’s evaluation of the Angier School’s costs, I pointed out that Burlington’s elementary school had a lower gross cost and net cost than the three Newton schools that will be rebuilt or renovated.
http://newton.patch.com/articles/letter-vote-no-on-three-tax-increases-enough-is-enough?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001