FAQs

Yes, this topic has been widely studied, and there is conclusive evidence the design and physical environment of a building promotes or hinders teaching and learning within a school.

For a summary and pointers to other research, please review this report from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health:
Foundations for Student Success: How School Buildings Influence Student Health, Thinking and Performance

Their introduction points out, "By the time a student graduates from high school, she or he has spent 15,600 hours inside a school, an amount of time second only to that spent at home. For more than 50 million K–12 students in the United States, the time spent in school is also a time of rapid physical growth, hormonal changes, intense learning, and critical neurological and social development. Unfortunately, many aspects of the health and performance of students can be negatively affected by chronic exposures to common environmental factors in school buildings, including indoor air pollution, mold, pests, pesticides, radon, asbestos, lead, inadequate lighting, and elevated noise levels."

Reading the full report is encouraged, but if you have limited time, please refer to:

• Page 21 for information on how thermal comfort (temperature & humidity) impacts learning
• Page 23 for information on how lighting impacts learning
• Page 26 for information on how acoustics and noise impact learning

Through the AHS Building Project, the town hopes to address the numerous issues with the existing Andover High School, and put students and educators in an environment that supports thinking and achievement.

Like many districts that saw baby boomer population spikes, Andover undertook several school building projects in the 1950s and 1960s and has a history of building or renovating multiple schools at the same time. As a result, there are school that will reach the end of their useful lives concurrently.

In 2016, the town hired the national facility assessment and planning organization MGT of America Consulting to conduct an analysis of all Andover town and school buildings, and develop a comprehensive facility plan to assist with long-term planning.

The MGT study concluded the school facilities with the greatest needs were: Shawsheen Preschool, West Elementary and Doherty Middle School due to facility condition; and Andover High School due to overcrowding condition. To gain community feedback and prioritize potential projects for long-range planning, the school department conducted public forums and tours at West Elementary, Doherty and Andover High.

This process led the School Committee to discuss and establish a long-range facilities plan that included:

(a)  Submitting West Elementary as a priority project for partnership with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). West Elementary was accepted to the highly competitive program in 2017, on its first submission, due to the poor condition of the facility. Success of the West Elementary project also solves needs at multiple other school facilities: The scope includes a pre-kindergarten, which will allow the decommission of the failing Shawsheen facility; and the new school adds district capacity at the elementary level, which will relieve overcrowding at other K-5 schools.

(b)  Establishing the Andover High School Facility Study Committee (AHSFSC) to examine options for a high school project. The AHSFSC began its work in January of 2017, and evaluated options from basic safety & security upgrades, to additional and renovations, to new construction. The work evolved to the current AHS Building Committee in early 2022.

(c)  Pursuing improvements at Doherty Middle School with the assistance of architecture services funded through the FY2018 Capital Improvement Program. Construction was funded through Town Meeting votes in 2023 and is anticipated to begin in 2024.

(d)  Continued maintenance & improvement of remaining schools through prioritization within annual Capital Improvement Program projects.  For example, through the CIP, Town Meeting has funded a new roof at South Elementary, HVAC upgrades at High Plain & Wood Hill, improved drainage at Sanborn, and design work to consider office/security improvements at West Middle.

Additionally, the town facilities identified as highest priority in the MGT study - the Senior Center, Ballardvale Fire Station, and the Municipal Services building - have all been addressed.

Design for Andover High began in November 1963 and was originally built for grades 10 through 12 and 1,200 students. The building opened in February 1968.

The Collins Performing Arts Center was added in 1983. 9th grade was moved from the junior high level to Andover High in 1989.

In 1995, the AHS building was partially renovated and additional space was added in an attempt to house 1,500 students. Primary changes were: the addition of a science wing, a new entrance (the old entrance was where the cafeteria is now), addition of art classrooms, addition of the field house, and the Dunn gym and cafeteria were expanded.

Since 1963, standard for educational space – including general classroom size, special education space, and lab space – have changed. Based on today’s state standards, architects calculate the capacity of AHS is approximately 1,400 students. Enrollment has fluctuated between 1,647 and 1,806 in the past 20 years.

Andover High School is overcrowded. Based on current educational state standards, it is lacking in both number and size of classrooms, and in the types of space available.

According to MGT’s 2016 report, the school’s enrollment caused the space to rank as “inadequate” with a utilization rate of 117%. The MTG methodology was used to update the calculation in September 2023 (based on more current enrollment and additional space modifications made since 2016), and utilization was determined to be 108%. The pressure for space at this facility is predicted to increase.

Analysis by HMFH Architects shows 80 percent of Andover High’s core classrooms are smaller than the recommended 850 to 950 square feet, 72 percent of science classrooms are smaller than the recommended 1,000 to 1,400 square feet, and special needs space is only 53 percent of the recommended area.

Based on current standards used by the Mass School Building Authority (MSBA) for academic areas, the capacity of AHS is approximately 1,400 students. However, the school’s current enrollment stands near 1,700. Demographic projections show an increase to over 1,900 projected in the next twenty years.

Shared spaces are also too small or insufficient in number. The limited size of the current cafeteria and serving area requires four lunch periods, each with 450 students moving through tight spaces, complicating and disrupting class schedules. (For example, students with 2nd lunch will be in their fourth block class from 11:53 AM to 12:18 PM, then go the cafeteria for lunch, then return to that same fourth block class from 12:47 PM to 1:43 PM.)

The library is roughly half the size needed for the current enrollment, yet it has still been sub-divided to provide 5 additional programming spaces, including a makeshift engineering classroom.

About 25 rooms designed for other uses—including teacher workrooms and teacher dining areas—have been converted into classroom space, and remaining teacher resource areas are crowded and poorly distributed.

Advanced Placement classes have waiting lists every year, particularly in the sciences, because of insufficient classroom space to provide enough course sections to meet demand.

To accommodate student schedules, 75 percent of faculty members must shuttle among multiple classrooms each day with no appropriate space to prepare lessons, evaluate student work, store materials, or meet with students. Teachers are scattered throughout the building instead of being grouped by department, which impedes professional collaboration.

Small classrooms and inflexible furnishings limit instructional options and negate the opportunity for some educational services, including areas for hands-on experimentation and collaboration, for student projects that require extensive space to complete over a period of days or weeks, and for advanced-level classes that enroll small numbers of students. Students are turned away from some popular classes because the small, repurposed instructional areas cannot hold all the students who wish to enroll.

Other concerns: No fire sprinklers exist in 65 percent of the building, including the entire original building, the Dunn Gym and the Collins Center; the fire alarm is not audible in all areas; certain areas of the school are difficult to monitor for security; the site needs improvement for accessibility, traffic flow and avoidance of vehicular and pedestrian conflicts; mechanical systems—particularly those that support climate control—are ineffectual and beyond their usable life; windows are beginning to fail; the Collins Center floods periodically as a result of the high water table near the orchestra pit; water in the science labs is often unusable for experiments because of undesirable color and temperature; and there is an insufficient number of classroom/office electrical outlets, elevators (only one to serve the entire school), and accessible restroom facilities and other features that promote accessibility.

Andover High is at 108% utilization for 1,689 students enrolled for the 2023-24 school year.

Best practice is to design a high school at 85% utilization to allow scheduling flexibility and recognition not every available seat can be filled at every available time. With that in mind, Andover High is currently overcapacity by about 23%.

The Building Committee reviewed a detailed analysis from AHS Assistant Principal Scott Darlington at the 9/28/2023 AHS Building Committee meeting. It included floorplans of the building with indication of which spaces have student classes (red dots) and which are open for other uses such as teacher planning, collaboration or swing space (green dots) during each block of the school day.

The presentation is available here: https://andoverhighbuildingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AHS-SpaceUtilizaton-20230927.pdf

Analysis by HMFH Architects shows:

• 80% of Andover High’s core classrooms are smaller than the recommended 850 to 950 square feet
• 72% of science classrooms are smaller than the recommended 1,000 to 1,400 square feet
• Special needs space is only 53% of the recommended area

The 2023-24 school year enrollment at Andover High is slightly under 1,700 students; however, based on the current MSBA space summary template, the current school building is appropriately sized for approximately 1,400 students.

In addition to having too few classrooms, a majority of classroom spaces at AHS are undersized according to design standards. 80 percent of Andover High’s core classrooms are smaller than the recommended 850 to 950 square feet. 72 percent of science classrooms are smaller than the recommended 1,000 to 1,400 square feet.

In some classrooms, including those on the English Language Arts hallway, student desks physically touch each other on multiple sides in order to fit a class of up to 25 students. It is not uncommon to see students using hallways for group or project work because there is not enough space for collaboration within classrooms.

Teachers at AHS do not have dedicated spaces for their personal belongings, to plan lessons, or to collaborate with colleagues. Instead, they use a rotation of classrooms and share unscheduled rooms when available during planning time.

Many building spaces are unable to be used for their original purpose. Conference rooms, closets, and a copy room have been converted to classrooms, and some classrooms have been sub-divided from their original size. The media center has been retrofitted to support five learning spaces, making it difficult to function as a media center.

Additionally, the school has over 100 clubs, and robust music, theatrical & athletic programs, all of which compete for space during and after school.

The Andover High School Facility Study Committee was formed in January 2017 and spent several years conducting a preliminary feasibility study with the firm HMFH Architects. This work initially relied up on previous space studies undertaken for AHS.

The Committee’s goals were to explore options for building improvements in these interrelated areas:

1. Enhance safety and security
2. Eliminate overcrowding
3. Accommodate enrollment growth
4. Support educational program and delivery
5. Improve physical environment
6. Improve site use and campus circulation

During more than 50 community and public meetings, including weekly meetings with the architects, 9+ project options of varying scope were developed and considered. The options fell into three primary categories:

1. safety and security upgrade only, with ongoing significant maintenance
2. new addition plus major renovation of the existing school structure
3. new school building, with option to maintain the field house and Collins Center as community assets

The 9+ improvement strategies investigated by the Facility Study Committee are summarized in this presentation.

Importantly, the preliminary feasibility study did not find any option that minimally addressed both the educational delivery and the physical environment of the building for less than $100 million (in 2018 dollars).

No previous space or architectural study of Andover High had identified the extent of work required to modernize aspects of the facility that improve building systems and comfort. For example the work revealed that significant energy and HVAC improvements are only possible if both the mechanical systems and a large portion of the building exterior envelope are replaced, which alone would have cost more than $40 million back in 2018.

Additionally, this work helped to quantify the space in the current school versus modern standards, leading to the conclusion classrooms are too small in addition to being too few, and the types of spaces offered do not support modern best practices, including delivery of special education services.

In early 2022, the AHS Facility Study Committee recommended to the School Committee a Building Committee be formed to move the project toward design and construction.

The School Committee then voted to have the Town Manager create the Andover High School Building Committee, with the charge of developing plans for either (a) an addition and renovation of the existing high school or (b) a new high school. This came after the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) denied Andover’s request to help fund an Andover High project for the eighth time since 2008.

The Town Manager issued a solicitation to the community, conducted interviews, and ultimately selected a Building Committee comprised of a cross-section of Andover residents and other experts with construction, educational, and financial experience. The Building Committee began its work in the summer of 2022.

The climate control systems in Andover High are well maintained and actively managed, even earning Energy Star rating for the efficiency of current systems. However, these current systems rely on old technology and major components — including boilers and unit ventilators — that are reaching the end of useful life and need replacement.

HVAC experts have observed that meaningful replacement of Andover High’s aging climate control technology would best be supported by also upgrading other critical energy components. For example, almost all high school windows are drafty and do not sufficiently block UV light, allowing heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer.

But most notably, the current building is constructed of concrete with no insulation in the original exterior walls and with floors that create a “thermal bridge” by extending past the building façade, thereby drawing heat out of the building in the winter and increasing room temperatures in the warmer months. Replacing the extensive unit ventilator system without also addressing the building envelope of the original building would provide only very limited climate improvement.

Additionally, in each classroom, unit ventilators bring outside air into the building to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. When rooms are overcrowded, CO2 increases faster than heating elements can keep up with the airflow, resulting in cold outside air being blown into classrooms throughout the winter. The unit ventilators are also loud and distract from learning.

A facility project that simply replaces unit ventilators in-kind—rather than upgrading the heating technology and improving the building envelope—will bring a continuation of the same climate control problems, and may not even save money in the long run.

In addition to solving these problems, a modern climate system would bring an opportunity for replacing the unit ventilation system with a displacement air system similar to the system installed at Bancroft Elementary. This would increase comfort during shoulder seasons and allow year-round use of the building.

The town has a robust maintenance program and the Department of Facilities employs staff in the trades of carpentry, energy management, HVAC, painting, plumbing, masonry, security, electrical and fire systems. The department also manages maintenance and construction projects and uses in-house staff for many small construction projects throughout the schools.

At each school, custodians regularly perform minor repairs and preventive maintenance in addition to routine operations such as cleaning and stocking. Additionally, the town work control center has tradespeople on call around the clock to address repair needs, major equipment services, and acute problems.

Andover buildings are well maintained and run efficiently. We are not in need of facility improvements because of a lack of maintenance. Instead, renovations or additions are being considered because some buildings have passed their expected lifespans and/or exceed the enrollment for which they were designed, particularly as educational requirements and space standards have changed over time.

Yes, the high school will continue to be maintained and improved, particularly with respect to safety and security. As systems need repair, they will be replaced. Nothing will be left in a state of failure.

However, major capital projects—such as a request for new boilers—will be postponed until the community has settled on an upgrade path for Andover High.

Andover is one of the few communities in eastern Massachusetts that has not invested in a new high school or undergone a major renovation of an existing high school in the past 25 years.

For example, fairly new high schools can be found in the nearby communities of:
Belmont (opened 2023), Arlington (phase 1 2022), Pentucket Regional (2022), Somerville (2021), Saugus (2020), Billerica (2019), Minuteman Regional (2019), Winchester (2017), North Reading (2015), Wilmington (2015), Methuen (2014), Dracut (2014), Tewksbury (2012), Bedford (2008), Lawrence (2007), Reading (2007), Chelmsford (2006), Woburn (2006), and North Andover (2004).

Additionally, Lexington, Lowell, Revere, Salem (MA), Stoneham, Wakefield, Waltham, and Watertown are currently in various stages of building new high schools with MSBA partnership.

In May 2023, Town Meeting in Burlington approved money to fund a Feasibility Study to determine options for a town-funded high school project (without MSBA assistance).

Over the past 60 years, education has changed significantly. Not only are we providing high-quality programming and services for students with disabilities that require particular kinds of spaces, but the very nature of how we educate students has evolved. The curriculum has expanded to include such subjects as engineering, robotics, programming, and graphics that require space for specialized equipment, as well as space for student projects and for students to work in collaborative teams.

Most courses now integrate project-based learning and collaborative group work, requiring that classroom space be capable of being organized in different ways for changing activities. With a more personalized curriculum, schools require media centers and other areas where students can work either privately or in small groups on projects, online courses, and research.

In addition, a number of courses are now co-taught, integrating two subject areas such as English and social studies into American Studies and World Studies courses. Spaces to accommodate new teaching methodologies and new curricula are being designed into school construction. A new Andover High School would provide for an enriched and expanded curriculum and learning experience for students.

The existing Andover High School opened in 1968 and does not have the benefit of 21st century design. Best practices in education have changed significantly in the past 60 years. Modern design supports learning and pays attention to the physical environment including: acoustics (classrooms with low reverberation, low background noise, low noise HVAC systems, sound absorbing furnishings, etc.), access to natural light, use of healthy and natural materials, thermal comfort, high indoor air quality, and energy efficiency.

By contrast, the existing school has acoustical challenges due to loud mechanical systems (unit ventilators run frequently due to overcrowding/poor building envelope) and uninsulated concrete walls; lack of natural light (including in classrooms where shades are frequently drawn due to poor window quality); a lack of intentionally chosen materials; classrooms that are too warm in shoulder seasons and cold enough for students to wear coats indoors during winter.

The following image provides example of features commonly included in a 21st Century classroom:

The process to arrive at a single, preferred option took place over many years, relied on multiple space & facility studies undertaken by the town and school department, and had the benefit of work by the AHS Facility Study Committee prior to the establishment of the current Building Committee.

During the Feasibility Study phase, the Building Committee considered more than 11 different site approaches (3 addition/renovation schemes and 8 new construction), and gained feedback from the community and educators through meetings, forums, and an email survey. In March 2023, the final three options were narrowed and sent to professional estimators for preliminary pricing, which helped form the Building Committee's recommendation of a final preferred option.

During the Andover High School Building Committee Meeting on 4/6/2023, the Committee unanimously voted to recommend the new building (“Campus 2 with New Auditorium”) as the preferred option to proceed into Schematic Design. Reasons cited by the Committee for choosing this preferred option included:

• It is the most efficient building/site layout,
• Is the least disruptive to students,
• It has the shortest construction duration, and
• It was the least expensive of the final options

The Andover School Committee voted to accept this selection as the singe preferred option at their April 6, 2023 meeting, and the Andover Select Board also affirmed this preferred option at their June 12, 2023 meeting.

A more complete summary of the options explored and evolution of design options considered can be found on the Design Evolution webpage.

A demographic study was conducted in October 2017 by Cropper GIS, an outside company with expertise in school population projection. The analysis considered Andover-specific factors including housing turnover, community demographics, mobility rates, developable land and zoning. A report and presentation were delivered by the demographer, and a target enrollment for Andover High School construction was set at 1,900 students.

The AHS Building Committee again engaged Cropper GIS in 2022 to verify their prior analysis and produce an updated report. Cropper maintained their prior recommendation of a 1,900 student design enrollment for a building with a minimum life expectancy of 50 years. (It should be noted this update was complete prior to the state establishing a requirement for "multi family zoning' in communities with MBTA stops, including Andover.)

The Building Committee used the demographer analyses as a point of input in setting the design enrollment for the new building at 1,900 students. This figure became the foundation of the educational plan created by Andover Public Schools, which then guides the development of a space summary plan.

An 85% utilization rate is also factored into the 1,900 student space plan, which allows flexibility: Space cannot always be scheduled to take advantage of every seat in every class, a new building should not open at its maximum capacity, and there should be an allowance for progressive and future growth.

Ultimately, the Andover community will need to decide whether or not to fund the project brought forth by the Building Committee.

The Building Committee has the critical goal of gaining community feedback and adjusting the building proposal to best meet community needs and expectations.

In addition to attending building committee meetings and community forums, you are encouraged to reach out to members of the Building Committee and School Committee to provide your thoughts. Andover High School Facility Study Committee members may be contacted at: andoverhighbuildingproject@andoverma.us.

HMFH Architects was hired as the Project Designer; however, Andover Public School educators will define the design intent, with input from the appropriate town department and entities (including public safety), and with feedback from the public.

Results of the community survey were reviewed during the April 6, 2023 AHS Building Committee meeting. Please refer to slides 3 through 13 of this presentation. The AHS Building Committee conducted the survey in order to better understand the priorities of the public beyond those who have attended walkthroughs, meetings, and forums. The AHS Building Committee used the survey results in considering their decision to recommend the preferred option at the conclusion of Feasibility Study.

During the Feasibility Study phase, several Sustainability Charettes were conducted to define sustainability goals for the project, and additional areas to explore during Schematic Design including use of a heavy-timber structure in place of steel, and upgrades to standard mechanical systems.

The project team has been advised to design to the standards of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Green Schools Program Policy LEED-Silver at a minimum while exceeding the level of energy efficiency required in the current MA Energy Code by 20% using the LEED-Silver Optimize Energy Performance credit submittal (per Andover Public Schools New Construction standard).

No. The field house would remain in the new building plan. However, because the current building would be demolished, the area where it connects to the field house will need to be addressed. This will include constructing a new entrance and adding restroom facilities (as required by code for a public facility).

Yes. The Collins Center is an important school and community asset, and there was particular consideration given to ways to update and improve the facility. But ultimately the Committee determined a renovation would cost more than a new build, and would still not provide all the benefits of a modern performing arts facility.

The Collins Center was built in 1983 and is now more than 40 years old. It underwent partial renovation in 1995 and the exterior was partially renovated in 2017. It is 38,930 square feet, 3+ levels, and houses 1,200 seats. The site and building location - which is within the wetland setback - bring challenges including restrictions at the entrance and to parking areas.

The design team has met with educators and staff who work in the Collins Center and others who use the space to identify areas that would benefit from improvement. Those include: Extensive upgrades are required to mechanical HVAC systems to improve air quality, energy efficiency, and acoustics; fire protection sprinklers need upgrades; house seating has limited ADA accessibility, an elevator would be required if the Collins Center were standalone; the orchestra pit floods; performance acoustics need improvement; there is no backstage area and performers need to enter the house or go outside to get stage-left to stage-right; community use impacts curricular programming due to space limitations (the AHS band room becomes a changing room for outside groups); lobby space is limited; circulation is crowded even at limited capacity; restroom facilities are insufficient; ticket purchase obstructs entry; control rooms and follow-spot positions need renovation.

Stakeholders have also provided feedback on elements of modern auditoriums that would benefit AHS students and the larger community. Those include: full accessibility at front, middle and back of house, as well as in control room; tunable acoustics for theatrical and musical use; unobstructed sight-lines; lack of mechanical noise; cross-house aisles behind the stage; balcony with last row closer to the stage; creation of more intimate space even within a large theater.

The project team also worked with Collins Center staff to identify usage rates. It was determined a 1,000 seat auditorium is an appropriate size to meet the needs of the school and community.

Floor plans and layout continue to evolve through Schematic Design, but the intention is provide amenities including instrument storage space, music practice rooms, theater changing and makeup spaces, prop and stage design space, and accessibility for loading equipment in and out of the building. The school is also being designed to include a black-box theater, which will support performing arts but also provide collaboration space for other academic or community functions.

Though the current science wing is the newest part of the facility, it is in poor condition and does not provide sufficient learning space. In each addition/renovation scheme explored through Feasibility Design, the science wing was replaced as part of the building solution.

Problems identified with the science wing interior include: all classrooms are undersized, not all science classrooms have water and/or other elements needed for lab work, there are accessibility issues in the classrooms, piping is corroded and leaks throughout the wing, room fixtures need to be replaced, emergency showers are insufficient, and the wing has inadequate temperature controls.

Problems with the exterior of the science wing include:  repairs required to exterior walls for waterproofing and masonry sealing, expansion joint needs to be added, location restricts access to outdoor courtyard, walls and roof require thermal envelope upgrade for code compliance.

Additionally, the science wing is sited in the back southwest corner, up against a hillside, resulting in security and circulation challenges.

 

Inclusion of a parking structure was considered to free up space on the site for additional program elements. The option was dismissed for cost reasons.

The existing site is 87 acres total. Wetlands take up 23 acres plus 6 acres of setbacks. The high school and middle school facilities occupy 8 acres. Athletic facilities are 24 acres, surface parking is 5.8 acres, and the hill/ledge is 2.3 acres. This leaves approximately 17.9 remaining acres including access and roadways, and the project seeks to maximize use of this space.

500 spaces would take up approximately 1 acre with a garage versus 4 acres of surface parking. These 3 saved acres is approximately equal to the size of 1 varsity baseball field.

A parking structure could have also provided additional potential benefits including:

• covered parking for staff
• opportunity for additional solar panel coverage
• value to community in optimizing the site layout
• less area for snow removal and salt/sand distribution
• less impervious space on site, resulting in better rainwater infiltration and fewer impacts from solar "heat island" effects

The idea of a parking garage was dropped from consideration when the preliminary feasibility design estimates put the cost at more than $43 million.

Space constraints made a return to in-person learning extremely difficult at AHS as our community was emerging from the COVID pandemic in 2021. Classrooms were not large enough to provide the state-required 4' of space between student desks, cafeteria space was limited so gyms were used for lunch, small desks needed to be procured and large desks were placed in storage, and core academic classes were taking place in non-traditional space such as the field house.

A new building would improve those issues because it would have:

• The right number of educational spaces
• Larger instructional spaces
• Flexible furniture
• Improved mechanical systems (ventilation)
• Breakout learning areas
• Larger cafeteria
• Intentional areas for outdoor learning opportunities

The Andover High School project is currently in the Schematic Design phase, where a single, preferred option (determined during the Feasibility Study phase) is developed to sufficient detail to determine the project scope, budget, and schedule.

The building project is currently in the Schematic Design phase, where a single preferred option (determined during Feasibility Study) is developed to sufficient detail to determine the project scope, budget, and schedule.

Schematic Design began in July 2023. Funding for Phase 1 was provided through votes of Town Meeting, and carries through to the end of September 2023.

In August 2023, the AHS Building Committee sent a request to the Select Board to call a Special Town Meeting where voters could consider approving $1.3 million to complete Schematic Design (Phase 2). The Building Committee had anticipated this Special Town Meeting would coincide with the end of Phase 1 funding in September.

Instead, the Select Board has called a series of "Quad Board" meetings (Select Board, Finance Committee, School Committee, and AHS Building Committee) to gain additional information about the project impact, including one on 9/27/2023 to hear financial information and one on 10/18/2023 to hear educational information.   The Select Board has not determined when they may vote on the Building Committee's August request for a Special Town Meeting for consideration of $1.3 million to complete schematic design.

However, once work is continued, it will take an approximately 5 months to complete Schematic Design, and include: continued building massing and floor plan evolution; decision on a mechanical system (refrigerant flow, source heat pump or geothermal); choice of sustainable irrigation approach (rainwater harvesting or groundwater wells); whether to use an enclosed walkway (for security or comfort) between the field house and building; and if sports lighting should be included on the plateau field. Each of these decisions allow room for public participation and feedback to allow the project to reflect the needs of the community.

At the conclusion of Schematic Design (targeting Spring 2024), the project will go through another round of cost estimating with the benefit of a detailed scope.

That refined cost estimate will be available to the community for consideration prior to town votes for construction funding, which will require two-thirds (66+%) positive vote at a Town Meeting AND majority (50+%) positive vote at a ballot box vote.

The following milestones need to be met for the project to proceed to construction:

1. Vote at Special Town Meeting: Authorization of $1.3 million to complete Phase 2 of Schematic Design

Date TBD (had been anticipated for September 2023 to coincide with the end of phase 1 funding). The Select Board has not determined when they may vote on the Building Committee's August request for a Special Town Meeting. Please stay tuned.

2. Complete Schematic Design

This will include: continued building massing and floor plan evolution; decision on a mechanical system (refrigerant flow, source heat pump or geothermal); choice of sustainable irrigation approach (rainwater harvesting or groundwater wells); whether to use an enclosed walkway (for security or comfort) between the field house and building; if sports lighting should be included on the plateau field, and other decisions that will allow the project to reflect the needs of the community.

3. Production of Schematic Design-Level Drawings & Specifications

These design documents are far further refined than available through Feasibility Study, and will define structural, mechanical, electrical, fire protection systems; materials; floor plans; and a developed site design.

4. Independent Construction Estimates Determined & Reconciled

Two different, independent, third-party construction cost estimators are hired by the Owner Project Manager and Architect. Their independent estimates are reconciled against one another to verify a consistent understanding of project scope, and any variance in costs are rationalized to within industry standards.

5. Project Budget is Set

The reconciled construction estimate from the Architect (estimator of record), establishes the total project budget.

6. Vote at Town Meeting: First Required Authorization of Full Project Funding

Date TBD. This will require a positive vote by two-thirds (66+%) of voters physically in attendance at Town Meeting.

7. Vote at Ballot Box: Second Required Authorization of Full Project Funding

Date TBD. This will require a positive vote by a majority (50+%) of voters during a town-wide paper ballot election.

Short answer:

The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) provides statewide baseline standards for space in projects in which they partner. Though AHS is not partnered with the MSBA, the AHS project team has used those metrics as a baseline, and has continuously compared design progress against those standards.

It is not uncommon for projects across the state to exceed MSBA baseline space, as is the case with the proposed AHS project. The MSBA process allows room for districts to discuss and justify amounts above the baseline, and communities have an opportunity to exceed guidelines to accommodate Educational Plan and town-use requirements, which are specific to each individual school.

That said, APS educators and the architects continue to work to refine proposed space where feasible by consolidating programs. As of September 2023, the building has size been reduced by 22,350 to lower costs by approximately $17.35 million. Two-thirds of current overage is attributed to community use spaces including the existing field house and proposed 1,000 seat auditorium.

Longer answer:

It is common practice on all Massachusetts K-12 school projects for the design team to look to the MSBA space summary standards template as a baseline for space planning. The MSBA template is an Excel spreadsheet that displays the starting point for MSBA eligibility by program area (General Classrooms, Physical Education, etc.) depending on design enrollment and grade level. The spreadsheet includes three sections of columns that compare (1) existing conditions to (2) proposed spaces and (3) MSBA guidelines.

On an MSBA project, educators and the project team would justify any overages beyond baseline using the school's Educational Plan and other requirements set for town-use. It is a normal part of the process for the MSBA to consider reasons to accept spaces beyond the baseline, and they weigh this in determining what overall space will qualify for grant reimbursement. As just one example, it is common for the MSBA to accept district calculations for what is needed for special education programming, even when exceeding MSBA baseline space.

As it relates to the AHS project, the MSBA space summary template has been used throughout design phases, and space continues to be refined in Schematic Design. All required Educational Plan programmatic requirements and Town functions have been reflected in the preliminary building design.

Approximately 22,350 gross square feet of reductions have been found (equating to cost reduction of approximately $17.35 million), while will still providing sufficient support of the Educational Plan. Additionally, the Building Committee reviewed estimates showing the building size could be reduced by roughly 6,300 net square feet by changing the design enrollment from 1,900 students to 1,800 students, at a cost savings of approximately $7.6 million. The Committee declined this option on June 14, 2023.

In the proposed AHS project, 25,000 gross square feet is allocated to use of mechanical space on the building's roof, which is not included in MSBA space baselines. Two-thirds of the remaining space above baseline is related to community use of the building. Specifically:

• 45% is due to the existing Field House (MSBA projects never include field house space)
• 13% is due to the proposed 1,000 seat auditorium (which will aid in replacing Collins Center functions)
• 5% is due to AndoverTV (which has been part of the AHS facility since the 1980s and provides student curricular programming)

The remaining overages are either directly educational or educational support spaces, and were explained in depth at public meetings of the Building Committee. A summary of the space plan and explanation of overage areas can be found in this Building Committee meeting presentation.

If project funding is approved by Andover voters in early 2024 (targeting February or March 2024), the tentative construction timeline calls for:

• Construction to begin in Summer 2025
• Academic building to be completed in Fall 2028, at which time students and faculty would move into the new building
• Renovations to take place at the existing Field House (adding a new entrance and installing restrooms, for example), and site improvements (parking, roadways, fields) to be conducted
• Full project to be completed in Summer 2030

This timeline is preliminary and will be further evaluated once a Construction Manager or General Contractor is engaged for the project.

Current cost estimates are from March 2023, when the project was in the Feasibility Study phase. Feasibility Study estimates are always preliminary and they are largely based on total gross floor area and amount of time required for construction, and escalated using industry standard multipliers to an assumed construction date.

At the Feasibility Study level, in March 2023, the base project cost was estimated at roughly $480.8 million.

Since that time, the project has moved into Schematic Design, and the project scope is becoming more refined. Significant items have been discussed and either removed (such as building square footage) or added (such as turf on the plateau playing field) to the project.

As of September 2023, the base project cost based on Feasibility Design cost estimates was roughly $451.4 million. (See the news post here for more detail.)

The process of project development will continue throughout Schematic Design, and estimated cost will continue to change along with project scope. Some of the more significant scope considerations are itemized here.

At the conclusion of Schematic Design, detailed design documents will be sent to two different, independent, third-party construction cost estimators. That process will establish the total project budget for consideration of approval by Andover voters.

The mechanical system carried in the base project and Feasibility Study cost estimate is a highly-efficient variable refrigerant flow system.

The Building Committee intends to consider the pros/cons of upgrading that base mechanical system to a more energy efficient system: either an air source heat pump or geothermal system. Based on preliminary cost estimates, the increased up-front cost would be approximately $17,341,000 for an air source heat pump system or $41,832,000 for geothermal.

A life-cycle cost analysis will be performed by the design team to help the Committee understand the benefit of making this up-front investment. For each system, that will include operation and maintenance costs over the life of the building, as well as potential incentives/rebates.

Additional benefits associated with the geothermal mechanical system include: -  Renewable energy system (decreases use of fossil fuels) -  High energy efficiency – lowest energy use -  Lowest operating and maintenance costs -  Typically lowest life-cycle cost (considering incentives) -  Lowest future equipment replacement costs -  Highest Mass Save utility incentives -  Only HVAC option with Federal Tax Credit incentives through the new Clean Energy Tax Credits -  Decreased use of refrigerants

Yes, minimizing disruption to education at both the West Middle School and the existing high school has been a goal of the AHS Building Committee. The community has provided significant feedback and lessons learned from the 1995 AHS project, which was conducted while the building was occupied. When comparing multiple building schemes during the Feasibility Study phase, disruption was a criteria included in the criteria matrix.

The footprint of the proposed new school is entirely outside of the existing school. This will help minimize disruption because it: allows the current school to remain operational during construction of the new building, minimizes construction time, and does not require relocation of students to swing or modular space (which also saves money).

That said, construction impacts are always present while building on an occupied site. The project team anticipates working with a Construction Manager to minimize disturbance through pre-construction services including analysis of the phasing, scheduling, site access/logistics, and sequence the work. The construction team will also look to mitigation of typical construction impacts to school operations such as noise, vibrations, dust and traffic.

The HMFH design team includes the following:

• general architecture,
• educational planners,
• furniture/fixtures/equipment consultants,
• code consultant,
• security consultant,
• acoustical engineer,
• civil engineer,
• data/communications engineer,
• environmental permitting,
• fire protection engineer,
• geotechnical engineer,
• mechanical engineer,
• electrical/lighting engineer,
• plumbing engineer,
• structural engineer,
• traffic engineers,
• landscape architects,
• hazardous materials consultants,
• kitchen/food service consultant,
• technology consultant,
• theatrical consultant,
• specification writers,
• site surveyors, and
• construction cost estimators

More info about HMFH Architects and projects they have designed can be found on their website: https://www.hmfh.com/

Short answer:
At the conclusion of the Schematic Design phase.

Longer answer:
A single, preferred option is determined during the Feasibility Study phase, and this option is developed in much further detail during Schematic Design. Specifically, Schematic Design will produce design documents that define floor plans; structural, mechanical, electrical, fire protection systems; materials; and a developed site design.

These design documents are then sent to multiple, third-party, professional estimators. Their independent estimates are reconciled against one another to verify a consistent understanding of project scope, and any variance in costs are rationalized to within industry standards. This process arrives at a total project budget for consideration of approval by Andover voters.

For an explanation of cost estimates made available during Feasibility Study (which were based on March 2023 gross-square-foot estimates) and for a snapshot of Schematic Design cost considerations, refer to this September 7, 2023 news update.

Short answer:

No. Calculated to the same start date, which takes into account normal construction cost escalation, the AHS project is middle-of-the-pack compared to other high school projects.

Longer answer:

Costs for all building projects are significantly impacted by normal and expected cost escalation. For example, the average cost for Massachusetts school building projects was $275 per square foot in 2010 and is now more than $700 square feet, which is an average annual increase of about 7.5% over the last 13 years.

To get close to an apples-to-apples comparison between projects, the cost for each project should be brought to the same “GMP date” which is the date on which the project is sent out to bid and a Guaranteed Maximum Price can be set for construction.

When the proposed Andover High project was sent to professional estimators for Feasibility Study cost estimates (March 2023, based simply on gross square foot), the GMP date was December 2025, and the cost estimates include escalation reflecting that.

At that point, the base AHS project was roughly $810 per square foot.

Bringing other recent high school projects to the same December 2025 GMP date calculates costs as follows:

Revere High, $1,002/SF
Stoneham High, $990/SF
Nashoba Regional High, $939/SF
Waltham High, $930/SF
Wakefield High, $902/SF
West Elementary (PreK-5), $815/SF
Watertown High, $804/SF
Prouty High, $770/SF
Arlington High, $768/SF
Nauset Regional High, $730/SF
Northeast Metro VT High, $674/SF
Diman Regional High, $659/SF
Bristol Plymouth Regional High, $628/SF


(This information was presented and discussed at Building Committee meetings including the one on March 30, 2023. The square foot info is on slide 13 of that presentation: https://andoverhighbuildingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-30-SBC-Meeting-Cost-Presentation-FINAL-with-Revisions.pdf )

In looking at this chart from the MSBA - which does not include escalation to December 2025 - we can see the trajectory of price per square foot is up-and-to-the-right: https://info.massschoolbuildings.org/TabPub/TableauCostData.aspx

It is not surprising the most recently built school, in general, will have the highest cost-per-square-foot, but it will likely hold that dubious title only until the next school is built.

At this stage of the project, it is hard to come up with a precise answer to tax impact because there are still big unknowns, most notably:

1. The building design isn't complete and so we do not know the project cost, and
2. The tax impact will have a lot to do with interest rates at the time the money is borrowed, which would happen in multiple chunks during construction.

That said, we can model various scenarios, and last March the Town Manager presented tax information to the Building Committee assuming a $480.8 million building price (which was a base cost estimated during Feasibility Study) and borrowing rates between 3% and 5%.

With those assumption, the estimated annual property tax increase for a house of average value of between $1,740 borrowing at 3% and $2,215 borrowing at 5%.

The Schematic Design phase, which began in July 2023, allows scrutiny of important aspects of the building which will impact cost.

Looking at a September 2023 snapshot, the total estimated cost of the project has declined from roughly $480 million in March to roughly $452 million based on decisions made in public discussions by the Building Committee. An additional $83,988,000 of potential adds has also been eliminated from consideration since the start of Schematic Design.

The most significant factor in building cost is size. APS educators and the project architects continue to look at the proposed space program, consolidating programs where feasible. Between March and September 2023, the building has size been reduced by 22,350 square feet to lower costs by approximately $17.35 million.

The news update here provides more information on cost estimates: https://andoverhighbuildingproject.org/news/explanation-of-cost-estimates-latest-snapshot/

And the webpage here describes significant decisions made and items under consideration during Schematic Design that will impact cost: https://andoverhighbuildingproject.org/design/schematic-design/

The design team is working to lower project costs where feasible in additional areas as the design develops. For example, development of the site grading has allowed the landscape architect to remove multiple sets of retaining walls from the site design, lowering anticipated cost.

Ultimately, the Schematic Design phase will produce much more specific design documents than available during Feasibility Study, including those which define: floor plans; structural, mechanical, electrical, fire protection systems; materials; and a site design.

With the project more firmly defined, Schematic Design will conclude with a cost estimating exercise to establish the total project budget for consideration of approval by Andover voters. Even after that point, the Committee can identify and approve further potential cost savings opportunities.

Yes, a meaningful improvement project could be delayed. However, even a “do nothing” option has financial cost since the existing facility requires upgrades to stay even minimally functional.

At the 6/14/2023 AHS Building Committee meeting, Janet Nicosia (Director of Facilities for the Town of Andover), gave a presentation of deferred maintenance and the “do nothing” option. The information was compiled by outside consultant NV5 and others to describe existing conditions at AHS.

Cost estimates were shown for various items in need of repair or replacement including:

• Mechanical system replacements (no enhancements): $5 million
• ADA compliance: $3.9 million in 2017, likely almost double now
• Sprinkler system: $3 million
• Roof replacement (warrantee expires 2028): $7-8 million
• Modulars to relieve overcrowding: $10 million
• Deferred maintenance (school site requests): $10 million
• Energy code (no price estimate)
• Flooring (no price estimate)
• Restrooms (no price estimate)
• Abatement (no price estimate)

 

It was explained that it is difficult to forecast exactly what will be needed and when, and that it is difficult to predict if or how required upgrades could trigger requirements for further upgrades. For example, investing 30% of the building’s assessed value into improvements would trigger a need to meet current code, so sprinklers may not become optional and/or ADA & building/energy code updates would be required.  

The presentation from the 6/14/2023 AHS Building Committee meeting is available here.

In general, significant facility projects are funded by the town through a debt exclusion. In this process, voters give the town permission to borrow money outside the limitations of Massachusetts Proposition 2½, and taxes are increased to pay back the loan during the term of repayment (usually 30 years).

The town would ask voters for this approval in two separate forums: first at Town Meeting (which requires 2/3 affirmative vote to pass) and then by holding a ballot box vote (which requires a simple majority). Both votes would need to pass in order to approve the debt exclusion.

Separately, more modest facility improvements are made through the town's annual Capital Improvement Program. Each year voters at Town Meeting consider funding school upgrades including restroom renovations, painting projects, flooring repairs, security installations, window replacements, and other projects identified and prioritized by the school and facility departments.

Yes, the spending threshold where improvements trigger full code compliance is under $6 million. At that point, full code compliance will be required at a cost of more than $100 million.

AHS valuation is approximately $18 million (due in part because of limited alternate uses of the building), and if the current building undergoes improvements valued at more than 30% of the building's assessed value, the entire building needs to be brought up to current code. This includes improving significant accessibility and safety aspects that are currently exempted because they were installed under legacy laws.

Like-for-like replacements are not considered improvements, but most other changes count toward the threshold. For example, replacement of the existing beyond-useful-life mechanical systems (unit ventilators and boilers) for an estimated $7 million to $8 million would not count as improvements toward the threshold. However, spending an estimated $2 million on security improvements would count.

Short answer:

There is no financial benefit to continuing to delay a high school project in the hope of being accepted into the MSBA program.

Longer answer:

The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is a government authority that assists in the funding of capital improvement projects for Massachusetts public schools. The MSBA grant program is highly competitive, and selects only a small subset of schools requesting partnership each year.

In order to obtain entry into the MSBA program, a city/town/school district is required to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) for the intended school(s) needing assistance and listing among many things, the building deficiencies, current/projected enrollments, impacts to educational delivery, etc. Importantly, SOI submissions do not propose a solution for a school project (addition, renovation, or new school). Instead, the preferred approach is determined in conjunction with the MSBA through a feasibility study.

The MSBA then reviews each SOI application and decides which projects are accepted into the MSBA’s Eligibility Period, which a the year-long process in which towns/cities/districts are required to establish a school building committee and secure local funding approval for a feasibility study.

SOIs are evaluated based on priority criteria set in Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 70B Section 8.  Priority 1 is for schools which are "structurally unsound or otherwise in a condition seriously jeopardizing the health and safety of school children" and both Bancroft and West Elementary were accepted as Priority 1 projects.  Andover High School has been submitted to the MSBA for Priority 2 (eliminate severe overcrowding), Priority 4 (prevent severe overcrowding expected to result from increased enrollment), and Priority 7 (replace or add to obsolete buildings in order to provide for a full range of programs). Andover High SOIs have been denied eight times by the MSBA between 2008 and 2021.

After the latest rejection, and with acceptance of West Elementary School into the MSBA pipeline, the town believes Andover High School will not be accepted until at least after the West Elementary School is completed and closed out (projected for 2026) at the earliest. Even then, acceptance from the MSBA is not guaranteed.

In review of the estimated costs of a 100% town-funded project versus waiting until at least 2026 in the hopes of MSBA grant participation, town and school administration determined a town-funded project will be less expensive to Andover taxpayers than delaying the project. This includes analysis of the following: continued/potentially increasing maintenance costs, increase in design/construction costs due to normal and expected escalation, continued impacts to student learning, and diminishing effective MSBA reimbursement rates.

An additional financial analysis conducted by the Town Manager's office in September 2023 affirmed the town's share of an MSBA project would be higher than a town-funded high school project given: (a) the unlikelihood of being accepted by the MSBA prior to West Elementary closeout, (b) scenarios around normal, expected construction escalation, and (c) an environment where MSBA percent reimbursement continues to decline. You can find that analysis beginning on slide 10 of the September 2023 Quad Board presentation.

This is not a written MSBA policy; however, the project team has reviewed every individual city/town in Massachusetts within the MSBA Project database and aside from Boston, there are two other communities that appear to have two active core (non-accelerated roof/boiler repair projects) each: Lawrence & Springfield. Both cities have the MSBA-maximum 80% reimbursement rate for their projects. There are no Towns within the state with multiple active core projects (as of this writing in early Oct 2023).

Cost estimates are determined by multiple, independent, third-party, professional estimators twice during design phases: once during Feasibility Study and the second after Schematic Design.

In each phase, two independent estimates are rationalized against one another to verify estimators each have a consistent understanding of project scope, and any cost variances are reconciled to within industry standards.

For Feasibility Study figures, estimators rely on current cost-per-square-foot standards plus appropriate markups for: contingency (construction, design, and pricing), cost escalation, insurance, general conditions, temporary costs, and other construction manager requirements/fees. These preliminary estimates inform high-level decision making by providing information to compare multiple options against each other.

During Schematic Design, a single preferred option has been developed to sufficient detail to provide an overall cost estimate. That detail includes specification in structural, mechanical, electrical, fire protection systems; material selections; floor plans; and a developed site design.

The Schematic Design phase concludes with the second, more detailed cost estimating exercise. It involves deconstructing cost estimates, and discussing quantity takeoffs and unit prices of each building component. This cost estimate is used to determine the total project budget, which will be brought to Andover voters for consideration of approval.

Yes. Metrics for consideration included: the potential year(s) in which AHS could be accepted to the MSBA program, the reimbursement rate Andover is likely to see from the MSBA in that year, increase costs due to construction escalation while waiting for MSBA acceptance, and overall cost to Andover taxpayers in these scenarios.

It is unlikely AHS will be accepted to the highly competitive MSBA program until at least after the West Elementary School is completed and closed out (projected for 2026) at the earliest. Even then, acceptance from the MSBA is difficult.

Town and school administration determined a 100% town-funded project will be less expensive to Andover taxpayers than delaying the project. This includes analysis of the following: continued/potentially increasing maintenance costs, increase in design/construction costs due to normal and expected escalation, continued impacts to student learning, and diminishing effective MSBA reimbursement rates.

An additional financial analysis conducted by the Town Manager's office in September 2023 affirmed the town's share of an MSBA project would be higher than a town-funded high school project given: (a) the unlikelihood of being accepted by the MSBA prior to West Elementary closeout, (b) scenarios around normal, expected construction escalation, and (c) an environment where MSBA percent reimbursement continues to decline. You can find that analysis beginning on slide 10 of the September 2023 Quad Board presentation.

Andover High School is not only a school, but also a community center that hosts arts, athletics and community education events. The high school is used seven days a week from early morning until late in the evening and accommodates many community functions. A facility that can support an array of community activities adds value to all the residents in a community.

In addition, the quality of education in a community has a direct impact on the attractiveness of the community to homebuyers and, as a result, on the property value of homes. Families desiring to send their children to high-performing schools are able to choose among communities. A critical factor in that choice is the physical condition and attractiveness of the schools that children will attend. Because all children in Andover will attend Andover High School (unless they choose a private school), homebuyers and the community as a whole have a strong interest in the conditions at Andover High School. Therefore, maintenance of school facilities is a valuable investment that provides a return to everyone in the community.

Research shows that the physical condition of the learning environment has a strong influence on student performance. Conditions such as temperature control, ventilation, lighting, and sufficiency of space are factors that affect learning. To maintain the high quality of performance Andover has achieved and to sustain the attractiveness of its schools in comparison to surrounding communities, it is essential that Andover’s school facilities provide sufficient space for current educational programming as well as physical conditions that support high-quality learning.