The Pollard project schematic design was given a thumbs up at the July 29 meeting of the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s Facilities Assessment Subcommittee, all but finalizing the project’s design.
Several MSBA members expressed appreciation for improvements made during the schematic design phase, noting the price of the project decreased even as the building’s square footage increased — thanks to a majority of construction being accelerated to Phase One.
“Even with the cost constraints [these changes] did not compromise the building design, and in fact developed it further and improved it,” said architect and MSBA member Anne Brockelman. “So, great job, design team.”
Long-time MSBA member and educator Terry Kwan noted the number of changes made to the Pollard project as it entered the most recent design phase. “Of all the projects we’ve looked at over the years, this is the one that’s had the most changes following the [feasibility study] and moving to schematic design,” she said. “But I think the changes are very thoughtful, done well.”
Town officials will meet with MSBA staff again in a non-public meeting Aug. 3 to discuss the project’s scope and budget — a meeting that will give the town an idea of what is and isn’t reimbursable, ahead of the MSBA Board’s Aug. 26 meeting to vote on project funding.
Doing the math: Pollard options presented side by side
Those involved in planning the new building have already begun to shift messaging around the Pollard project to better reflect where the project currently sits in the MSBA process.
Communication to-date has largely centered around project decisions and designs. Now that the design is submitted and unalterable apart from minor tweaks, School Committee chair Alisa Skatrud said the focus will shift to the potential benefits of building the new school, and the consequences of choosing not to.
Those consequences, she said, include investing more than $100 million in repairs and code upgrades for the current Pollard building — a Band-Aid approach that would not qualify for MSBA reimbursement, solve long-term program needs or fix the shortfalls of Pollard and High Rock buildings.
Failure to approve a debt exclusion override for a new Pollard building would also raise the cost of a new Mitchell school, Skatrud said, by requiring the construction of a temporary modular school for students during that project — a function that could be provided by a vacant High Rock building.
Not that the new building will be inexpensive. “We cannot gloss over the fact that, if you add up those numbers every year for the length of the bonds that are forecasted, it is a big-dollar amount, no matter who you are in this town and the value of your home,” said School Committee member Andrea Longo Carter in a July 13 meeting. “It is a lot of money, and so we need to be convincing the community that spending this money to get this project is better than the alternative.”
In a community meeting July 22, Skatrud compared the cost of current project plans — totaling $325.4 million — to the cost of base repairs and code upgrades for the existing Pollard and High Rock schools, which would total $251.2 million. “I promised you math, here it is,” she said.
Of the $251.2 million projected for base repairs, around $152.2 million would be used for Pollard repairs and code upgrades, $59 million for a 21,000-square-foot addition to High Rock (per Master Plan requirements) and $40 million for a temporary Mitchell school.
“The [Pollard] building, to do any work at all at this point, would need to be built with new fire and safety codes,” said Skatrud. “It would need sprinklers, it would need the roof replaced, the windows would be replaced … some of the ADA compliance issues would be tackled, some of the mechanical, electrical and secure-influence systems, and the modulars that are here right now need to be taken down.”
The $251 million estimate does not account for the rising costs of modulars, future costs of replacing modulars, contingency or site work, said Skatrud. Repairs and upgrades to Pollard would also require a debt exclusion override, and could take up to 10 years to complete.
“I think there is sometimes a sense in the community that if [a new Pollard building] doesn’t go through then we will save all that money — which is not the case, right?” said School Committee member Liz Lee. “It will cost us a lot of money and it will come with an extra-heavy dose of angst for the town government, for us and for parents.”
Ramping up efforts to connect with residents
School Committee members have expressed concern about the effectiveness of messaging around Pollard.
Up to this point, Pollard updates have primarily been shared with residents via the project website, community open houses, tours and community meetings. Lee, who has attended most of the community meetings, asked the committee to reevaluate their current methods of sharing information.
“The way our forums have run is that there’s a slideshow and a presentation and discussing information,” she said. “The fact that the same questions are coming up again makes me think, as an educational body, maybe we should be trying to present information in different ways. Because for some segment of the population, the way we’re presenting it is not working.”
“I’ll put my money where my mouth is, if people want,” Lee joked. “We can have some nice hands-on content: masking tape, straws, index cards, build-your-own-Pollard.”
While there were no build-your-own-Pollard craft items at the July 22 community meeting, there were handouts with QR codes to project resources. Unlike past community meetings, the presentation shared few design details, instead highlighting base repair costs, MSBA school construction costs and the projected tax impact on residents. The meeting began with a virtual walk-through of the existing Pollard facility, narrated by Pollard educators and students, highlighting the building’s history and deficiencies.
Community feedback on July 22 was more positive than in past meetings, with parents, educators — and a current student — voicing their support for project plans. Several residents expressed appreciation for the emphasis on Special Education spaces. Questions largely revolved around the impact of future construction.
“I’m a recent retired principal from a neighboring community, of a middle school, and I am so envious of these plans,” said Ann Dever-Keegan, former principal of Dover Sherborn Middle School. “I mean, this is dreamy, what this could potentially mean for students, and I speak for so many middle schools that would love to have this.”
According to a show of hands, around six of the 60-some residents present were first-time attendees.
Gutekanst noted the School Committee will be increasing the number of open houses this fall in an effort to better connect with the community. Two open houses will be held per Skatrud’s recommendation, currently scheduled for Sept. 19 and Oct. 17. “At that time we’ll do some more tours of the building,” he added. “Summertime’s a difficult time to tour, because the building’s kind of taken apart right now for cleaning.”
Before summer’s end, Needham residents will be given another chance to engage in Pollard discussions. The next community meeting is set for Aug. 26 — the same day the MSBA is expected to approve schematic designs.
Save as PDF