School Board Postpones Recommendation On Hawley Project

By Eliza Hallabeck

After hearing a presentation, the Board of Education decided during its special meeting on Monday, August 20, to postpone a recommendation on an estimated $12.6 million project that would replace boilers at Hawley School and complete related infrastructure work.

Charles Boos of Kaestle Boos Associates and Public Building and Site Commission Chair Bob Mitchell were present during the meeting to discuss the project.

“When we were given the project by the Board of Selectmen,” said Mr Mitchell, “our task was to look over all of the previous documentation that was done on Hawley, review that in light of anything new that has come up; some of it was quite outdated.”

Mr Mitchell went on to explain his commission tasked Kaestle Boos with looking into all the infrastructure issues at Hawley, the related projects that would bring the areas in the project up to American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, reworking the planned phases of the project, “and on top of that put together as complete and as realistic of a budget as we can do taking the information that is available, well past what previous studies have done.”

The original plan, Mr Boos explained, would have had the project completed in three phases, with the first phase replacing the entire boiler system, the second phase renovating the school for heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC), and the third phase completing the entire project. Mr Boos said it was decided by Kaestle Boos that it would be better to complete the project with the three phases divided into the three sections of the school instead.

Mr Boos said there are four boilers in use in the building, and one is 100 years old. “It’s difficult to maintain in the 21st Century, because of a lack of skilled people who can handle steam systems,” said Mr Boos.

Phase one of the project, Mr Boos said, would focus on the 1948 section of the building and a small portion of the 1997 section to install two energy-efficient gas boilers and more.

Phase two would work in the 1997 section of the building, which Mr Boos said would be less complicated because when it was constructed a hot water system was installed.

“And it is partially air-conditioned,” said Mr Boos, “but the real work there would be to place an energy-efficient HVAC unit on the roof and make the renovations to classrooms and spaces in the 1997 addition that are not air-conditioned.”

He went on to explain the last phase would be working on the original 1921 section of the school.

“I’m sure you have all been in the 1921 section, the original high school; it is highly problematic when it comes to accessibility,” he said.

Renovating the 1921 section, Mr Boos said, would include adding a new entrance and an elevator and eliminating the existing cafeteria and auditorium.

There are children in the younger grades, Mr Boos said, using the current cafeteria, and children up to second grade should be “on the level of exit discharge.”

Mr Boos said Kaestle Boos intends to combine the functions of the school’s multipurpose room and make it an auditorium and cafeteria, adding a small receiving kitchen.

“It would solve all of the issues in that section of the building,” he said.

The entire budget for the plan as a state project, Mr Boos said, would be about $12.6 million, with a reimbursement from the state of about $2.6 million, leaving the cost to the town at about $10 million.

Mr Mitchell explained his commission recommends moving forward with the first and second phases of the project, leaving the third phase to be determined as an option in the future. He also explained, after BOE member Richard Gaines asked whether conforming to ADA requirements is necessary, when a portion of a building is renovated that section must be ADA complaint when the work is completed.

As the school is now, Mr Boos said if there is a complaint, the school district will be burdened to do something about that complaint to bring the school up to ADA requirements.

Mr Gaines also questioned why the project, as specified in the school board’s most current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), specifies a “ductless” system would be preferable, but the project presented is “ducted.”

While sharing his appreciation for the presentation, Mr Gaines also said it would take a while to “fully absorb” all of the aspects of the project before he could make a decision.

School board Chair Debbie Leidlein asked for a copy of the project’s plans to be provided to the school board electronically for the three members who were not present at the Monday meeting.

Ms Leidlein also said she would need more time to “digest” the project, and she was at a loss of words at the difference in cost of the project in the CIP and the presented cost estimate by Kaestle Boos.

The CIP allocated $6.1 million for the project, but as pointed out during the meeting, that estimate was made without the project being fully vetted.