Building New versus Renovation

After significant and thoughtful research and discussion, the School Building Committee has put forth the co-located building proposal because they believe that it is the most cost-effective, fiscally-responsible, educationally-appropriate way to address the needs of both the middle school and high school. However, there continues to be some discussion on renovating versus rebuilding, with some believing that it is less expensive to renovate.

Renovating is actually a more expensive option for our town.

This article on the WATD website quotes Dr. Tantillo regarding renovation versus rebuilding:

"It would cost $117 million over an 8 or 9 year span to renovate the buildings, with about a 30% reimbursement from the state. For a completely new building it would cost about $120 million and we will get 43% back from the state."

The "30%" figure refers to the current base reimbursement rate from the MSBA for approved programs. The rate is actually 31%. For the co-located school proposal, Duxbury qualifies for additional percentage points based on various factors, including points for the model school program, green building elements, and using a construction manager at risk that bring us up to the 43% reimbursement level.

While a renovation project can qualify for additional percentage points above the base, the MSBA will only approve a renovation project if it is educationally appropriate. Renovation will not achieve educational appropriateness either at DMS or at DHS. For example, the team teaching model has been in place for 10 years at DMS, but is only partially implemented because of building layout; renovation cannot move load-bearing walls and thus address that layout problem. Undersized classrooms at the high school would be made smaller by the addition of appropriate levels of insulation and would not address layout issues that impede the curriculum -- and waiting to address physical deficiencies at the high school would not put us in good stead with NEASC, the accrediting body.

The reimbursement rate from the state is not guaranteed for the future. The base reimbursement rate for school building projects has declined over the last decade. The PAC, for example, was reimbursed at 67% --  but that level of state reimbursement was unsustainable. In fact, the MSBA was formed in part to address this issue; we will not see reimbursements approaching that level again.


Duxbury is already in the MSBA pipeline for a new building project. The MSBA's assessment of Duxbury‘s school situation (a senior study conducted by architects and engineers) is consistent with the assessment of the town's Feasibility Study and the findings of the School Building Committee. To change course now means starting over with a new Statement of Interest (SOI) to the MSBA and likely investing in yet another study.

The MSBA requires districts to prioritize projects. As such Duxbury would submit a request to renovate DMS, the older building, first. It could take several years to be accepted -- if MSBA agrees that renovation is the answer -- and another several years to do the work, during which time there is nowhere to house students except trailers. Once that DMS project is complete we would then submit another SOI for the high school. Again, acceptance could take several years, then the work would take several more years, with no place to put students.

And if the MSBA doesn’t agree that renovation is the answer? Duxbury must either choose to shoulder the entire cost of a renovation without state reimbursement, or start over with another statement of interest to the MSBA with another approach.

The bottom line is that if the building project as put forth is not approved, the town is looking is 8-9 years of various construction, with likely rising construction costs and bond rates, and with students displaced in trailers for much of that time -- and the result will be buildings that still don't fully meet our childrens’ educational needs with a tax burden to Duxbury taxpayers higher than that of a new building.

	Estimated Total Cost	Estimated Reimbursement	Estimated Cost to Town
Renovation	$117,000,000	33% (1)	$78,390,000
Building New	$130,000,000	43% (2)	$74,100,000

(1) IF the renovation is MSBA approved, 31% base rate + community wealth factor
(2) 31% base rate + community wealth factor + model school program + green building + construction manager at risk


Additional Notes:
DuxburyCARES agrees with the School Building Committtee that the co-located school proposal is the most cost-effective, fiscally responsible, educationally appropriate long term solution for our town. We must act while favorable conditions exist.

• The $117m is figured in today's dollars. Construction costs will escalate over the next ten years and as a result, renovation will be more expensive over time.
• Trailer rental is not just trailer rental. There would be site work for the location of the trailers, including utility, security and parking issues, loss of some classes, even more limited science curriculum (trailers can‘t house science labs), and so on. Typically trailers are used when additions are being constructed or a district chooses partial renovation. To transfer the operations of 800-1000 students into trailers for multiple years -- and through winters possibly as we are experiencing now -- is unwieldy and complicated and educationally suspect at best. None of these costs are reimbursable.
• In ten years we may be approaching the need for major capital work at Alden School, PAC and Chandler School again.