Docstoc

Feasibility-Study

Document Sample
Feasibility-Study Powered By Docstoc
					      Feasibility Study




Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, Massachusetts



             DECEMBER 18, 2009




                OWNER
           City of Leominster
        Leominster, Massachusetts


                  OPM
          Daedalus Projects, Inc.
          Boston, Massachusetts


                  Prepared by:
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453


FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

    1. INTRODUCTION

       A.    Purpose
       B.    Executive Summary
       C.    Project Directory

    2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT

       A.    Narrative
       B.    Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural Features)
       C.    Massachusetts Building Code Report
       D.    AAB Rules and Regulations Report
       E.    HVAC & Plumbing Analysis
       F.    Electric/Data Communications Analysis
       G.    Fire Protection Report
       H.    Structural Report
       I.    Hazardous Materials Identification Survey
       J.    Hydrant Flow Test Report

    3. PRIORITIES

       A.    Narrative

       B.    Scope of Work/Cost Summary

    4. OPTIONS

       A.    Narrative

       B.    Scope of Work
                  Category 1
                  Category 2
                  Category 3

    5. CONSTRUCTION IMPLICATION

       A.      Narrative

    6. ATTACHMENTS

       A.      Drawings
1. INTRODUCTION
A.   Purpose
B.   Executive Summary
C.   Project Directory
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                 1. INTRODUCTION
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                            A. Purpose


Under the guidelines of the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), Lamoureux Pagano &
Associates was selected by the City of Leominster to undertake a Feasibility Study for repairs and
renovations of the existing Leominster High School and propose additional science labs.


In June of 2009, LPA and its consulting engineers began a study of the status of all critical existing
building systems. Shortly after commencement of the study, a kick-off meeting was held at
Leominster High School attended by MSBA representatives Mary Pichetti, Diane Sullivan, Thomas
Kazmouski, Holly McClanan, Nadine Binkley (Superintendent of Schools), and Richard Marks (City of
Leominster OPM). At that time, LPA proposed a modification to its services and study format. It
was generally agreed that before Schematic Design can commence, a Feasibility Study should be
prepared to identify priorities for a wide range of repairs and renovations, options for providing
additional science labs, and budgets for project costs prioritized for approval by officials of the City of
Leominster. Subsequent to the meeting at Leominster High School with MSBA, the OPM and
Superintendent achieved the approval of MSBA to include within the study recommendation for
addressing spatial needs. The MSBA space template was then utilized to compare existing square
footage against MSBA guidelines for a high school. As a result of that review the project proposes
repair/renovation of existing building systems and the addition of four science rooms and four
classrooms. The MSBA space template is included as an attachment.


The completed Feasibility Study will provide the City of Leominster decision-makers with information
to proceed with a scope of work within an acceptable budget, and to include a strategy for
implementation. MSBA has approved this approach with the expectation that the subsequent
Schematic Design will follow the MSBA standards for a Project Scope and Budget Agreement.
Although an official vote of the MSBA Board is not scheduled, an administrative review of the
proposed scope of work, budgets, and schedule will be undertaken at an administrative level.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                              1. INTRODUCTION
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                          B. Executive Summary

The Leominster High School Repair/Renovation Feasibility Study was organized in a form that
documents the condition of the physical plant, identifies opportunities for needed upgrades, and
discusses the implications of cost and schedule.

Through the course of the Feasibility Study which began in June, the Building Committee's
recommendation to proceed with renovation of the existing building was affected by the following
key factors:

            The existing structure is fundamentally sound and suitable for repair and renovations
            within reasonable construction costs.
            The existing floor plan is appropriate for the current high school program and the layout
            offers flexibility to adapt to future needs.
            Replacement costs in 2009 "dollars" for a structure of the existing size and type would
            predictably exceed $120,000,000.00.

To assist with decision making, the Feasibility Study has been organized in four major components.


        The Existing Conditions Inventory & Assessment portion of the study reports on the
        physical condition of all major building systems and discusses the code and regulatory
        issues associated with repairs, renovations, and additional science labs. LPA and its
        consulting engineers have reviewed and reported on the physical condition of the major
        building systems and have included detailed code and regulatory agency requirements for a
        future selected scope of work. Building system conditions were judged to range between;
        "good"-can continue to function without immediate upgrade, "fair:-in need of repair or
        replacement, and "poor"-in need of immediate attention.

        The Priorities section of the Feasibility Study prepares a menu of building improvements
        and budget recommendations. Once the assessment of critical building systems and code
        implications was completed by LPA and the Design Team, discussions were held with the
        Superintendent and her representatives as well as the city's OPM. The Priorities section is
        organized to present scope of work items that address the most pressing needs at the high
        school. It is anticipated that City of Leominster decision-makers will establish a project
        budget from information provided within the feasibility study and proceed with a scope of
        work for upgrades at the existing high school. In the event that the full scope of work is not
        undertaken at this time due to budget constraints or other factors, the Recommendations –
        Priorities section will be useful as a Master Plan for future capital improvements. It is
        significant to note that the majority of the cost associated with the proposed scope of work
        addresses mandatory code upgrades and repair/replacement of critical building systems that
        have met or exceeded their life expectancy.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                             1. INTRODUCTION
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                         B. Executive Summary


       The Options section of the study discusses a scope of work organized into three major
       categories. Category 1 items include existing life safety issues as well as mandatory code
       upgrades dictated by Massachusetts (MA) AAB Regulations, MA Building Code Article 34,
       MA Fire Regulations, and MA Gas & Plumbing Code. Category 2 items list broken or
       malfunctioning systems that require repair or replacement. Category 3 items list building
       system components which are past their useful life and in jeopardy of future (imminent)
       failure as well as high priority improvements critical to delivery of the high school program.

       Since the scope of high priority items include building wide systems work, the
       Construction Implications section discusses how the scope of work might be undertaken
       to minimize disruption to the academic year. This section discusses use of portable
       classrooms as “swing space”, off hours “construction”, and intensive summer construction.
       Once the scope of work for improvements at Leominster High School is established during
       the Schematic Design Phase, a more comprehensive report on the means and methods
       available to minimize costs and disruption to the school year will be presented. With the
       approval of the City Council, the Feasibility Study anticipates that the Building Committee
       will proceed with the MSBA requirements for a Schematic Design. The Schematic Design
       Phase will result in a more advanced design solution for the work proposed within the
       Feasibility Study, more refined cost estimates, and result in a "project scope and budget
       agreement" between MSBA and the City of Leominster. Once a Project Scope and Budget
       Agreement have been executed, the City must act within 120 days to appropriate the
       necessary funds for the project and proceed to Contract Documents and Specifications. At
       this time a 36 month construction schedule is anticipated based on the full scope of work
       provided in the "Priorities" section.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                    1. INTRODUCTION
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                   C. Project Directory


OWNER                 Town of Leominster
                      Nadine Binkley, PhD
                      Superintendent of Schools
                      24 Church Street
                      Tel: (978) 534-7700 Fax: (978) 534-7775
                      Leominster, MA 01453
                      E-mail: Nadine.binkley@leominster.mec.edu


MSBA                  MSBA
                      Mary Pichetti, MSBA
                      Thomas Kazmouski, Project Manager
                      40 Broad Street
                      Suite 500
                      Boston, MA 02109
                      Tel: (617) 720-4466
                      E-mail: mary.pichetti@massschoolbuildings.org
                      E-mail: thomas.kazmouski@massschoolbuildings.org


OPM                   Daedalus Projects, Inc.
                      Richard Marks, President
                      112 South Street
                      Tel: (617) 451-2717 Fax: (617) 451-2679
                      Boston, MA 02111
                      E-mail: rmarks@dpi-boston.com


ARCHITECT             Lamoureux Pagano & Associates
                      Michael Pagano, Principal Architect
                      14 East Worcester Street
                      Tel: (508) 752-2831 Fax: (508) 757-7769
                      Worcester, MA 01604
                      E-mail: mpagano@lamoureuxpagano.com

                      Eric Moore, Project Architect
                      Tel: (508) 752-2831 Fax: (508) 757-7769
                      E-mail: emoore@lamoureuxpagano.com


CONSULTANTS

Structural            Bolton & DiMartino Inc.
                      Joseph DiMartino, President
                      100 Grove Street
                      Worcester, MA 01604
                      Tel: (508) 756-8972 Fax: (508) 757-9750
                      E-mail: jdbi@charterinternet.com
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                1. INTRODUCTION
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                               C. Project Directory



Fire Protection       Sensible Solutions
                      Lily Kara Barak, President
                      64 Knightly Road
                      Hadley, MA 01035
                      Tel: (413) 549-5593 Fax: (413) 549-5593
                      E-mail: lkbarak@crocker.com

HVAC/Plumbing         Seaman Engineering Associates, Inc.
                      Kevin Seaman, President
                      30 Faith Avenue
                      Auburn, MA 01501
                      Tel: (508) 832-3535 Fax: (508) 832-3393
                      E-mail: Kevin@seamanengineers.com

Electrical            ART Engineering Corp.
                      Azim Rawji, P.E. Principal
                      76 Webster Street
                      Worcester, MA 01604
                      Tel: (508) 797-0333 Fax: (508) 797-5130
                      E-mail: azim@artec.us.com

Estimating            A.M. Fogarty & Associates, Inc.
                      Peter Timothy
                      175 Derby Street, Suite 5
                      Hingham, MA 02043
                      Tel: (781) 749-7272
                      E-mail: ptim@amfogarty.com
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
                        A.   Narrative
                        B.   Existing Building Report (Site &
                             Architectural Features)
                        C.   Massachusetts Building Code
                             Report
                        D.   AAB Rules and Regulations
                             Report
                        E.   HVAC & Plumbing Analysis
                        F.   Electric/Data Communications
                             Analysis
                        G.   Fire Protection Report
                        H.   Structural Analysis
                        I.   Hazardous Materials
                             Identification Survey
                        J.   Hydrant Flow Test Report
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                   2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                         A. Narrative


LPA and its consulting engineers have reviewed all of the Leominster High School major building
systems ranging from sitework (Division 2) through electrical (Division 16) to ascertain the physical
condition of the building and to evaluate needed upgrades.


The individual reports contained within this section provide substantial detail as to systems condition
and code implications for the selected scope of work. The repairs and renovations discussed for
Leominster High School fall within the control of several major codes, i.e. Massachusetts Building
Code, Massachusetts Fire Regulations, Massachusetts Plumbing & Gas Regulations, Architectural
Access Board Rules and Regulations, and are subject to local Board of Health and other rules and
regulations. Typically, proposed upgrades must meet the appropriate codes for new construction
and several relevant codes require upgrade of systems as a function of cost of construction. In the
case of the Architectural Access Board Rules and Regulations, if the value of construction exceeds
30% of the assessed value of the building, the regulations require upgrading the entire site and
building to meet the current AAB Regs for new construction. Since the cost of construction for even
the minimal amount of work under consideration will exceed 30% of the assessed value of the
building, a full compliance with AAB Regs will be required. However, the impracticality (technical
infeasibility) of full compliance suggests that the project will seek relief from AAB Regs and the
Schematic Design Phase will make recommendations for alternative methods to provide full
accessibility for all high school students, staff, and faculty. Another example of building-wide
improvements is the requirement that a fire suppression system be added to an existing structure in
the event that the value of a fire suppression system is 15% or less of the proposed construction
budget or if the renovations impact the building as “major renovation”. The addition of a fire
suppression system will be required for the building given that the scale of the project exceeds the
threshold for fire suppression addition. Other code upgrades are discussed within the various
reports contained within.


LPA utilized available drawings of the existing Leominster High School beginning with the 1961
construction through the most recent projects. Several trips to the building were required to record
physical condition of the site and structure, and school representatives generously made themselves
available to discuss known issues with the existing structure. Incidental to this work was the
electronic scanning of all available drawings and indexing of a CD as a future reference and resource
tool for the facilities personnel and school administrative staff.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                             2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                  B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)



I.      SITE ANALYSIS

LOCATION: Leominster High school is located about one mile northwest of
downtown Leominster, at 122 Granite Street, on approximately 40 acres. The site
is surrounded predominantly by residential properties, with some commercial
business uses along Granite Street and nearby West Street. Monoosnoc Brook
runs along the east edge of the site and provides a vegetated buffer zone to the
more densely populated residential areas east of the site.

LAND RECORDED: Book 858 page 466 (5/03/1960 Sale)

EXISTING SITE AREA: 39.9 Acres
       Developed building (school) footprint = 4.9 Acres or 214,955 SF
       Developed building (garage) footprint = 0.1 Acres or 4,070 SF
       Developed walks and paved areas = 8.4 Acres or 367,120 SF
       Developed athletic fields and landscaped areas =11.0 Acres or 477,100 SF
       Undeveloped wooded or general areas= 15.5 Acres or 676,800 SF

CIRCULATION, PARKING AND TRAFFIC: The site is accessed from Granite Street
at two locations. Kingman Drive is the primary access point; a secondary upper
driveway off Granite Street serves the drop off bus loop at the
Auditorium/Gymnasium entrance and a small parking lot north of the Music/Art
classrooms. The upper entrance/bus loop and Kingman Drive are connected by a
serpentine interior driveway which is also used as an overflow parking area.
Kingman Drive extends completely through the site and connects to Exchange
Street; this provides a third vehicular entrance/exit. Located on the west side of
Kingman Drive are a large middle tier parking area, the main entrance bus/drop
off, a small parking lot for Appleseed's restaurant, and a driveway that accesses the
back of the site and CTE wing parking. To the east of Kingman Drive is a gravel
surface overflow parking area and a long single-loaded (and relatively inefficient)
parking area.

Service/delivery access is located at the rear (west) of the CTE wing, for the main
kitchen and mechanical room, and at the front (east) side of CTE, for Appleseed's
restaurant kitchen.

A mixed paved/gravel (pug-mix) fire road extends around the west side of the
building, from the Music/Art parking lot up to the athletic fields, as a fire lane and
for general access. Storage trailers and materials storage are located along the road
and building in this area. The wooded area is largely overgrown with trees, low
vegetation and vines and serves as an effective buffer and barrier to the adjacent
houses. Large stones/boulders have been placed at the bottom, and a makeshift
fence/gate at the top, which serve limit unauthorized passage and access to the
fields. The lower area of this access road includes a nice outside terrace area for
the Art/Music department. The terrace was constructed to be accessible; however
it needs maintenance to re-establish access.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                             2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                  B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


The parking is tiered with the site grading and surrounds the building, with an
approximate total of 471 spaces. In general, the parking is rationally laid out and
accessible. One exception is the rear CTE parking lot which has been cut back and
altered over the years of additions. The circulation at this area is poor, between
access to the athletic fields, CTE shops, loading, dumpsters, and general
school/kitchen deliveries as well as parking. Another exception is the location of
the Science Modular building, east of the 1961 building, which projects into the
pedestrian and general circulation. The following is a summary of parking spaces
based on aerial photos and parking plan provided by the school:

        20 - at upper level Music/Art wing parking lot
        11 - along serpentine access (overflow)
        126 - at middle tier Staff/Student parking lot
        26 - parking lot on west side of Kingman Drive
        21 - at main entrance drop off loop
        50 - at gravel parking area east of Kingman Drive
        103 - at parking lots east of Kingman Drive
        44 - at Appleseed's restaurant parking lot
        25 - at CTE staff parking lot
        45 - CTE rear (west) parking lot
        471- Total

The School has reported that there is adequate parking for their normal operations,
and there are no major traffic issues with the site

The pavement surface condition is generally fair to poor and in need of remedial
work; refer to appendix for summary of pavement condition. The sections in the
worst condition are at the rear (west) of the CTE access drive and parking areas.
The gravel base course appears to be in good condition, with no settling or erosion
problems except at isolated areas. The curbs are primarily granite at the main lots
and at the entrance drop off. The majority of the granite curbing is in good or
better condition, with minor displaced stones at a few locations.

The concrete walks, stairs and platforms are in generally good condition except at
isolated areas which coincide with locations that will require new curb cuts.

The accessible ramp to the restaurant is functional, if not visually appealing, but
needs repair of missing lower rail and painting.

SITE UTILITIES:
        Water: A 10" diameter water main (unknown material type) in Granite
        Street services the site. Originally, the building was served by a loop line
        (size/material type unknown; not indicated on drawings) that passed
        around the building, under the Gymnasium/Auditorium entrance and
        connected to the Granite Street main at two locations. The existing
        connection to the building is located at the boiler room. There are 4 fire
        hydrants installed off the looped line.
        The City DPW provided LPA with available flow test data from between
        1966 and 1996.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       However, because of the proposed addition of a new fire protection
       system and the age of the tests, it was established that new flow tests
       should be performed. As a result of new flow tests conducted in
       September 2009, it was discovered that in 2001, when the modular
       Science Lab addition was built, a section of the existing water line loop
       was removed and capped; this essentially created two separate dead-end
       services. It was also found that the fire hydrant nearest the boiler room is
       damaged, out of service and in need of immediate repair. New flow test
       results are included in this section.

       Fire Protection: There is a FP water connection and post indicator valve at
       the rear of the CTE building shown for the partial fire protection system at
       the CTE wing. See above for water flow test discussions.

       Sanitary: The school is serviced by municipal sanitary service. The
       sanitary line runs in an east-west direction down the spine of the building
       and extends east though adjacent properties. There is also a connection
       between J building and the E building. There is also an 8" sanitary line in
       Granite Street.

       The 1989 CTE drawings show a 1000 gallon exterior grease trap from the
       independent Appleseed's restaurant kitchen waste lines, and reconnects
       inside the building to the existing sanitary line. The plumbing drawings
       for the 1961 main kitchen indicate separate interior grease traps, but no
       exterior grease trap (which was not generally used in 1961); the under-
       slab waste lines are combined with the sanitary lines.

       Although the 1976 drawings reference only a "future sanitary holding
       tank", the School advised that there is a subsurface tank in front of the
       school that is pumped yearly. Neither the School nor DPW knew its
       purpose or what area of the building ties into the tank. The school noted
       the floor drains backed up one time when the tank was not pumped.
       Note that the tank does not show up on the building drawings available.
       The City Engineering department provided details of an exterior pumping
       chamber that was added in 1977, and advised that the system was still
       active.

       The Sanitary lines outside of the building are noted as transite, any work
       scope must be conducted in accordance with the proper methods in
       dealing with asbestos for any tie-ins or removal.

       The 1989 CTE drawings indicate a sand and gas interceptor for the Auto
       Shop.

       Natural Gas: The original 1961 drawings indicate an underground gas line
       from Granite Street; it is assumed the 1976 E wing was added over the
       line. The 1976 drawings show a branch extending around the E wing,
       rising up the building elevation and across the roof, and finally dropping
       down into the Mechanical room.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                             2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                 B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)



        Fuel Oil Tanks: Two underground fuel oil tanks were installed in 1993 to
        replace the two original 1961 12,600 gallon tanks, and one 200 gallon
        emergency fuel oil tank, located outside of the boiler room. The tank
        size/type are noted on the 1993 drawings as 12,600 gallon/double walled.

        Electric: The original 1061 primary electrical service extended
        underground from a utility pole (#12) on Granite Street, under the E wing,
        the original building, the F building and into the Electrical room off the
        boiler room. This appears to have been abandoned. Additional
        underground electric duct banks extend from the electric room, up and
        around the middle of the site to a utility pole, and overhead to Kingman
        Drive.

        Emergency Generator: A 125KW diesel-powered emergency generator is
        located in the Mechanical Room. Originally it was fed from a 200 gallon
        underground fuel tank; 1993 drawings show this tank being removed and
        replaced by a new above-ground tank located inside the Mechanical
        Room.

        Telephone/Data Service: The original 1961 Drawings indicate telephone
        and fire alarm services extending underground from a utility pole (#11) on
        Granite Street, under the middle tier parking lot and into the original
        building. There are also overhead telephone/cable lines extending to
        Granite Street from the Music/Art wing.

SITE DRAINAGE: The existing site storm drain system is extensive and includes a
combination of lines under the building additions and around the site, with
footing/under drains indicated at the high side of the building at the interior and
exterior footings (west and south sides) connecting to lines (15" and 24" RCP class
III) that combine at a headwall and discharge to a swale across Kingman Road at
the low, east side. An additional storm line leads from the upper fields, and
connected to this is a 15" CMP interceptor drain at the toe of the slope at the
parking, with stone finger drains extending up the slope to the fields. The drawings
indicate this discharges (24") into a swale, however it is believed the drain was
extended across Kingman Drive when it was constructed. All drainage discharges
to Monoosnoc Brook. There is no storm water detention as part of the drainage
systems, which was standard for the time when the systems were designed and
installed.

The site slopes from west to the east, and was graded with plateaus for the fields,
the parking at the back, sides and middle. We noted water weeping out of the toe
of slope between the CTE parking and athletic fields, and the breakup of the paving
at the rear lot indicates that there is some sub-grade infiltration.

There is a swale and a potential wetland extending from the west to the east, south
of the practice football field. At the stone access paths leading to the field at the
extreme south it does not appear there is a pipe under these access points. (The
1961 drawings show an Alternate drain at this location)
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                             2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                  B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)



All of the building roof drains are internal, and are indicated as connecting to the
exterior drain lines on the available site drawings.

The grading/drainage drawings are available for the original building and the
additions, which would not indicate as built condition, however indicate proposed
lines and locations which could not be easily determined in the field through
future survey.

PERMITTING AND REGULATORY:

        DEP/Wetlands/River Protection Act: Based on available USGS mapping,
        wetlands are indicated along Monoosnoc Brook and at the drainage area
        southerly and parallel to the brook off the parking lot to the north of
        Kingman road. Monoosnoc Brook is protected by the Rivers Act and a
        200 foot jurisdictional setback would need to be reviewed. Both areas are
        significantly away from the building and parking, and drainage changes
        would trigger reviews, which will be addressed in later portions of this
        study.

        Resource Areas, Areas of Critical Concern and Rare or Endangered
        Species: There are no rare or endangered species, or areas of critical
        concern noted on the available maps (see appendix) within the site or
        immediate surrounds.

        Flood Zone: Monoosnoc Brook and adjacent land on either side of it is
        shown, on available Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
        Flood insurance maps, as being within flood zones A3 (with noted flood
        elevations) and zone B. The flood zones do not extend, except for one
        small area at the extreme south end of the site, into Kingman Drive or any
        of parking areas along the east edge of the site.

ZONING:

        Dimensional Requirements for R-AA Zone, Residential:

                 Lot Area (min.) = 21,780 SF lot area
                 Lot Frontage = 80’
                 Front Yard Setback = 20'
                 Side Yard Setback = 15'
                 Rear Yard Setback = 30'
                 Lot Coverage (max.): Gross floor area shall not exceed 3 times
                 the total lot area
                 Open Area (min.): 10% of lot shall be usable open space as
                 defined in Article X
                 Building Height (max.): 2-1/2 story
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                             2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                    B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)



        Parking Requirements (whichever is greater):

                 2 spaces per classroom (66 General Classrooms +10 SPED
                 Classrooms + 7 Related Classrooms + 2 Health Classrooms = 85
                 Total) = 170 spaces
                 1 space per 6 seats in Gymnasium (864 seats total in Wood Gym)
                 = 144 spaces
                 1 space per each 10 seats in the Auditorium (1200 seats)
                 = 120 spaces
                 1 spaces per four restaurant seats (1,142 SF/15 SF per occupant =
                 76 occupants) = 19 spaces
                 Spaces as required for industrial tech; no additional zoning
                 requirement; 5 spaces required are part of the educational use and
                 visitor spaces.
                 Spaces as required for recreational fields; non-simultaneous use;
                 no additional spaces required.

        Based on the greatest number above, a total of 170 parking spaces are
        required. 471 spaces exist on the site, including spaces on gravel; well in
        excess of the zoning requirement.

        Loading Requirements:

                 Institutional Use- 1 per first 25,000 SF, 1 per each additional
                 75,000 SF of loading bays to be provided)

        Total SF area of school = 286,992 SF; therefore, 5 loading bays are
        required. More than 5 are actually provided at main Kitchen, Appleseed's
        Kitchen and CTE shops.

        Site Plan Review is required for additions or alterations.

SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL: Extensive soils borings were conducted in 1959 and
1961 for the original building, and augmented with additional borings and test pits
for the 1976 and 1989 additions. Only the 1989 boring logs were printed on the
contract drawings and are available. The soils are generally noted as fine-med
sand with some inorganic silt and clay, some gravel. All the footings for the
original building and additions are normal spread footings and isolated interior
piers at columns.

Copies of available USDA soils maps are also published herein. The soils at the
building are noted as 602 Urban land, with 305 C Paxton Fine sandy loam at the
upper side, and 305 B Paxton Fine sandy loam at the rear areas. The middle area of
the sports fields is classified as 310 A Woodbridge fine sandy loam.

SPORTS FIELDS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES: The Sports fields were
originally planned as a baseball/football overlay and a softball/soccer overlay. The
Schools game fields are now off site and the present fields are used as the practice
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                             2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                  B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


football, soccer field and a remote general sports field. The fields appear to be
well drained, and have a minimum slope across the fields (approximately 1%).
There appears to be adequate grass/turf for the usage. Wooded areas are around
the fields and are largely overgrown with mixed trees, low vegetation and vines
which serve as an effective buffer and barrier to the adjacent houses. A wooden
shed/garage serves as general storage, and some sort of climbing structure was
constructed at the west side. Refer to the circulation section above for comment
on the Field access. The fence between the CTE parking and the fields is in poor
condition, having been knocked to the ground along most of its length.

II.     BUILDING ANALYSIS

HISTORY: The timeline for Leominster High School's original construction, and the
additions and renovations that followed, is indicated below:

                 1961 Original Building, (#2) (Built 1963) Buildings "A-D”, L.W.
                 Briggs Architect
                 1976 Building Additions, (#3) Buildings” E,F,G,H & K ", Earl R.
                 Flansburgh & Associates, Architects
                 1989 CTE Building Additions, "Units A, B & C”, Korslund,
                 LeNormand & Quann, Architects
                 1989 CTE Building Additions, "Units A, B & C”, As Built Electrical,
                 Coghlin Electric Contractors
                 1989 Fire Alarm System, Integrated Engineering Systems, Inc.
                 1993 Boiler and Oil Tank Replacement, ASI Energy Systems Design
                 2001 Modular Science Lab Building Addition, Haynes, Lieneck &
                 Smith Architects
                 Roofing Replacement Phases 1-5, Various dates from 1989 to
                 2007, Haynes, Lieneck & Smith Architects

The design team's analysis of the building is organized by date of construction as
noted above. Refer to appendix for graphic.

EXTERIOR SHELL - WALLS:

        1961: This building exterior typically consists of 4" face brick exterior walls
        and horizontally reinforced 8" masonry wall backup typically exposed on
        the interior, there is no air space/cavity between the masonry wythes. The
        wall sections on the original 1961 drawings are very well detailed and
        indicate flashing at the window sills, wall bases with weep holes and at all
        the typical locations. As was traditional of this period the walls are un-
        insulated. The structure is steel framed. The brick and mortar is in good to
        very good overall condition even for its age, including masonry areas at the
        roof level. The few locations that have issues are noted.

        At the main entrance there is no face brick, and the cement masonry block
        was surfaced with ceramic mosaic tile, which is failing at locations.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                            2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       Weep holes were noted on the site observations and one section of
       masonry had been removed for the installation of a unit and what was
       observed matched the drawings at that area. There are vertical concrete
       bands at the Auditorium that also appear to be in good condition.

       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Diagonal step cracking at each sides of the shower wall at column
              line A/1and A/8.
              Diagonal cracking at the Machine Shop corner A/25 and at a few
              other minor locations.
              Rust staining was also observed at the south wall Auditorium
              masonry above the roof.
              Cement board soffit system above the Auditorium main entry is
              stained w/ rusting and mildew, "stucco" material type should be
              reviewed to determine if ACM’s are present
              The main building chimney also had cracking, from the top
              downward, at the north and south sides.
              At all existing exterior joint sealant/caulking locations, the
              caulking/sealant have lasted beyond their intended lifespan.

       1976: This building exterior typically consists of 4" split faced buff colored
       cement units and horizontally reinforced 8"masonry wall backup typically
       exposed on the interior, a 2" air space/cavity and 1" rigid insulation
       between the masonry wythes. The wall sections on the drawings are
       detailed and indicate flashing at the window sills, wall bases with weep
       holes and at all the typical locations. No damp-proofing is noted. The
       structure is primarily braced steel framing, except an isolated corridor that
       is masonry bearing. The exterior masonry and mortar is in good overall
       condition, though typical with split faced masonry it is and has a dirty
       appearance, and at the shaded exposures is covered with mildew/staining.

       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Areas are covered with mildew/staining.
              Areas of the upper Auditorium/Gymnasium wing exterior masonry
              walls are covered by vines.

       1989: This building exterior typically consists of 4" split faced buff colored
       cement units (selected, we assume, to match the 1976 additions) with
       horizontally and vertically reinforced 8" masonry wall backup typically
       exposed on the interior, an air space/cavity and no insulation is shown
       between the masonry wythes. The wall sections on the drawings are
       marginally detailed and indicate flashing at the window sills, wall bases
       with weep holes and at all the typical locations. No damp-proofing is
       noted. The structure is partially braced steel framing and partially masonry
       bearing. The exterior masonry and mortar is in good overall condition, the
       same general comments on appearance noted for the 1976 building apply
       to this addition.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                               B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       Observations/Deficiencies:
              At one area of the CTE wing, there is one area where the masonry
              was removed for some observation or installation yet completed.
              The CTE Wood Shop dust collection fan and frame system is
              rusting.

       2001: The modular Science Lab building exterior wall assembly consists
       of wood stud wall framing, panel sheathing, and vinyl siding. The exterior
       is in generally good condition.

       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Although the structure is vinyl sided, there is a continuous brick
              shelf cast into the concrete foundation wall.

EXTERIOR SHELL – WINDOWS:

       1961: The Window systems are clear anodized metal framing with single
       glazing and intermediate hopper windows. The system is in fair to poor
       condition and is also highly energy inefficient.

       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Aluminum frames are not thermally broken.
              Glazing putty is cracking, in different states of deterioration and in
              some cases missing.
              Glazing retention clips are exposed and rusted in some locations.
              Glass has been broken in several locations.
              A few sill splice plates have been tampered with exposing masonry
              below.
              Multiple locations of air conditioners installed through frame.
              Continuous aluminum tee frame runs vertically two floors through
              masonry.
              Unwanted solar heat gain expressed by Western facing classroom
              occupants.
              Isolated sill damage.
              Perimeter joint caulking/sealants have lasted beyond their useful
              life expectancy and are failing.
              Interior windows at courtyard areas are single glazed aluminum
              tube windows with un-insulated aluminum at columns.
              Porcelain panels have minimal insulation.
              A transom window located at the upper cafeteria above the
              roofline is in reasonable condition and a nice feature; however it is
              single glazed and reportedly leaks.

       1961 Greenhouse: The greenhouse is a wood frame, partial bronze finish
       aluminum at West facing window. The greenhouse was glazed with
       Insulated tempered glass and has manually operated louvers.

       1976: The Window systems are fixed aluminum frame with intermediate
       operable hopper windows or casement windows.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                          2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                              B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       The windows are glazed with single pane glass, installed with glazing tape,
       and have a blue painted finish. While these windows are in reasonable
       condition, in conjunction with the noted observations, the fact that they
       are single glazed and not thermally broken, consideration should be given
       to their replacement.

       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Aluminum frames are not thermally broken.
              Exterior glazing tape is expanding out of frame.
              Several window units have an additional vertical mullion added.
              Frame finish material is chalking.
              Areas of paint have begun to flake off.
              Sealant applied at vertical mullions within long expanses of
              assembled window units.
              Water seepage through window head/louver sill noted at
              Carpentry Shop.
              Unwanted solar heat gain expressed by Western facing classroom
              occupants.
              Extruded window sill missing at west side "G" Building.
              The metal panel system surrounding some windows is rusting.
              Window air conditioner units were installed with side panels
              made of unfinished plywood.

       1989 CTE Wing: The 1989 wing has fixed aluminum thermally broken
       frame with intermediate operable hopper or casement windows. The
       windows were glazed with double pane insulating glass, installed with
       glazing tape and have a bronze finish. Other than the noted observations
       these windows are in good condition for their age.

       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Exterior glazing tape expanding out of frame.
              Vertical mullion covers, at West side of "G" Building, do not engage
              adjacent windows jambs.
              Unfinished plywood has been installed around window AC units.

EXTERIOR SHELL – DOORS AND FRAMES:

       General Description: The condition of existing doors and hardware
       ranges from "good" to "in need of replacement". Many doors at the 1961
       building remain as a pair of 30" doors and do not meet current
       accessibility requirements. The steel exterior doors throughout appear to
       be rusting and in various condition. The facilities department noted that
       some doors were being replaced on an ongoing basis.

       1961 and 1976: Clear anodized aluminum entrance doors/frames (A
       Building) East and (B Building) North elevations typically have 30" leaf
       pairs. One pair of doors at the Auditorium/Gymnasium entrance has been
       replaced with a pair of unequal leafs; one accessible 36" leaf with one
       smaller 24" leaf.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                              B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       Observations/Deficiencies:
              Single pane glass.
              Replace existing weather-stripping or install new where absent,
              typical throughout all door locations including overhead door
              assemblies.
              Finish material is chalking.
              Beginning to advanced signs of rust at most frames, doors, glazing
              beads, frame base, door bottoms.
              Several door bottom metal bent from wedging door open.
              Broken glass noted in a few areas.
              Caulking deterioration at glazing.
              Wood infill at door surround.
              Overhead door frame damaged at “D" Building West Elevation.

EXTERIOR SHELL – ROOFING SYSTEMS:

       General Description: The building's roof area is extensive, and as the
       complex has been built and added over the years, there are literally
       hundreds of feet of expansion joints, roof steps, building jogs, overhangs
       and a multitude of fans, curbs, skylights and various details to be found on
       a project of this nature. A program of roof replacement was established
       and roofing replacement began in 1998, continuing through 2007; refer to
       appendix for roof plan showing roof installation dates. The 1989 CTE wing
       has not been re-roofed and was reported to be completely failing at the
       area over the HVAC Shops and other areas. The new roofing systems were
       specified and installed as white PVC reinforced adhered membrane roofing
       system with flat or tapered insulation. The existing built up roofing was
       reportedly stripped to the metal decking. There were no reports of any
       damage or decay to the decking. The new membrane roofing systems
       were specified with 15 year warranties, and some of the first areas re-
       roofed are close to 10 years old. The replaced roofs appear to be in good
       to very good condition with typical deficiencies as noted below. None of
       the incidental areas above the roof were updated along with the re-roofing,
       and the soffit panels, exposed steel framework, brick sealants and
       expansion joints will need to be addressed; refer to typical observations
       below.

       The roofing systems installed are of 3 different manufacturers, the first
       three phases were Sarnafil, the fourth phase was Firestone and the last
       phase was Carlisle. The new insulation was specified to have a minimum R
       value of R-20 (u = 0.05 max), FM I-90 uplift and FM Class 1/UL Class A fire
       rating. Additional roof drains were added to most of the roof areas to
       match the new pattern of the tapered insulation. The new roof drains were
       tied into the existing drain system stacks. The re-roofing drawings state
       that there was no structural analysis done, and that the new system weighs
       five pounds per square foot less than former built up roofing.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                            2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       The 1961 structural drawings, and therefore the design loads for the 1961
       original building, are not available. It is assumed that the design roof load
       at that time would have been 30 lbs/SF. The 1976 structural drawings list
       the design roof load as 30 lbs/SF; and the 1989 CTE wing structural
       drawings list the design roof load as 35 lbs/SF.


       Observations/Deficiencies – 1989 CTE Wing:
             The CTE wing shows area of distress and substantial ponding water.
             The roofing is a PVC direct-adhered system and was installed as
             part of the 1989 addition/re-roofing. A portion of the CTE wing area
             was re-roofed in 1998; only that area is in good condition.
             The roof insulation above the HVAC shop is spongy and fasteners
             are projecting up into (and telegraphing through) the PVC
             membrane.
             EPDM material, instead of PVC, has been used for several patches.
             The number of roof drains and existing roof slope should be
             reviewed as part of the re-roofing scope of work.
             Consideration should be given to re-roofing the worst area of this
             roof in advance of other work under the scope of this study.

       Observations/Deficiencies – Other Roof Areas:
             The conduit system for the exterior parking lot lights is fastened
             through the metal roof fascia, is not properly fastened in places, and
             is rusting.
             The steel trellis framing at the open courtyards is rusting.
             The natural gas line was installed above the surface of the roof and
             is not properly supported; also, the roofing system is not properly
             protected under the existing supports.
             There is debris, nails, and other miscellaneous items on the roof
             near the 2007 replacement areas.
             There are multiple areas of ponding water at the new roof areas,
             with organic matter/residue building up. Proximity of ponding
             water to outside air intakes should be reviewed and, if found to be
             unacceptable, consideration should be given to adding tapered
             insulation and/or drains to remediate the situation.
             The overhanging tree at the North courtyard requires pruning.
             Sheet metal counterflashing, at roof-to-masonry wall intersections
             where the existing counterflashing was lifted up for installation of
             the new membrane flashing, was not neatly set down and should
             be corrected/re-sealed where necessary.
             The existing skylights are single glazed acrylic and have been re-set.
             If the skylights are to remain, the caulking and joint-sealing should
             be replaced.
             The elevator vent was replaced with plywood.
             The cable TV wiring generally runs haphazardly over the roof and
             should be properly secured, especially at areas where there are
             loose bricks or steel supporting.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                               B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


              The roof ladders and other ferrous metal items should be properly
              prepared, primed and re-painted. The Auditorium ladder has
              missing/loose bolts and must be re-secured.
              Masonry and other calking and sealants are at the end of their
              lifespan and should be properly prepared and re-sealed.
              Walkway pads were not installed between roof access hatch
              openings or at rooftop equipment that requires regular
              maintenance.

INTERIORS - FINISHES:

       Classrooms: Classroom floors are generally either 9" x 9" vinyl asbestos
       tile (VAT) or 12" x 12" vinyl composition tile (VCT), with resilient base.
       Some Classrooms at the 1976 building are carpeted. In general, the VAT
       is limited to the 1961 building and is assumed to be hazardous material.
       Classroom walls are typically painted CMU. Ceilings are a mix of splined
       12" x12" and hung 2' x4' acoustical ceiling tile (ACT). Classrooms are
       generally equipped with wood or metal framed marker and tack boards.
       1961 classrooms have a built-in teacher storage cabinet adjacent to the
       corridor door. Classrooms have unit ventilators and associated
       shelving/accessories along the exterior walls. In addition to the corridor
       doors, communicating doors are typically provided between classrooms.

       CTE Shops: Shops generally have sealed concrete floors, CMU walls and
       exposed roof structure above. The Graphic Arts shop has an edge-grain
       wood tile floor system.

       Corridors: Similar to the Classrooms, floors are either 9" x 9" VAT or 12" x
       12" VCT. Walls are also generally painted or, in some cases, glazed CMU.
       At the 1961 building, there is a continuous glazed transom lite, between
       the ceilings and top of lockers, which allows some natural daylight into
       the Corridor. Ceilings at the 1961 building are splined 12" x 12" acoustical
       tiles which do not allow for easy access to the spaces above. 1976 and
       later additions generally have hung 2' x 4' ACT. Corridor lockers are
       painted steel with sloped tops; 2-person with over-storage compartments
       at the 1961 building and single lockers at the 1976 addition corridors.

       Toilet Rooms: Toilet Rooms in the 1961 building have original terrazzo
       flooring with metal divider strips. Toilets in the later additions have
       resilient sheet flooring. Walls are typically glazed CMU to about 6' above
       floor level, with painted CMU above. Toilet partitions are a mix of painted
       steel and solid plastic overhead braced partitions. Urinal screens were not
       observed. Ceilings are generally plastered.

       Cafeteria: The Cafeteria floor is a mix of VAT/VCT. Walls are
       painted/glazed CMU and exposed brick masonry. Ceilings are a mix of
       hung 2' x 4' ACT and plaster ceilings/soffits.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                            2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                B. Existing Building Report (Site & Architectural)


       Auditorium/Stage: The Auditorium floor is sealed concrete beneath the
       fixed seating and carpet at the aisles. The Stage has a hardwood floor.
       Walls are exposed brick masonry to 10-12' above floor level, with fabric-
       wrapped acoustical panels above. The ceiling is plaster.

       Gymnasiums: The 1961 Gymnasium has a hardwood flooring system in
       excellent condition. The 1976 Gymnasium and Weight Room have a
       synthetic rubber flooring system. At both Gyms, the walls are painted
       CMU with wall pads. Steel roof framing/deck are exposed and painted.
       The 1961 Gym is equipped with telescopic bleachers with molded plastic
       seats.

       Administrative and Staff/Faculty Office Areas: Offices are typically
       carpeted with resilient base. Walls are either painted CMU or gypsum
       board finish. Ceilings are generally hung 2' x 4' ACT.

       Stairways: Stairs at the 1961 building have clear anodized aluminum
       hand/guardrails of various styles, painted steel risers, painted steel
       stringers/newel posts and resilient treads with metal safety nosings.
       Newer stairs, ramps and elevated walkways in the 1976 additions have
       painted steel pipe hand/guardrails/stringers, formed steel pans with
       concrete fill and resilient treads/risers.

       Observations/Deficiencies – Interior Finishes:
             Large areas of VCT were observed that are breaking up and/or have
             1/8"+ gaps between tiles.
             The synthetic rubber flooring system at the 1976 Gymnasium, per
             the UEC hazardous material survey, is assumed to contain mercury
             and should be tested.
             There is a large vertical crack in the exterior masonry wall of the
             1976 Gymnasium.
             It was reported that the existing splined ceiling system is very
             difficult, if not impossible, to take apart without causing damage to
             the ceiling system.
             Means of egress stairways do not comply with current building
             code requirements.

INTERIORS – DOORS, FRAMES AND HARDWARE:

       Doors are a mix of solid core wood with clear or painted finish and
       painted hollow metal. Frames are typical painted hollow metal. Interior
       door hardware varies; the 1961 building has a high percentage of know-
       type hardware while the later additions generally are equipped with lever
       hardware. Smoke separation doors/transoms/sidelites are located at
       corridors, are equipped with magnetic hold-opens, and are glazed with
       clear wired glass. A B-label rolling steel door is located at the 2-hour fire
       rated opening between the upper level entrance and
       Auditorium/Gymnasium Lobby; it is assumed that this door is on a fusible
       link and/or tied to the fire alarm system.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                       2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                       C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 A. Narrative

 The Massachusetts Building Code, Rules & Regulations of the Architectural Access Board, and NFPA 101
 are the primary codes that must be considered when renovations and additions are planned. The
 Massachusetts Building Code stipulates that any legal conforming use of a building may continue until
 such a time that upgrades are undertaken. The building code requires that renovations and additions
 must meet certain criteria of the code and particular upgrades to an existing building require full
 compliance for new construction. Unique to Massachusetts is Chapter 34 of the Massachusetts Building
 Code, which addresses special conditions for repairs and renovations to existing buildings.

 The Massachusetts Architectural Access Board Rules and Regulations require that any new construction
 and/or renovation comply with the rules and regulations for accessibility. Also, two significant thresholds
 must be considered when planning additions and renovations relative to the value of the construction
 work. The AAB Rules and Regulations state that if any construction project is valued at more than
 $100,000.00 the building must provide a handicap accessible entrance and a handicap accessible toilet.
 Also, if any building renovation/addition value exceeds 30% of the 100% equalized assessed value of the
 existing building, the entire facility must be brought up to the AAB Rules & Regulations for new
 construction. Since the scope of anticipated renovations and additions at the Leominster High School will
 greatly exceed all thresholds for AAB Compliance, the building project must be considered as requiring
 complete upgrade to meet the code for new construction or be granted relief from the requirement. To
 comply with AAB Rules & Regulations, every room, every building component, virtually every feature of
 the building will be affected and require improvement or replacement. In our opinion, full compliance
 with the Access Board Rules and Regulations at the Leominster High School would be excessively
 expensive and impractical. We would expect to appeal to the Massachusetts Access Architectural Board
 for relief from those elements of the rules and regulations that are exceedingly expensive and provide little,
 if any, benefit to staff, faculty or students. Nevertheless, even with a successful appeal for relief from the
 Access Board Rules & Regulations the scope of work and associated construction costs to satisfy the intent
 of Access Board Rules and AAB Compliance will be substantial. The Scope of the existing conditions
 summary and proposed appeal items are summarized in as follows. The required appeal is anticipated to
 be filed under the next phase of the Project (Schematic Design).

 The Massachusetts Building Code Chapter 34 addresses special conditions for repairs and renovations to
 existing buildings. In brief when particular criteria are met the code allows the continuation of use of
 existing buildings and systems when the building use is not changed, with exception of structural, fire
 protection and egress components. All new work in the existing building and additions is required to meet
 the provisions of the new code requirements to the fullest extent possible, and where not possible, relief
 from the code may be petitioned through the local building official as a compliance alternative.

 The existing High School building conforms with the Massachusetts Building Code under Article 34,
 Existing Building Article and may continue to function as described within the Article. As the following
 code summary indicates any upgrades and/or additions at an existing building must comply with Article
 34. As indicated throughout the balance of the Existing Conditions Inventory and Assessment section code
 mandated upgrades to the Structural system, addition of a fire protection system, energy upgrades, and
 other systems work are required by the Massachusetts Building Code given the scale of the proposed
 renovations.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                             C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 8/22/08 (Effective 9/1/08) 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 500.83
 780 CMR 34.00
 EXISTING STRUCTURES
 780 CMR 34.00 is entirely unique to Massachusetts
 780 CMR 3400.0 SCOPE
 3400.1 General. The provisions of 780 CMR 34.00 are intended to maintain or increase public safety, health, and
 general welfare in existing buildings by permitting repair, alteration, addition, and/or change of use without
 requiring full compliance with the code for new construction except where otherwise specified in 780 CMR 34.00.

 3400.2 Compliance. Repairs, alterations, additions, and changes of use shall conform to the requirements of 780
 CMR 34.00. Where compliance with the provisions of this code for new construction is required by 780 CMR
 34.00, and where such compliance is impractical because of construction difficulties or regulatory conflicts,
 compliance
 alternatives as described in 780 CMR 3406.0 may be accepted by the building official.
 Note. Specialized codes, rules, regulations, and laws pertaining to repair, alteration, addition, or change of use of
 existing buildings promulgated by various authorized agencies may impact upon the provisions of 780 CMR 34.00.
 Specialized state codes, rules, regulations, and laws include, but are not limited to those listed in 780 CMR 35.00.

 3400.3 Applicability. The provisions of 780 CMR 34 apply to repair, alteration addition or change in use to existing
 buildings which qualify to use 780 CMR 34.00 (see 780 CMR 3400.3.1), based on the proposed continuation of, or
 change in use group, as follows:

 1. Continuation of the same use group, or a change in use group which results in a change in hazard index of one or
 less as determined by 780 CMR 3403.0 shall comply with 780 CMR 3404.0.

 Project is a continuation of the same use group – section 3404 applies
 3. Portions of the building is changed to a new use group, shall be separated from the remainder of the building with
 fire separation assemblies complying with 780 CMR 302.3, or with approved compliance alternatives. The portion
 of the building changed shall be made to conform with the applicable provisions of 780 CMR 34.00.

 4. Additions to existing buildings shall comply with all code requirements for new construction, except as otherwise
 provided in 780 CMR 34.00. The combined height and area of the existing building and the addition shall not exceed
 that allowed by 780 CMR 503.0 and Table 503 as modified by 780 CMR 504.0 and 506.0. Where a fire wall
 complying with 780 CMR 705.0 is provided, the addition shall be considered as a separate building.

 Additions would require a fire wall separation complying with 780 CMR 705.0
 5. Ordinary repairs conforming to 780 CMR 110.3 item 4. and 780 CMR 2.00 may be performed without a building
 permit.

 6. A change from any other use group to an assembly use group (A) shall comply with the requirements of the code
 for new construction, except that structural requirements need only conform to 780 CMR 3408.0 and energy
 conservation requirements need only comply with 780 CMR 3407.0.


 7. Institutional Use Groups.

 8. Residential Use Groups.

 10. Structural Requirements. Structural requirements for additions, and for existing
 buildings subject to repair, alteration, and/or change of use, shall be in accordance with
 780 CMR 3408.0.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                          2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                            C. Massachusetts Building Code Report



 11. Energy Conservation Requirements.
 Energy conservation requirements for additions, and for existing buildings subject to repair, alteration, and/or
 change of use, shall be in accordance with 780 CMR 3407.0.
 Exceptions. House Museums and Preserved Historic Buildings.

 12. Flood Resistant Construction. Renovations/ Additions to existing buildings in areas
 prone to flooding are subject to the requirements of 780 CMR 120.G

 Building is not in a flood hazard zone or subject to flooding
 3400.3.1 Buildings Which Qualify. The provisions of 780 CMR 34.00 shall apply to
 existing buildings which have been legally occupied and/or used for a period of at least five years. Any building for
 which there exists an outstanding notice of violation or other order of the building official shall not qualify to use
 780 CMR 34.00 unless such proposed work includes the abatement of all outstanding violations and compliance
 with all outstanding orders of the building official. Buildings which do not qualify as existing buildings for the
 purposes of 780 CMR 34.00 shall comply fully with the applicable provisions of 780 CMR for new construction.
 Building has been legally occupied
 Exceptions:
 1. For other than structural work, existing buildings or portions thereof which are
 changed in use from any other use group to day care centers (I-2 or E) shall not qualify as
 existing buildings for the purposes of 780 CMR 34.00, but shall comply with the requirements of 780 CMR 4.00, as
 applicable.


 3400.4 Special Provisions for Means of Egress.

 3400.4.1 Existing Non Conforming Means of
 Egress. The following conditions, when observed by the building official, shall be cited, in writing as a violation.
 Said citation shall order the abatement of the non conformance and shall include such a time element as the building
 official deems necessary for the protection of the occupants thereof, or as otherwise provided for by statute.

 No citations or issues were reported

 2. Any required means of egress component which is not of sufficient width to comply with 780 CMR 10.00, or is
 not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of egress, including exit signage and emergency lighting.

 3400.4.1.1 Assembly Nightclubs (A-2nc)

 Main Entrance/Exit Door Size.

 3400.4.2 Fire Escapes.

 3400.4.2.1 New Buildings

 3400.4.2.2 Existing Fire Escapes.

 3400.4.2.3 New Fire Escapes.

 3400.4.2.4 Limitations.

 3400.4.2.5 Location.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                            C. Massachusetts Building Code Report



 3400.4.2.6 Construction.

 3400.4.2.7 Dimensions.

 3400.4.2.8 Opening Protectives.

 3400.4.2.9 Testing and Certification.

 3400.5 Hazardous Means of Egress.

 3400.5.1 Exit Order/Hazardous Means of Egress. In any existing building or structure not provided with exit
 facilities as herein prescribed for new buildings and in which the exits are deemed hazardous or dangerous to life
 and limb, the building official shall declare such building dangerous and unsafe in accordance with the provisions of
 780 CMR 121.0.

 3400.5.2 Appeal from Exit Order. Any person served with any order pursuant to 780 CMR 3400.5 shall have the
 remedy prescribed in 780 CMR 121.0.

 3400.6 Unsafe Lighting and/or Unsafe
 Ventilation. In any existing building , or portion thereof, in which (a) the light or ventilation do not meet the
 applicable provisions of 780 CMR 12.00 and (b) which, in the opinion of the building official, are dangerous, or
 hazardous, to the health and safety of the occupants, the building official shall order the abatement of such
 conditions to render the building or structure occupiable or habitable as applicable for the posted use and occupant
 load. In enforcing the provisions of 780 CMR 3400.6 the building official may require or accept engineering or other
 evaluations of the lighting and/or ventilation systems in order to evaluate possible dangerous or hazardous
 conditions and acceptable solutions. Where full compliance with 780 CMR for new construction is not practical for
 structural and/or other technical reasons, the building official may accept compliance alternatives, or engineering or
 other evaluations which adequately address the building or structure livability for the posted use and occupant load.

 Refer to Consultants Reports
 3400.7 Change in Commodity or Storage Arrangement. Existing buildings, or portions thereof, in which there is
 a change in occupancy classification, commodity classification, or storage arrangement, as defined by NFPA 13,
 requires an evaluation of the existing sprinkler system for compliance with NFPA 13 and NFPA 25.
 In enforcing the provisions of 780 CMR 3400.7 the building official may require or accept engineering or other
 evaluations of the fire protection systems in order to identify possible noncompliant conditions and acceptable
 solutions. If the evaluation determines that alterations are necessary, the building official shall order the abatement
 of such conditions.

 780 CMR 3401.0 DEFINITIONS

 3401.1 General. Definitions shall, for the purposes of 780 CMR 3401.0, have the meaning shown in 780 CMR
 3401.1.

 Building System. Any mechanical, structural, egress, electrical, plumbing, building enclosure and/or fire protection
 system, or fire resistive construction system, or portion thereof.

 Building System Component. A part or portion of a building system.

 Compliance Alternative. An alternative life-safety construction feature which meets or exceeds the requirements or
 intent of a specific provision of 780 CMR. The Building Official is authorized to approve or disapprove compliance
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                            C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 alternatives. Compliance alternatives are only permitted for existing buildings.

 Existing Building or Structure. Any building or structure qualifying under 780 CMR 3400.3.1.
 Hazard Index. A numerical value, between 1 and 8, which is assigned to a specific Use Group in order to determine
 which of the provisions of 780 CMR 34.00 apply to the proposed work on the existing building. The Hazard Index is
 a relative scale used only to determine applicable provisions of 780 CMR 34.00. Hazard indices are listed in Table
 3403 and 780 CMR 120.S.
 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
 THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE
 500.86 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 8/22/08 (Effective 9/1/08)

 Substantial Renovation, or Substantial Alteration. The terms substantial renovation and substantial
 alteration are defined herein for the specific purpose of determining whether fire protective systems are
 required in existing buildings, when such buildings undergo renovations or alterations, change in use or
 occupancy or additions. As used in 780 CMR 34.00, substantial renovation or substantial alteration shall
 have the following meanings; Substantial renovation and substantial alteration is work which is major in
 scope and expenditure when compared to the work and expenditure required for the installation of a fire
 protection system, when such system is required by 780 CMR 9.00 for a particular use group. Work
 shall not be considered a substantial alteration if the cost of installing the fire protection system exceeds
 15% of the total renovation cost. The building official shall make such determination and may
 request the owner or applicant to provide such supporting information as is necessary to make such
 determination
 Fire Protection systems will be required at areas that are not currently protected, and existing systems will need to be
 upgraded as required. Refer to report.
 780 CMR 3402.0 IMPLEMENTATION

 3402.1 Building Permit Application
 Requirements for Existing Buildings. A building permit shall be required for any work regulated by
 780 CMR 34.00. Exception. Ordinary repairs may be performed without a building permit.

 3402.1.1 Investigation and Evaluation. For any proposed work regulated by 780 CMR 34.00, which is subject to
 780 CMR 116.0, as a condition of the issuance of a building permit the building owner shall cause the existing
 building (or portion thereof) to be investigated and evaluated in accordance with the provisions of 780 CMR 34.00
 (see 780 CMR 120.S). The investigation and evaluation shall be in sufficient detail to ascertain the effects of the
 proposed work (if any) on the structural, egress, fire protection, energy conservation systems and light and
 ventilation systems of the space under consideration and, where necessary, the entire building or structure.

 Detailed investigations of these items will be required by the Architect/Engineers of record. This report serves as
 the Feasibility level evaluation where scope of work is determined.
 3402.1.2 Submittal. The results of the investigation and evaluation, along with any proposed compliance
 alternatives, shall be submitted to the building official in written report form.
 This Project Phase will outline any potential issues, future phases to follow though with any compliance alternatives
 required
 3402.1.3 Non Conformities and Compliance Alternatives. The application for a building permit shall identify all
 items of non or partial compliance with the requirements of 780 CMR 34.00, and compliance alternatives, if any are
 proposed, for approval by the building official. The building official shall respond to the acceptability of any
 proposed compliance alternatives within 30 days of the filing of the building permit application. Where proposed
 compliance alternatives are, in the opinion of the building official, unacceptable, or where issues of non-compliance
 remain, the permit applicant shall have the remedies prescribed by 780 CMR 122.0.
 This Project Phase will outline any potential issues, future phases to follow though with any compliance alternatives
 required
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                         2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                           C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 3402.1.4 Documentation of Compliance Alternatives. Whenever action is taken on any building permit application
 to repair, make alterations or additions, or change the use or occupancy of an existing building, and when said
 application proposes the use of compliance alternatives, the building official shall ensure that one copy of the
 proposed compliance alternatives, including applicable plans, test data, or other data
 This Project Phase will outline any potential issues, future phases to follow though with any compliance alternatives
 required
 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS EXISTING STRUCTURES
 8/22/08 (Effective 9/1/08) 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 500.87 for evaluation, be submitted to the BBRS, t o g e t h e
 r with a copy of the building permit application and the building official's decision regarding the proposed
 compliance alternatives.
 This Project Phase will outline any potential issues, future phases to follow though with any compliance alternatives
 required
 780 CMR 3403.0 HAZARD INDEX 3403.1 Hazard Index. In the implementation of the
 provisions of 780 CMR 34, the hazard index associated with a particular use group shall be as
 identified in table 3403 and 780 CMR 120.S. In order to determine the applicable provisions of 780
 CMR 34.00 the hazard index of the existing use group shall be subtracted from the hazard index of
 the proposed use. The algebraic difference shall be used to determine the applicable provisions of
 780 CMR 34.00.
 There is no Change in the Use of this building, Hazard indexes do not change
 TABLE 3403 HAZARD INDEX USE GROUP(1) DESCRIPTION

 HAZARD INDEX NO.(2)
 A-1 Theater with stage 6
 A-2nc Night Club 7
 A-3 Theater without stage 5
 A-2r Restaurant 5
 A-3 Lecture halls, recreations centers, museums, libraries, churches, similar assembly buildings 4
 A-4 Indoor arenas, skating rinks, swimming pools, tennis courts 4
 A-5 Bleachers, amusement park
 structures, grandstands, stadiums 4
 B Business 2
 E Educational (K through 12) 4
 F Factory and industrial 3
 H High hazard 8
 I-1 Residential Board & Care; Social rehabilitation facilities; alcohol and drug centers; convalescent homes 4
 I-2 Institutional incapacitated 4 I-3 Institutional restrained 5
 I-4 Day care Centers for two years nine months or younger 4
 M Mercantile 3
 R-1 Hotels, motels 4
 R-2
 R-2
 Multi-family (4 or more dwellings)
 Multi-family (3 dwellings)
 42
 R-3 Multiple single-family, One and two family 2
 R-4 Residential care/Assisted Living facilities of 6-16 occupants excluding staff 2
 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 3
 S-2 Storage, low hazard 1
 Notes to Table 3403.
 (1) See 780 CMR 3.00 and 4.00 and 780 CMR 120.S.
 (2) Hazard Index Modifier for selected construction types as follows.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                        2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                         C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 (a) When a building is classified in construction Type IA, IB, or IIA, subtract one from the Hazard
 index shown in Table 3403 for the applicable proposed new use group only.
 (b) When a building is classified in construction VB, add one to the Hazard index shown in Table 3403 for the
 applicable proposed new use group only. Exception. Partially Preserved Historic Buildings
 (780 CMR 3409.0).
 780 CMR 3404.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUATION OF THE SAME USE
 GROUP OR CHANGE TO A USE GROUP RESULTING IN A CHANGE IN HAZARD
 INDEX OF ONE OR LESS
 3404.1 General. The requirements of 780 CMR
 3404.0 and applicable provisions of 780 CMR
 3408.0 shall apply to all repairs and alterations to existing buildings having a continuation of the same
 use group or to existing buildings changed in use group of one or less hazard index (Table 3403).

 This is the applicable Code Standard for this Projects Scope
 3404.2 Requirements Exceeding Those Required for New Construction. Existing buildings which, in
 part or as a whole, exceed the requirements of 780 CMR may be altered, in the course of compliance with 780 CMR
 34.00, so as to reduce or remove, in part or completely, features not required by 780 CMR for new construction.
 Exception. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 148, § 27A, fire protection devices, shall not be disconnected
 (temporarily or permanently), obstructed, removed or shut off or destroyed without first procuring a
 written permit from the head of the local fire department.
 3404.3 New Building Systems. Any new building system or portion thereof shall conform to 780 CMR
 for new construction to the fullest extent practical. However, individual components of an existing
 building system may be repaired or replaced without requiring that system to comply fully with the code
 for new construction unless specifically required by
 780 CMR 3408.0.
 Refer to Consultants Reports
 3404.4 Alterations and Repairs. Alterations or repairs to existing buildings which maintain or
 improve the performance of the building may be made with the same or like materials, unless required
 otherwise by 780 CMR 3408.0. Alterations or repairs which have the effect of replacing a building
 system as a whole shall comply with 780 CMR 3404.3
 3404.5 Number of Means of Egress. Every floor or story of any existing building shall provide at least
 the number of means of egress as required by 780 CMR 3400.4 and which are acceptable to the
 building official.

 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
 THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE 500.88 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 8/22/08 (Effective
 9/1/08)
 3404.6 Capacity of Exits. All required means of egress shall comply with 780 CMR 10.00. Existing
 means of egress may be used to contribute to the total egress capacity requirement based on the unit
 egress widths of 780 CMR 10.00.
 3404.7 Exit Signs and Lights. Exit signs and lighting shall be provided in accordance with 780 CMR 10.00.
 Refer to Consultants Reports
 3404.8 Means of Egress Lighting. Means of egress lighting shall be provided in accordance with
 780 CMR 10.00.
 Refer to Consultants Reports.
 3404.9 Height and Area Limitations. The height and area requirements of 780 CMR 5.00 shall apply
 to existing buildings when such existing buildings are modified by addition and/or change in use.
 Modifications to the height and area requirements as provided in 780 CMR 504.0 and 506.0 are permitted.
 There is no Change in use. Any additions will require a firewall.
 3404.10 Existing Fire Walls/Partitions. No further compliance is required with 780 CMR 7.00. The
 height above the roof of existing fire, partitions and exterior walls need not comply with 780 CMR
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                          2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                            C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 3404.0
 Existing Fire walls/ Fire separation walls are present throughout the building,. Walls are identified on the original
 Contract Drawings and shown on the attached exhibit. The walls at the 1976 additions are detailed as CMU walls,
 separated from the existing 1961 building, extend to the roof, and are labeled as 2 hour walls. The 1989 CTE wing
 are notes as fire zones and appear and are labeled as 2 hour rated walls.

 No further review is required or has been done in accordance with this provision

 Note that the building is proposed to be fully sprinklered in accordance w/ Cpt 9 and NFPA. Therefore some of the
 separation walls may not be required to the degree that they are needed in a un sprinklered building.
 3404.11 Fire Protection Systems. Fire Protection Systems. Design, installation and maintenance of
 fire protection systems shall be provided in accordance with 780 CMR 3404.3 and 780 CMR 3404.12 as applicable.

 3404.12 Fire Protection Systems Are Required for the Following Cases.

 1. Additions where required by 780 CMR 9.00 for the specific use group.
 2. For existing buildings modified by addition and/or change in use where required by 780 CMR 504.0 or 506.0 to
 satisfy height and area requirements.
 There is no Change in use. Any additions will require a firewall.
 3. Existing buildings, or portions thereof which are substantially altered or substantially renovated, and where
 otherwise required by 780 CMR 9.00 for the specific use group.
 Refer to Comment under Definitions and Consultants Report

 3404.13 Enclosure of Stairways. Open stairways are prohibited except in one- and two-family
 dwellings or unless otherwise permitted by 780 CMR 10.00. There shall be no minimum fireresistance rating
 required for an existing enclosure of a stairway. Partitions or other new construction which is added in order to fully
 and solidly enclose a stairway shall provide a minimum fireresistance rating of one hour. All doors in the enclosure
 shall be self-closing and tight-fitting with approved hardware. All doors in those portions of the stairway which are
 fireresistance rated shall comply to the applicable provisions of 780 CMR 9.00.
 All exit stairs appear to be enclosed and ratings are indicated on the contract drawings as follows; The 1961 building
 the stairs are enclosed w/ large expanses of wire glass in metal frames, masonry construction as separated stairs or
 separated though larger corridor separations. The 1976 addition the stair enclosures are CMU, with a ¾ hour fire
 rating designated on the drawings.
 3404.14 Assembly Use Groups. Notwithstanding the provisions of 780 CMR 3404, Assembly Use
 Groups shall comply with the provisions of 780 CMR 3400.3, item 6.

 3404. 15 Institutional Use Groups.
 3404.16 Residential Use Groups.
 3404.17 Fire Hazard to Adjacent Buildings. Any proposed change in the use or occupancy of an
 existing building which has the effect of increasing the fire hazard to adjacent buildings shall comply
 with the requirements of Table 705.2 for exterior wall fire resistance rating requirements, or with approved
 compliance alternatives.
 3404.18 Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Accessibility requirements shall be in accordance with 521
 CMR.
 Refer to Access Code Study
 3404.19 Energy Conservation. Energy conservation requirements shall be in accordance with 780 CMR 3407.0.

 3404.20 Carbon Monoxide Alarms. Carbon monoxide alarms are required and shall be selected and installed in
 accordance with the applicable requirements of 527 CMR and/or 248 CMR and 780 CMR 9.00.
 For any building undergoing substantial renovation, CO detection shall be brought up to the
 Code for new construction.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                          2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                           C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 Refer to Consultants Reports.
 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
 EXISTING STRUCTURES 8/22/08 (Effective 9/1/08) 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 500.89

 780 CMR 3407.0 ENERGY PROVISIONS
 FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS
 3407.1 General. 780 CMR 3407.0 establishes the energy provisions for existing buildings governed by 780 CMR
 3404.0 or 780 CMR 3405.0.
 3407.2Applicability. Alterations to any building component affecting the energy conservation
 performance of an existing building shall comply with the applicable requirements of.
 (a) 780 CMR, Table 3407 and all applicable subsections of 780 CMR 13.00, or.
 (b) 780 CMR 13.00 for thermal envelope requirements and all other applicable requirements of 780 CMR 13.00.
 Altered elements will be in accordance with these sections.
 3407.3 Exempt Buildings. Refer to 780 CMR 13.00 for thermally exempt buildings and for lighting exemptions
 3407.4 Certain Specific Requirements And/or Compliance Exceptions.
 3407.4.1 Fenestration. Replacement windows for existing low-rise residential buildings are required to have a
 maximum thermal transmittance of 0.44 and such windows must be NFRC listed/labeled.
 Exceptions:
 1. Criteria for NFRC listing/labeling and maximum U-0.44 are not required if the existing Window (s) are true
 divided light (i.e. – single thickness multi-pane sashes with structural muntin bars) and being replaced with “like
 kind” units. This Exception additionally requires that a storm window be installed over the replacement window. The
 storm window may be installed internally, externally, or integrated with the primary window.
 2. Criteria for NFRC listing/labeling and maximum U-0.44 are not required for basement Windows with a unit height
 up to 24 inches, whether or not the basement is a conditioned space.
 3407.4.1.1 Reduction in Wall Fenestration.
 When alterations to a wall assembly include only altering the fenestration component, the areas of fenestration may
 be decreased or replaced with an opaque wall element made to comply with the thermal transmittance value of the
 existing wall.
 3407.4.2 Ordinary Repairs. Ordinary repairs need not comply with the energy provisions.
 Note that in the repair of broken windows, broken doors or broken skylights, like-kind replacement shall be allowed,
 but the complete replacement of windows, doors or skylights in
 an existing building shall require compliance with the applicable requirements of 780 CMR
 3407.2. Any window replacement that includes new jambs or new jamb liners does not qualify as an “ordinary
 repair,” and such replacement is subject to the energy performance criteria of 780 CMR, 3407.2.
 3407.4.3 Roofs. Compliance of the roof/ceiling assembly is not required unless the existing roofing material is
 stripped off the roof deck. However, if a structural analysis by a registered professional engineer shows that the roof
 will not support the additional live loads imposed by compliance of the roof/ceiling assembly, or, if such analysis
 shows that addition of the required amount of insulation will cause ponding of water, then compliance of the
 roof/ceiling assembly is not required.
 3407.5 Alternative Designs. Alternative design methods may be used where it can be demonstrated through analysis
 by a licensed professional that the alternative will achieve a level of energy 500.90 780 CMR - Seventh Edition
 8/22/08 (Effective 9/1/08) conservation equivalent to that required by 780 CMR 3407. A report on the energy
 conservation analysis shall be submitted to the building official with the application for the building permit.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                         2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                          C. Massachusetts Building Code Report



 BUILDING           DESCRIPTION                                                    THERMAL                  NOTES
 COMPONENT                                                                         PROPERTIES
 Walls              All wall construction containing heated or mechanically        U-0.08                   6,8
                    cooled space
 Foundation         Containing heated or mechanically cooled space                 U-0.08                   4
 Walls Including    Containing unheated space                                      U-0.17
 Band
 Roof/Ceiling       Wood plank and beam construction containing heated or          U-0.08                   1
 Assembly           mechanically cooled space
 Roof/Ceiling       Construction other than wood plank and beam containing         0.05
 Assembly           heated or mechanically cooled space
 Windows and        All construction enclosing heated or mechanically cooled       For windows, see         2, 5, 6, 7
 Skylights          space                                                          Note 2. For skylights
                                                                                   – no current
                                                                                   restriction on “U”
                                                                                   value
 Floors             Floor sections over area exposed to outside air or unheated    U-0.08
                    areas

                    Unheated slab on grade                                         R-5.50                   3

                     Heated slab on grade                                           R-7.75
 Mechanical          Heating, cooling, sizing and efficiency                        780 CMR 13.00             9
 Equipment
 Equipment           Humidistats, thermostats & zoning                              780 CMR 13.00             9
 Controls
 Duct and Pipe       Located in or on buildings                                     780 CMR 13.00
 Insulation and
 Construction
 Electrical Power                                                                   780 CMR 13.00
 Distribution
 Lighting            Lighting                                                       780 CMR 13.00
 Note 1. Wood plank and beam assemblies are constructions in which the finished interior surface is the underside of
 the roof deck.
 Note 2. For existing low-rise residential buildings, commencing January 1, 1999, the maximum allowed thermal
 transmittance of replacement windows, with or without a storm window, shall be 0.44 and such windows and
 window with storm window combinations will be NFRC listed labeled. For all other existing building types
 (commercial/highrise), window thermal transmittance requirements shall conform to the requirements of 780 CMR
 13.00. Refer also to 780 CMR 3407.0 Exceptions 1. and 2.
 Note 3. Insulation may be omitted from floors over unheated areas when foundation walls are provided with a U
 value of 0.17.
 Note 4. The U value requirement of 0.17 for foundation walls may be omitted when floors over unheated spaces are
 provided with a U value of 0.08.
 Note 5. Refer to 780 CMR 13.00 and 61.00, as applicable for allowable air infiltration rates for residential doors and
 windows. Allowable rate for commercial doors is 11 cfm/lin. ft of operable sash crack.
 Note 6. The first floor exterior envelope of business and mercantile use groups shall have an overall thermal
 transmittance value not greater than .65 in lieu of individual component values for walls and fenestration.
 Note 7. When the glass area is increased, the glass and wall components which are altered shall comply with the
 component values in Table 3407. The extent of wall made to comply shall be equivalent to the decreased opaque wall
 area.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                            C. Massachusetts Building Code Report

 Note 8. When any alterations to the exterior wall component exposes the wall cavity or, when a finished system is
 added to a wall having no cavity, the wall must comply with the values in Table 3407.
 Note 9. When mechanical system compliance is required on an existing system, only the portions of the system
 altered and any other portions which can reasonably be incorporated need comply.
 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
 EXISTING STRUCTURES 8/22/08 (Effective 9/1/08) 780 CMR - Seventh Edition 500.91
 780 CMR 3408.0 STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS
 3408.1 General Requirements.
 Refer to Structural report

 780 CMR 3409.0 HISTORIC BUILDINGS 3409.1 Scope. The provisions of 780 CMR 3409.0
 shall govern all buildings and structures in the Commonwealth which are legally designated as historic buildings. 780
 CMR 3409.0 shall preempt all other regulations of 780 CMR governing the reconstruction alterations change of use
 and occupancy, repairs maintenance and additions for the conformity of historic buildings and structures to 780
 CMR, with the exception of 780 CMR 122.0 for appeals, or unless otherwise specified (see 780 CMR 120.Y). There
 is no obligation for owners of historic properties to apply for 780 CMR 3409.0.




 0915Worksheet\Code & Zoning/0915-MA Building Code Review.doc
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                          2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                 D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

 NARRATIVE:

 MA Building Code 780 CMR 3404.18 requires that accessibility for persons with disabilities
 comply with 521 CMR Architectural Access Board (AAB) Regulations. 521 CMR 3.3 Existing
 Buildings regulates jurisdiction for renovations/alterations to existing buildings, based on 1) the full
 and fair cash value of the building, and 2) the cost of the work done over a 36-month period. If
 the cost of the work exceeds 30% of the full and fair cash value of the building, the entire building
 must be made fully accessible. The Leominster High School (building only) is assessed at
 $27,468,600 (based on phone conversations with City of Leominster Assessor's office); 30% of
 $27,468,600 is $8,817,420. Since the total renovation cost is estimated to be greater than
 $8,817,420, the entire building must comply fully with 521 CMR accessibility requirements for
 new construction.


 If full compliance with 521 CMR is thought to be impracticable, an application for Variance may be
 made to the AAB. Variances have typically been granted only when the applicant can prove that
 "the cost of compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with
 disabilities". Nevertheless, it is often worthwhile to request a variance when facing substantial
 modifications and their associated costs; the AAB may accept reasonable compliance alternatives
 that satisfy the intent of the regulations at much lower cost.


521 CMR      DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:


3.00         JURISDICTION
                   The building value (per Dr. Nadine Binkley, Supt.) is
                   $27,468,600.
                   Land value is $2,951,100 (93% of 2009 fair market value).
                   The 100% fair market building value is $29,391,400.
                   30% of $29,391,400 = $8,817,420.
                                                                               ,
                   If the work performed amounts to greater than $8,817,420, then
                   the entire building is required to comply with 521 CMR.
                   If the work is performed over a period of time, the total cost of
                   such work in any 36 month period is added together in applying
                   521 CMR 3.3 Existing Buildings.
                   Non-occupiable spaces are exempt.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                       2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                            D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:
4.00       APPEAL AND VARIANCE
                 If full compliance with 521 CMR is thought to be impracticable,
                 an application for Variance may be made to the AAB.
12.00      EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
                 Administrative spaces, instructional spaces, and areas open to
                 students or the general public shall comply with 521 CMR.
                 Amphitheaters, lecture halls and classrooms shall comply with
                 521 CMR 14.00 PLACES OF ASSEMBLY.
                 Libraries: At least 5% (but not less than one) of tables, study
                 carrels, computer workstations and fixed seating must be
                 accessible (clear 36" aisle, clear floor space, 27" h. x 30" w. x 19"
                 d. knee clearance, 28-34" table/counter height).
                 Libraries: Checkout areas must comply (36" min. counter
                 height/length). Card catalogs must comply (36" min. height).
                 Libraries: Security device must not impede accessible route.
                 Libraries: Stack aisles must be min. 36" clear; 42" preferred.
                 Height is unrestricted.
                 Kitchens in classrooms must comply with 521 CMR 32.00
                 KITCHENS.
                 Sinks at classrooms and labs: At least 5% (but not less than one)
                 in each classroom or lab must be accessible (clear 36" aisle, clear
                 floor space, 27" h. x 30" w. x 19" d. knee clearance, 28-34"
                 table/counter height). At least 50% of storage shelf space must
                 be accessible (within forward and side reach). Controls and
                 operating mechanisms must comply with 521 CMR 39.00
                 CONTROLS.
                 Recreational Facilities must comply with 521 CMR 19.00
                 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
14.00      PLACES OF ASSEMBLY
                 Fixed seating: Number of accessible spaces is required per the
                 table below:

                    Total Seating          Wheelchair Spaces
                    4-25                   1
                    26-50                  2
                    51-300                 4
                    301-500                6
                    500+                   6, one additional space
                                           for each total seating
                                           capacity increase of 100
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                      2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                           D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:
                 The original drawings indicate a total of 1166 fixed
                 Auditorium seats.
                 A total of thirteen (13) accessible wheelchair spaces are required.
                 Spaces must be 36" w. x 60" l., level and comply with 521 CMR
                 29.00 FLOOR SURFACES. Accessible wheelchair spaces must be
                 provided in more than one location. Companion seats,
                 designated by signage, must be provided next to each accessible
                 wheelchair space.
                 An additional twelve (12) fixed seats must be aisle seats with no
                 armrests on the aisle side, and must be identified by signage.
                 Permanently installed assistive listening systems are required in
                 assembly spaces that 1) accommodate more than 50 persons, or
                 2) have both an audio-amplification system and fixed seating.
                 Other assembly spaces may be provided with a portable assistive
                 listening system (minimum number of receivers equal to at least
                 4% of the total number of seats).
                 Access to performing areas (i.e. stage) must be within the place
                 of assembly.
                 Box office ticket counters must be accessible (portion of counter
                 must be 36" l. min.; 36" h. max.).
                 Dressing rooms must comply with 521 CMR 33.00 DRESSING,
                 FITTING AND CHANGING ROOMS.
17.00      RESTAURANTS
                 521 CMR 17.00 applies to both Appleseed's restaurant and the
                 HS cafeteria.
                 At least 5% of tables must be accessible. Accessible tables must
                 be distributed throughout the space. A 36" min. clear aisle is
                 required between accessible tables. Knee clearance of at least
                 27" h. x 30" w. x 19" d. is required. Tops of tables must be within
                 28-34" h.
                 All dining areas (raised, sunken, outdoor, etc.) must be
                 accessible.
                 Food service lines must have 36" wide aisles.
                 Tray slides must be mounted no higher than 34".
                 Self-service shelves and dispensing devices for tableware, dishes,
                 condiments, food and beverages, as well as vending
                 areas/machines, must comply with zone of reach per 521 CMR
                 5.00 DEFINITIONS.
                 Cash register transaction counters must be mounted no higher
                 than 36".
                 TV's, if provided, must have closed caption decoders.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                     2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                         D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:
19.00      RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
                 Gymnasiums, weightlifting rooms, locker rooms and all
                 associated spectator areas must be accessible.
                 Locker rooms must have a 36" clear accessible route around all
                 lockers.
                 At least 5% of lockers must be accessible (operable with a closed
                 fist; mounted no higher than 42" h.).
                 If locker benches are provided, there must be a 36" wide aisle
                 between benches/lockers and a 5' turning diameter nearby.
20.00      ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
                 Verify exterior accessible route to public way.
                 Elevator access is required for locker room area (presently
                 accessible only by stairs).
                 Elevator or vertical platform lift access is required between the
                 upper building entry and wood gym/auditorium level (the
                 existing inclined wheelchair lift is allowed only 1) to provide
                 access to a performing area (stage) in an assembly use, or 2) in
                 an existing building where no other work is being performed and
                 no other alternative is available.
                 Elevator or vertical platform lift access is required between the
                 wood gym/auditorium lobby and main auditorium entrance
                 (presently accessible only by stairs).
                 Only one (1) accessible means of egress from auditorium is
                 provided; not less than two are required.
                 Accessible route to CTE is non-compliant; requires passing
                 through two (2) small SPED rooms to access existing double-
                 sided elevator.
                 Numerous objects (display cases, public telephones, overhead
                 conduits, stair stringers, etc.) in excess of 4" d., between the
                 heights of 27-80", protrude into the accessible route.
                 Accessible route to exterior courtyards (open to student use) is
                 non-compliant due to thresholds at doors.
21.00      CURB CUTS
                 Existing Granite Street sidewalk does not have accessible curb
                 cuts at the upper and lower school entrances.
                 Slope of curb cuts (1:12 max.; cross slope max. 1:50) and
                 transitions (1/2" max.) should be verified.
                 Curb cuts may not allow accumulating water, ice or debris; some
                 regarding is required.
22.00      WALKWAYS
                 Walks, sidewalks, courts, plazas and other pedestrian walkways
                 must be at least 48" wide excluding curb stones.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                      2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                            D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:


                 Walkways with running slope in excess of 1:20 (5%) are ramps
                 (except that at sidewalks on streets with natural topography
                 exceeding 1:20 (5%), ramps are not required).
                 Cross slope may not exceed 1:50 (2%).
                 Level changes greater than1/2" require a curb cut, walkway,
                 ramp, elevator or platform lift.
23.00      PARKING AND PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
                 Number of accessible spaces is provided per table below:

                   Total Parking in   Required Minimum Number of
                   Lot                Accessible Spaces
                   15-25              1
                   26-50              2
                   51-75              3
                   76-100             4
                   151-150            5
                   151-200            6
                   201-300            7
                   301-400            8
                   401-500            9
                   501-1000           2% of total
                   1000+              20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1000

                  There are a total of 471 existing parking spaces, based on review
                  of existing site plans and online aerial imagery.
                  A total of nine (9) accessible parking spaces are required. Two
                  (2) of these must be van accessible parking spaces.
                  Accessible spaces must be located with 200' of the closest
                  accessible entrance, or an accessible drop-off area must be
                  provided within 100' of the entrance.
                  Accessible parking spaces must be at least 8' wide plus a 5' (8' at
                  van-accessible) access aisle. Sidewalks adjacent to accessible
                  parking spaces must have curb cuts at access aisles.
                  Accessible parking spaces must be at least the same as adjacent
                  spaces in accordance with MA Building Code or local zoning.
                  Slope shall not exceed 1:50 (2%) in any direction.
                  Spaces must be marked by high-contrast painted lines.
                  Accessible parking spaces must be identified by signage, located
                  at the head of the space and not more than 10' away. Tops of
                  signs may be between 5-8' high.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                       2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                            D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:


                   Passenger loading zones must provide an access aisle at least 5' x
                   20', adjacent and parallel to the vehicle pull-up space. At
                   passenger loading zones, a minimum of 9'-6" vertical clearance is
                   required. Slope may not exceed 1:50 (2%) in any direction.
24.00      RAMPS
                  Interior ramp at cafeteria does not comply; top handrail is 32"
                  (34-38" required); handrails are discontinuous (interrupted by
                  vertical posts).
                  1976 wing interior ramps (2) appear to comply.
                  Slope, handrail height, etc. at interior auditorium ramp appear to
                  comply but should be verified.
                  Exterior ramp at music/art wing has no guards; confirm slope is
                  5% or less.
                  Slope, handrail height, etc. at exterior Appleseed's restaurant
                  entrance appear to comply but should be verified.
25.00      ENTRANCES
                  All public entrances must be accessible. Public entrances are
                  those other than service, loading or employee use only. The
                  main entry at the lower level is inaccessible due to door leaf size
                  of 30".
                  Vestibule doors must have 48" plus door swing width between
                  them; all vestibules appeared to comply.
                  Mats ½" or less must be secured (all edges). Mats ½" to ½" must
                  have beveled edges. Mats over ½" must be recessed. Grate
                  openings may not exceed ½" space in direction of travel.
                  Non-accessible entrances must have signage indicating the
                  location of the accessible entrance.
26.00      DOORS AND DOORWAYS
                  1961 Original Building: Numerous door openings (including
                  most classrooms) have inadequate maneuvering clearances and
                  non-compliant knob-type hardware.
                  1976 Additions/Renovations: Most door openings are AAB-
                  compliant.
                  1989 Additions/Renovations: Most door openings are AAB-
                  compliant.
                  2001 Addition: Most or all door openings are AAB-compliant.
27.00      STAIRS
                  1961 Original Building: Open risers at wired glass enclosed
                  interior stair near main entry are non-compliant. Nosings appear
                  to exceed the dimensional limits required by AAB, and will
                  require modifications. Handrails are typically non-compliant in
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                      2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                           D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:
                 terms of location (open interior stair next to cafeteria has rail on
                 one side only), height (less than the 34-38" above nosing
                 required by AAB), extensions (most rails lack proper, if any,
                 extensions at terminations) and continuity (most rails are
                 discontinuous; interrupted by newel posts). Handrail size/profile
                 appears to be AAB-compliant.
                 1976 Additions/Renovations: Nosings appear generally to be
                 within the dimensional limits required by AAB, but should be
                 field measured in detail. Handrails are typically non-compliant in
                 terms of height (less than the 34-38" above nosing required by
                 AAB). Handrail size/profile appears to be AAB-compliant.
                 1989 Additions/Renovations: NA (no stairs).
                 2001 Addition: NA (no stairs).
28.00      ELEVATORS:
                 Key operation of existing elevator is non-compliant.
                 Clear inside car dimensions, control location/height, presence of
                 Braille controls, handrails, etc., should be verified.
                 2-way emergency communication system inside car is required.
30.00      PUBLIC TOILET ROOMS
                 1961 Original Building: Public toilet rooms are typically non-
                 compliant.
                 1976 Additions/Renovations: Public toilet rooms are typically
                 compliant.
                 1989 Additions/Renovations: Public toilet rooms are typically
                 compliant.
                 2001 Addition: Public toilet rooms are typically compliant.
                 Existing locker rooms are non-accessible.
                 Showers and other bathing facilities (including toilet rooms) at
                 locker rooms must be accessible.
32.00      KITCHENS:
                 The main Cafeteria Kitchen is not open to the public and
                 therefore is not required to comply with accessibility
                 requirements. Food service lines and transaction areas at the
                 Kitchen/Cafeteria, however, must comply with 17.00
                 RESTAURANTS.
                 Non-commercial kitchens in classrooms must comply with this
                 section.
                 The Appleseed's kitchen is a commercial kitchen and not subject
                 to 32.00 Kitchens.
36.00      DRINKING FOUNTAINS:
                 Existing drinking fountains do not meet the spout height
                 requirement of 36" (max.).
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                      2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                          D. AAB Rules and Regulations Report

521 CMR    DESCRIPTION:
SECTION:


37.00      PUBLIC TELEPHONES
                 If provided, pay phones must be accessible, hearing-aid
                 compatible and be equipped with volume control.
                 If three or more public phones are provided together, one must
                 be a text telephone.
39.00      CONTROLS
                 Controls and operating mechanisms in accessible spaces must
                 be accessible with regard to clear floor space, height, location
                 and operation.
40.00      ALARMS
                 Emergency warning systems, if provided, must have both
                 audible/visual alarms complying with 40.00 Alarms.
41.00      SIGNAGE
                 Permanent rooms/spaces must be designated by signage
                 complying with 41.00 Signage.
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
                    E.   HVAC & Plumbing Analysis
September 25, 2009

Mr. Michael Pagano, AIA
Lamoureux Pagano Assoc., Arch.
14 East Worcester Street
Worcester, MA 01604

Re:    Mechanical Systems Survey at the Leominster High School

Dear Mr. Pagano:

The following is a summary report outlining our observations and comments regarding the
status of the HVAC and plumbing systems at the Leominster High School in Leominster, MA.

SITE INSPECTION

From August 27, 2009 through September 25, 2009 we performed several site inspection of the
existing building. Our observations along with review of the original contract documents and
information provided by facility personnel regarding the current building operating status were
used extensively in assembling this report.

GENERAL

The building is a 2-story structure with a lower/ground floor level which varies in its below
grade depth. The building was constructed in several phases with the major part of the structure
being built in 1961 followed by an addition in 1976, an addition to the center for technical
education in 1989 and ending with a single story modular addition in 2001 which encompasses
two (2) science rooms.

The building is primarily constructed of masonry brick/block and steel with the primary
exception being that of the modulars which are of steel, wood and gypsum board construction.
Most windows in the building are of the single pane type with the exception of that of the 1989
and 2001 construction which are double pane insulating type.

PLUMBING

Fixtures:

The existing buildings plumbing systems will need to be verified for adequacy in quantity based
on planned occupancy loading and use. We noted very few bathroom groups have been
retrofitted to allow for ADA and/or MA accessibility compliance. Any substantial proposed
renovation must address this lack of accessible fixtures.
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 2

Existing water closets are primarily of the wall mount flush valve type most of which are not of
the water conserving 1.6 gallon per flush type. Most of the lavatory sinks as well as urinals are
also of the wall hung type. The fixtures were in varying condition from good to poor. Also
many were fitted with faucets and flush valves of various ages.


individual shower stalls. In each locker room, the shower water supply is controlled via a
central water tempering control valve. For the gang showers in the boys locker room this
results in water flowing from all the shower heads when this valve is turned on. The girls
locker room showers have individual water shut-off controls at each shower head.

In the main school kitchen there are two (2) three-bowl pot/scullery sink connected to floor
mounted grease traps. There was a dual bowl preparatory sink however it was not indirectly
wasted as required by code. If used as a food preparation sink the fixture must not connect
directly to the waste line but must waste to a floor sink or similar waste outlet with air gap to
avoid contamination of the food by the potential back-up of waste from the sewer system. One
(1) hand wash sink was also provided. Although original drawings reflected a dish washer and
garbage can washer, both have since been removed. It is presumed the school currently uses a
combination of the 3 bay sinks for washing and disposable plates and utensils. Final fixture
count and configuration must be reviewed with the local Board of Health to insure compliance
with their regulations. The school restaurant was not surveyed during the inspection however
we understand that it meet current complaints.

Current regulations would require that all waste from the kitchen area be discharged to an
exterior grease trap prior to discharge to the municipal sewer. It appears the school restaurant
kitchen has an exterior grease trap which was installed in 1989. Current configuration and
piping of this tank must be verified. However, the school main kitchen waste does not
discharge to an exterior grease trap which should be addressed during a substantial renovation
project.

It appears with the exception of a few ADA fixtures, most of the fixtures are of original vintage
many of which are not of the water saving type. Apparently maintenance is routinely performed
on faucets, toilet fill valves, etc.. as needed.

Cold Water Service:

There is                   connected to the municipal water supply which supports the

meter prior to feeding the buildings domestic water loads.

The water service entrance does not have a backflow preventer installed. For a facility such as
this with multiple potential sources of cross contamination, current code would require the main
water service entrance to have a double check style backflow preventer to prevent possible
contamination of the municipal water supply. In addition, local hazards would require

                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 3

backflow prevention on both cold and hot water supplies such as for steam tables, commercial
dishwashers, and water supplies to the laboratory classrooms. These devices would prevent
contamination of the building water supply from these sources.

The water service does not have a pressure regulator installed. Pressure regulators/reducers are
required by code if the incoming water supply pressure exceeds 80 psig. Based on our
observations the incoming water supply does not appear to be over this pressure limit and
therefore a pressure regulator is not required.

Although no active leaks were noticed during our inspection, due to the pipes age, especially in
the 1961 and 1976 portions of the building there is a high probability that the water service
could have lead containing solder in the fittings or contain high lead content brass pipe.
Although not a large source of lead contamination it should be tested and monitored and/or
corrected if found to be a problem.

From various access points it appeared that pipe insulation was present and intact however
much piping runs in pipe tunnels which had limited access. Although much of the pipe
insulation we noted was fiberglass the presence of asbestos containing pipe insulation or pipe
joint insulation is high in the 1961 and 1976 building segments. If this piping is to be repaired
or replaced, proper abatement procedures will need to be followed.

During a substantial renovation, we would recommend complete replacement of all domestic
water piping, valves and accessories within the building with the exception of that within the
1989 and later additions.

Domestic Hot Water Service:

The domestic hot water needs of the building are primarily supported by an indirect fired
storage tank which utilizes the heating plant boiler water to generate domestic hot water. This
tank has a rated storage capacity of 2,558 gallons. The current configuration requires that the
heating boiler plant remain active whenever the building is occupied so as to generate the code
required domestic hot water for the building fixtures. The tank is of original vintage (1962) and
as such should be considered a serious candidate for replacement.

There is no mixing valve located on the discharge of the water storage tank. There does not
appear to be a two temperature system which would be required to satisfy code requirements for
occupant fixtures (bathroom sinks) to discharge hot water at a temperature no greater than 110-
112
are required to have hot water temperatures in excess of 120 F for sanitation reasons. In
addition, the storage water temperature should be kept at 140°F to prevent bacteria growth
within the tank. The two temperature tempering system can be addressed via a separate pipe
system or locally at fixtures. A separate tempering valve is provided at the locker rooms to
support code required shower discharge temperatures.


                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 4


There is a recirculation pump on the main domestic hot water system, which is required since
there are fixtures located beyond 100 feet of the hot water source. The building code requires
hot water to be available within 100 feet of any hot water consuming fixture.


work stations must have emergency eye wash and shower units supplied with tempered water.
The current configuration does have several of these safety features however, at least for the
1976 labs, they are not supplied with tempered water as required by code. Although the lack of
tempered water was most likely code compliant at the time of construction, current codes
require the water supply to these safety fixtures to be tempered. This may have to be addressed
if these labs are part of a renovation project.

Refer to cold water section for comments on backflow protection and insulation.

Although no active leaks or failures were noted during our walk-thru, due to the          age
during a substantial renovation, we would recommend complete replacement of all domestic
hot water piping, valves and accessories for all areas constructed previous to 1989. As was
noted for the domestic cold water service lead containing fittings and piping may also be
present in the pre 1989 portions of the building and should be tested for.

Drainage Systems:

The roof is drained via an internal roof leader system connecting to underground storm drainage
piping leading to a municipal storm water system. We noticed no outward signs of storm
drainage system failure with the exception of a leak in the area of the lower level physics
classroom.

Most of the sanitary drainage piping is concealed from view, however what we were able to see
was primarily cast iron hub & spigot type. The sanitary sewer lines run below the slab and exit
the building to a municipal sewer system. The facility personnel also noted a holding tank in
front of the building which is pumped twice a year. Further investigation of this tank and what
is served is required. We noticed no outward signs of sanitary system failure during our walk-
thru.

The science rooms in the modular building have local acid neutralizing waste systems. The
science rooms in the 1976 portion have a centralized in floor acid waste tank which collects
waster from all sink fixtures and floor drains in the lab areas, treats it and then discharges to the
buildings sanitary sewer system. Proper capacity or maintenance of this acid neutralizing
system could not be verified during our inspection.

Based on past projects we have worked on of this vintage, the underground waste and storm
piping is typically in good condition and may be able to be reused. If areas have had blockages
in the past we would recommend scoping of those underground lines to verify their condition

                                  Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 5

and address them accordingly. As a minimum, all above grade horizontal sanitary sewer and
storm water piping should be replaced in all areas built prior to 1989. Vertical stacks and vent
piping may be able to be reused if found to be in good condition.

An exterior 10,000-gallon pump chamber was installed in 1977 and appears to intercept the
schools main waste line and then pump back into the same waste line. In speaking with the
DPW, apparently the pump chamber was installed due to some issues with waste flow in the
municipal system, hence the chamber would allow control of when and how fast the schools
sewer flow would discharge to the municipal system. However, apparently this issue has since
been addressed and they do not know if the school still requires the pump chamber. Further
evaluation of this pump chamber should be completed to verify the need for its continued use.

Gas Service:

During our initial walk-thru we noted one (1) natural gas service supporting the building. The
service enters at the NW rear corner of the C building and runs along the roof towards the
science rooms and boiler rooms. It presumable supports the buildings gas loads such as the
boiler pilots, science rooms and kitchen equipment. Gas service is distributed to the building
via National Grid. In preliminary conversations with National Grid, they have indicated that a
significant contribution from the school would be required to upgrade the service to support a
majority of the schools heating needs. Actually Owner contribution is unknown until National
Grid can perform engineering analysis however unofficially the cost may be in the magnitude of
$200,000 +/-.

HVAC

Boilers:

The buildings heating and domestic hot water requirements are currently supported by two (2)
PVI fire tube hot water boilers as well as one (1) Burnham cast iron sectional boiler. The PVI
boilers each have a rated input capacity of 8,000,000 BTUH and were installed in 1993. The
Burnham boiler has a rated input capacity of 1,200,000 BTUH and was installed in 1998. All
three combined the total plant input capacity is 17,200,000 BTUH. Each boiler has an
atomizing type power burner both of which fire #2 fuel oil. In addition to the fuel oil supply,
each the burner requires a small natural gas supply to support ignition pilot operation.

The boilers discharge flue gases into a common breeching prior to entering a masonry chimney.
The internal condition of the chimney is unknown.

Fuel oil is supplied from two (2) 12,000 gallon underground fuel oil tanks located adjacent to
the boiler room. The tanks were installed in circa 1993 and as such should be in fairly good
condition being of a double wall construction with a monitoring system. Fuel oil transfer
pumps also circa 1993, are located in the boiler room and circulate fuel oil between the tank
and the oil burners.

                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 6


Combustion air for the boiler room is supplied from ductwork connecting to an exterior louver.
The ductwork appears to be slightly undersized to support current code requirements for
combustion air. According to facility personnel, a combustion air damper in this duct is
interlocked to the boiler operation.

Boiler controls appear to be simple, enabling the plant into heating mode based on outdoor air
or manually as determined by facility personnel and recharging the domestic hot water tank
upon a call for domestic hot water. There appears to be an outdoor air reset control which
controls a 3-way valve diverting water flow around the boilers and adjusting system hot water
temperature in response to outdoor temperatures. Care in using this type of configuration is
recommended in that if adequate flow or sufficient return water temperature is not maintained
the boilers can undergo increased thermal stresses thereby shortening their life expectancy.
Boiler manufacturer would need to be consulted to verify flow and temperature limitations.

Hydronic Distribution:

Hot water from the heating plant is distributed to the building via a supply and return
distribution system. The system circulates hot water to fin-tube radiation, classroom unit
ventilators and heating & ventilating units located throughout the building. According to
facility personnel, the pumps are enabled upon a fall in outdoor air temperature below preset
limit.

The boiler room has two (2) Aurora horizontal split case floor mounted pumps which serve the
entire buildings heating needs. It appears that one pump provides stand-by back-up service for
the other pump. Each heating pump is rated for 1,200 GPM at 60 ft. hd. Additional in-line
pumps support the demands of the domestic hot water tank. Each pump has a standard
efficiency 25 HP motor controlled by an H-O-A motor starter.

The pumps appear to be in fair operational condition however do show some signs of seal
leakage which would be expected for pumps of this age. Refurbishing of the pumps would be
recommended during a substantial renovation.

System water expansion is accommodated through the use of two (2) vertical captive air type
expansion tanks located in the boiler room. The major drawback with captive air tanks is that
the air will naturally migrate into the water over time, in essence oxygenating the water, and
rendering the tanks ineffective. This in turn increases the amount of air in the system which can
cause air binding and accelerated corrosion of ferrous components. In addition, someone must
manually purge the tank of water on a regular scheduled basis to insure its effectiveness.
During any significant renovation project we would recommend replacing the captive air tanks
with bladder type tanks. A bladder tank creates a physical separation between the air and water
used to control system water expansion whereas captive air tanks have no such separation.



                                Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 7

Although there were no outward signs of leakage during our inspection the condition of the
piping system is unknown. Being that the piping system is of original vintage and primarily
constructed of ferrous metals being exposed to oxygen from the expansion tanks, we would
recommend the systems complete replacement at least in the portions of the building
constructed in 1961 and 1976. Or, if there were an economic need to save the piping, we would
recommend having several sections of pipe analyzed to determined pipe integrity prior to
allowing its reuse.

Ventilation & Air Conditioning:

Classroom style unit ventilators in both vertical and horizontal configuration as manufactured
by Trane are located throughout the building, primarily supporting classroom areas. These
units are located along exterior walls and each has an outdoor air louver and associate control
dampers to allow outdoor air to enter the respective spaces through the unit ventilator. During
occupied periods, the unit fans run continuous to provide space ventilation and pneumatic
damper operators modulate face & bypass (as applicable) and outdoor & return air dampers as
well as hot water valves to maintain space temperature.

Many of the units still being operational is a testimant to good maintenance. However, they
appear to be in fair to poor condition due to the high number of years of service and all have
met or exceeded their estimated useful expected service life of 20 years as noted in the
ASHRAE Applications Handbook. As such, any substantial renovation should include either
replacement of these units or alternate means of heating and ventilation.

Classroom exhaust in the building is supported by at least two (2) different methods. In the
original 1961 portions of the building each classroom is typically exhausted by a vertical
exhauster mounted along the same wall as the unit ventilator. In the 1976 and 1989 portions of
the building, classrooms are primarily exhaust via a ducted exhaust system serving one or more
rooms connecting to roof mounted exhaust fans serves multiple rooms.

Science rooms, the media center and adjacent areas in the 1976 portion of the building are
supported by a roof mounted variable air volume air handling unit serving multiple VAV boxes.
We suspect there are problems with this system as the Owner appears to have numerous
complaints as to it being too warm or too cool in the areas served by this system. Many other
areas of the 1976 portion of the building are supported by constant volume heating and
ventilating unit either suspended within the respective areas or located within an elevated
mechanical room.

In the 1989 portion of the building several of the trade related areas are supported by roof
mounted constant volume heating and ventilation units which have hot water coils mounted in
the main supply ducts within the building as opposed to within the units. The units on the roof
vary in their visible condition but are showing signs of wear and corrosion.



                                  Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 8

The 2001 modular portion of the building is supported by gas-fired furnaces with cooling coils
matched to condensers located at grade level. Outdoor air is introduced through the respective
furnace systems via exterior wall louver.

The original classroom outdoor air ventilation rates appear to comply with current ventilation
standards of at least 15 CFM of outdoor air per occupant. However ventilation in other areas
such as offices do not meet the 20 CFM per person of outdoor air required. Further review of
ventilation requirements utilizing most current ASHRAE Ventilation Standard must be
performed to ascertain outdoor air requirements to specific spaces.

Many of the corridors and office spaces currently have little or not active ventilation as required
by current code and will need to be brought up to current ventilation standards during a
substantial renovation project. These areas are primarily heated with fin-tube radiation with
local pneumatic control. Although exterior office areas have operable windows which may
satisfy the natural ventilation code intent as described in the building code, it is not reasonable
nor is it good engineering practice to expect one to open their window in the cold of winter or
heat of summer so as to obtain the proper amount of fresh air ventilation. In addition, Interior
office spaces currently utilize exhaust systems which exhaust these spaces pulling air in from
adjoining rooms and areas to support ventilation. This method does not adequately address the
intent of current ventilation standards.

The gymnasium area and adjoining auditorium areas is served by heating and ventilation units
located within a common mechanical space. Although the systems appear to have the ability to
provide 100% outdoor air for free cooling as weather permits these areas have many complaints
of being too hot and as such we suspect there are control problems with these systems. As
with many of the other system in the building, these units have also exceeded their useful
expected service life as defined by ASHRAE and as such should be replaced during a
renovation project.

All bathrooms have ducted exhaust systems which, according to the original drawings, in
several instances fall short of meeting current code required ventilation levels. It is presumed
most fans are operational.

We have yet to define all the areas within the existing building that are air conditioned. Some
have split systems such as the modular building and others are supported by ductless split units.
The air conditioned areas appear to be primarily limited to the following areas:
        Modular classroom building (constructed 2001) via split systems
        Main office spaces via rooftop and split systems
        Graphics typesetting via split systems
        Electronics and computer classrooms via ductless splits
        Special education rooms via ductless splits
        Teachers lounge via ductless split



                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 9

Internal condition of the ductwork systems is unknown however ductwork does tend to collect
dust and depending on the presence of internal liners and air conditioning cooling systems can
harbor mold and microbial contaminants. As such, due to the age of the existing ductwork and
based on the fact that there is no record of it ever being internally cleaned we would highly
recommend a thorough internal cleaning be performed on at least all of the supply and return
ductwork distribution systems. It is recommended that exhaust ductwork systems be cleaned as
well however the cleaning of these is less critical to building air quality in that all the air in
these systems is exhausted from the building and not recirculated.

Make-up air for the kitchen to compensate for the hood exhaust and other exhaust systems
within the kitchen is provided by suspended unit ventilators drawing in fresh air from the roof.
The kitchen hood exhaust system does not appear to comply with code on several issues as
follows: 1) The exhaust duct does not appear to be welded steel or be separated from
combustibles and is configured as low velocity; 2) the exhaust ductwork has a motorized
damper installed which is not allowed by current code; 3) The exhaust fan is not UL listed and
NFPA compliant for kitchen grease hood use as the fan discharges grease laden air onto the
roof in lieu of up away from the roof as required by current code. In addition, we could not
verify if power to the range equipment under the hood is deactivated upon activation of the
chemical fire suppression system as required by current code.

There are six (6) bypass style fume hoods located throughout the science and chemistry lab
areas. The exhaust systems to these hoods do not meet current code in that the exhaust
discharge is low on the roof. Current code require the fume hood exhaust to exit 10 feet above
the roof line. In addition, hood test reports dated July 10, 2009 indicate that of the six (6) hoods
                                                                                               .

Controls:

Much of the control throughout the building is pneumatic with local thermostats for space
temperature control and simple night setback functions. As noted earlier, the system does
appear to incorporate an outdoor reset scheme which resets the supply hot water temperature in
response outdoor ambient temperatures. The modular building systems as well as areas
supported by the ductless split systems do incorporate electric and/or electronic control
thermostats independent of the base building control system. Any major renovation should
consider incorporation of a centralized DDC energy management control system which can
incorporate intelligent energy saving routines and ventilation control to achieve compliance
with current energy code and improve overall building comfort and energy efficiency.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER TESTING

To further evaluate the recommended extent of the domestic and heating water piping
replacement required we would recommend a sample testing of various sections of the potable
cold water, hot water and heating water supply and return piping throughout the building.
Samples from each of the respective building age segments would be required with the

                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 10

exception of the 2001 addition which is presumable in good condition. We then suggest these
samples be sent out to a lab for review of wall thickness and overall condition. From these
results we shall then determine which piping systems could be considered for reuse and which
should be replaced during a renovation project.

Selective equipment testing may also be required on a unitary basis if the project budget
mandates salvage and reuse of as much existing equipment as feasible due to budget
limitations.

RECCOMENDATIONS

Recommendations for improvements have been broken down into 4 categories. The category
definitions are as follows:

Category #1 - Addresses those items that are considered unsafe, mandatory upgrades or code
required at the time the building was built as well as now.

Category #2 Addresses those items that are broken and need repair.

Category #3 Addresses replacement of systems that have exceeded their useful expected
service life. May also include readily available energy enhancements considered reasonable
and practical.

Category #4 Addresses system enhancements such as added air conditioning, solar powered
systems or other energy efficient upgrades.


Plumbing Recommendations

Category #1
   1. Install backflow prevention on main water service entrance and cold and hot water fees
       to 1976 science labs.
   2. Provide central mixing valve station on domestic hot water tank.
   3. Provide new adjustable temperature metering faucets on all public lavatories.
   4. Provide exterior grease trap for main kitchen fixtures.

Category #2
   1. Replace broken fixtures with new water conserving type.
   2. Verify existing acid neutralizing tank is in good service and provide new limestone fill
       as needed.
   3. Provide tempered water supply to emergency eye wash and showers.

Category #3


                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 11

   1. Replace domestic hot water tank with new indirect tank(s) coupled to dedicated high
      efficiency gas-fired domestic hot water boiler.
   2. Provide new cold water, hot water and hot water recirculation distribution system in all
      portions of the 1961 (and 1976 building) if testing determines piping has deteriorated.
   3. Replace all existing bathroom fixtures in the 1961 building with new low flush fixtures,
      accessible as required.

Category #4
   1. Provide a thermal solar panel array to supplement the domestic hot water demand.
       System shall also be configured to send heat to the heating system if required.


HVAC Recommendations

Category #1
   1. Provide complaint fume hood exhaust fans and controls for the six (6) fume hoods.
   2. Provide new complaint kitchen hood fan and ductwork serving existing main kitchen
       hood.

Category #2
   1. Repair broken dampers and controls on existing systems identified as requiring such.
   2. Replace existing VAV boxes on science lab and media center system. Replace existing
       rooftop unit with new with cooling component and total energy reclamation feature.
       New rooftop unit and VAV boxes shall be tied to a new centralized energy management
       system (EMS).

Category #3
   1. Provide new hot water supply and return distribution system in all portions of the 1961
       (and 1976 building) if testing determines piping has deteriorated.
   2. Replace all existing unit ventilators and associated exhaust systems with new units tied
       to the EMS. New controls will adjust outdoor air based on room occupancy. New units
       shall be sized to provide adequate heat at reduced water temperatures so as to take
       advantage wither now or in the future of condensing gas boilers or other low water
       temperature system.
   3. Replace existing HV unit in auditorium with new rooftop unit complete with total
       energy recovery ventilation, heating coil and DX cooling.
   4. Refurbish or replace existing HV unit serving gymnasium with new complete with
       variable speed air volume control and CO2 demand ventilation reset.
   5. Retrofit all HVAC systems throughout the building with new EMS controls to enact
       energy saving routines.

Category #4
   1. Provide interconnection to thermal solar panel array supporting domestic hot water
       system.

                                Seaman Engineering Corporation
Leominster High School
Prelim. Plumbing & HVAC Exist. Cond. Report
September 25, 2009 - Page 12

   2. Provide a high efficiency condensing gas boiler(s) to supplement (or provide all) the
      buildings heating demands.
   3. A water cooled cooling option could also be consider as a geothermal based option. A
      geothermal chiller/heater could support building cooling loads in the summer as well as
      provide supplemental heating to the building by preheating both the heating water and
      domestic hot water thereby reducing the demand on the building fossil fuel boilers. A
      geothermal well field analysis as well as a life cycle cost would need to be performed to
      verify economic viability

If you have any questions regarding this report please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely Yours,
Seaman Engineering Corporation



Kevin R. Seaman P.E., LEED® AP
President




                                 Seaman Engineering Corporation
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
                    F.   Electric/Data Communications
                         Analysis
                    A R T Engineering Corp.
                    ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
                    76 Webster Street, Worcester, MA 01603       T. 508.797.0333 F. 508.797.5130


                             Existing Electrical Systems Review
                                   Leominster High School
                                       Leominster, MA



Date:        September 25, 2009
Prepared by: Azim Rawji, P.E.


SUMMARY

ART Engineering Corporation (ART) has been retained by Lamoureux Pagano Associates to
provide an electrical systems analysis for the Leominster High School in Leominster,
Massachusetts. ART has completed site surveys and reviewed available electrical drawings for
the existing building. We have developed a Good/Fair/Poor rating system for the various
electrical systems.

The Good/Fair/Poor rating system was developed to give a concise, overall assessment for
each system. In general, a system rated “Good” typically is up to date with current codes and
well suited for current and future space intent. A “Fair” rated system may have some equipment
in need of replacement or portions not suited for current or future space programming. Systems
that are rated “Poor,” are not well served for current or future space programming, and are
outdated or obsolete.

Most of the systems included in the study were found to have fair or poor overall ratings. There
are many reasons for this, including the age and systems that do not meet current code
requirements. Our good/fair/poor rating system takes into account the condition of the electrical
systems as well as the types of systems, sizing and applicability for their respective spaces. The
provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code 780 CMR are intended to maintain or
increase public safety, health, and general welfare in existing buildings by permitting repair,
alteration, addition, and/or change of use without requiring full compliance with the code for new
construction except where otherwise specified in the code. The electrical systems in the building
were installed under the applicable building code at the time of installation and are still in
compliance.

The Massachusetts State Building Code 780 CMR requires all buildings and structures and all
parts thereof, both existing and new, and all systems and equipment therein which are regulated
by 780 CMR shall be maintained in a safe, operable and sanitary condition. All service
equipment, means of egress, devices and safeguards which are required by 780 CMR in a
building or structure, or which were required by a previous statute in a building or structure,
when erected, altered or repaired, shall be maintained in good working order. The owner shall
be responsible for system compliance.

The majority of the electrical systems in the building are either outdated or obsolete. The
emergency generator and the fire alarm system have been maintained and tested regularly. The
electrical distribution system is by Federal Pacific Equipment (FPE) Company; the equipment is
no longer being manufactured or supported. The equipment is at the end of its useful working
life. The existing lighting system in the 1961 building is based on inefficient T12 fluorescent
lamps. The light fixtures are at the end of their useful working life. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) recommends removal of all pre-1979 fluorescent light ballasts in
schools to prevent accidental exposure of students, teachers, and other school personnel to
highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) through fires or leaks. Future programming will
require replacement of these systems.


Electrical Service (primary and secondary);

The building electric service is rated 2500A, 208Y/120V, 3-Phase, 4-Wire. The main
switchboard is located in the electric room in the basement. The switchboard is fed from
transformers located in the utility company vault above the electric room. The transformers are
fed from the utility company primary distribution system. The switchgear is by FPE Company.
The switchgear is 45+ years old and at the end of its useful life. FPE Company equipment is no
longer being manufactured or supported and is prone to failure.

Based on a gross square footage of the building, the existing service capacity is approximately
3 watts/sq. ft. Based on good engineering practice the electrical service appears to be
inadequately sized. Typical school building loads are sized as follows:

          Load                             Watt/Sq. Ft.
          Lighting                             1
          Computer Loads                       3
          General Power                        1
          Kitchen                              TBD
          HVAC                                 TBD

We recommend that the electrical service be upgraded especially if parts of the building are to
be provided with cooling systems.


Normal Distribution

The panelboards are by various manufacturers (FPE, Siemens, General Electric Company, etc).
The panelboards are located throughout the building and are circuit breaker type. The majority
of panelboards appear to be approximately 45+ years old and past their useful life. The panel
boards installed during and after the 1989 additions may be maintained. The panelboards and
feeders installed prior to the 1989 will have to be tested and replaced if necessary. We
recommend that the feeder conductors be tested to ensure that they are in good working order;
any feeders with deteriorated insulation should be replaced.

The electrical rooms/closets were being used as storage areas. This is a code violation and
should be corrected.




Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                          Page 2
General Purpose Power

The general purpose power in the building appears to be inadequate in many areas. Additional
outlets have been installed in some classrooms over the years. Additional outlets may be
required for future programming needs. The existing branch wiring is 45+ years old. We
recommend that the branch circuit conductors be tested to ensure that they are in good working
order; any circuits with deteriorated insulation should be replaced.


Emergency /Standby Power

The building emergency/standby power is by a Cummins 125kW/156.25kVA, 208Y/120V, 3-
Phase, 4-Wire generator. The generator and transfer switch are located in the generator room in
the basement. The generator serves various standby/emergency loads throughout the building.
The diesel tank for the generator is located in the boiler room. The generator is 45+ years old
and at the end of its useful life.

We recommend that the existing emergency/standby power equipment be replaced. The new
emergency/standby power equipment will have to comply with the current Life Safety provisions
of the National Electrical Code (NEC) and the Massachusetts Electrical Code (MEC) 527 CMR.
The MEC requires all emergency system equipment and emergency system feeders located
outside of two-hour rated rooms, closets, or shafts to be enclosed within two-hour fire resistive
rated enclosures or be part of an assembly that has a two-hour fire resistive rating. The
emergency systems are required to be electrically and physically separated from normal power
equipment and wiring.


Egress & Exit Lighting

The egress lighting consists of incandescent and fluorescent light fixtures located in the egress
pathways and in assembly (gymnasium, auditorium and cafeteria) areas. The overall coverage
appears to be inadequate; there are no emergency light fixtures in the classrooms or outside
exit doors. The exit signs have been upgraded to LED type fixtures and appear to be adequate.
We recommend installation of new egress lighting to comply with current codes and a review of
the placement of exit signage in the path of egress to ensure all areas are adequately covered.

Exit signs and emergency egress lighting must be provided with an emergency power backup to
assure continued illumination for duration of not less than 1½ hours in case of primary power
loss, egress lighting must be connected to an emergency electrical system that complies with
the MEC.


Lighting & Controls

The lighting in the building is primarily fluorescent fixtures, some incandescent track fixtures and
metal halide fixtures were also observed. Parking lot and building perimeter lighting is
inadequate. Parking lots are lit by building mounted flood lights. Fluorescent fixtures with T12
lamps are located many areas of the building. Lighting control is by wall mounted snap or key

Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                Page 3
switches. There are no automatic light controls in the building. A few replacement fixtures and
fixtures in renovated areas were equipped with T8 lamps. The T12 lamps are inefficient and the
building has an approximate light power density of 1.4 to 1.6 watts/sq. ft. The applicable energy
codes mandate a maximum light power density of 1 watt/sq. ft. for schools. We recommend
that existing lighting be upgraded to more efficient lighting with a maximum light power density
of 0.8 watts/sq. ft. and take advantage of rebates offered by the utility company.


Telecommunications

The telecommunications system comprises mostly of Category 5/5E cables for data and voice
communications. The system appears to meet current applications requirements. Cabling
fished above accessible ceilings without being properly supported is a code violation.
Telecommunications cabling above the accessible ceilings will have to be supported per the
BICSI standards and the NEC. A wireless data communications system is installed throughout
the building. The system may have to be upgraded for future building use requirements.


Fire Alarm System

The fire alarm system is a conventional system by Gamewell. The fire alarm panel is located in
the fire alarm room. A fire alarm annunciator is located at the main entrance; Knox box and a
master box are located on the exterior of the building. The fire alarm system is obsolete; the
audiovisual signaling devices do not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
conventional system makes it difficult to pinpoint the device that initiated an alarm; the system is
prone to false alarms due to the age of the devices. The height and location manual pull stations
does not comply with current codes. Overall coverage of the automatic fire detection and
signaling devices is poor.

Fire protection systems are required for existing buildings, or portions thereof which are
substantially altered or substantially renovated, and where otherwise required by 780 CMR for
the specific use group. We recommend that the fire alarm system be upgraded to meet current
codes.


School Communications and Clock Systems

The school communications system is by Dukane. The system comprises a main console with
microphone and selector switches in the administration office, speakers with push-to-talk
buttons in the classrooms, and speakers in common areas. The main console appears to be
outdated but the system is functional. The CTE has a separate school communications system
for paging the CTE shops and classrooms. The system is integrated with the main school
communications system. The clock system is no longer in service. The system clocks have
been replaced with battery operated clocks. We recommend that the head-end console be
upgraded, all speakers should be tested and a new clock system with new clocks be provided.




Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                Page 4
Audio-Video Systems

The audio-video system comprises of TV sets on mobile carts with VCR/DVD players. There are
very few classrooms with audio-video teaching aids (smart board, projectors, etc.). New audio-
video system should be provided per future programming requirements.


Video Surveillance & Access Control Systems

There is no access control system at the school. The video surveillance system comprises of
two DVRs (Digital Video Recorders) by General Electric Company with approximately 26
cameras located at the main entrances and in the corridors.




Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                Page 5
Good / Fair / Poor Ratings
Electric Service: Poor - This system is rated poor because the service equipment is no longer
being manufactured or supported and is at the end of its useful life. The equipment is at a high
risk of failure due to age.

Normal Distribution: Poor - This system is rated poor because the distribution equipment is at
the end of its useful life; and FEP circuit breakers have a history of failing to open under fault
conditions. The equipment is at a high risk of failure due to age.

Emergency/Standby Power: Poor - This system is rated poor because the generator and the
transfer switch are at the end of their useful life.

Egress & Exit Lighting: Poor – Even though the exit signage has been upgraded, this system
is rated poor due to inadequate coverage of egress lighting and non-compliant emergency
power system. The equipment poses a life safety risk due to poor coverage and non-
compliance with current codes.

Lighting & Controls: Poor - This system is rated poor due to inefficient incandescent and T12
fluorescent fixtures and lack of automatic controls. The equipment contributes to higher
operating costs for the building. The T12 lamped fixtures may contain PCB.

Telecommunications: Fair - This system is rated fair because it meets current needs but the
cabling infrastructure is outdated and may not meet future programming needs.

Fire Alarm: Poor - This system is rated poor due to the obsolete fire alarm system and lack of
proper coverage of the automatic fire detection and signaling devices. The equipment poses a
life safety risk due to poor coverage and non-compliance with current codes.

School Communications & Clock Systems: Fair - This system is rated fair due to the
functional school communications system but non-working clock system.

Audio-Video Systems: Fair - This system is rated fair because only some classrooms have
audio-video teaching aids.

Video Surveillance & Access Control Systems: Fair - This system is rated fair due to the
functional video surveillance system but no access control system.




Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                Page 6
Recommendations
Any new building system or portion thereof shall conform to 780 CMR for new construction to
the fullest extent practical. However, individual components of an existing building system may
be repaired or replaced without requiring that system to comply fully with the code for new
construction unless specifically required by 780 CMR.

Repairs / Upgrades

Category 1: Code Violations/Hazards

     a. Storage in electrical rooms/closets is a code violation and should be remedied.
     b. Test the switchgear, panelboards and associated circuit breakers to ensure that the
        aged equipment is fit for continued operation. Replace/repair any deteriorated or faulty
        equipment.
     c. Test all feeders and branch circuit conductors to ensure that aged cabling in fit for
        continued operation. Replace any deteriorated feeders and branch circuits.
     d. Provide new emergency/standby generator, transfer and distribution equipment.
        Emergency equipment must be separated from normal and standby power equipment
        per the Massachusetts Electrical Code. All emergency equipment and feeders must be
        installed in 2-hour rated rooms/closets or must be 2-hour rated.
     e. Replace existing pre-1979 installed light fixtures with new super T8, T5, compact
        fluorescent and/or LED light fixtures. Install occupancy sensors in all offices, bathrooms
        and classrooms. Install low voltage lighting control panels to control corridor and
        common area lighting.
     f. Provide new egress lighting to provide adequate coverage. Properly feed egress lighting
        from an emergency power supply to comply with applicable codes. Augment existing
        LED exit signs with new where required.
     g. Provide new addressable fire alarm system to provide proper coverage of the automatic
        fire detection and ADA compliant signaling devices.
     h. Support telecommunications cabling above accessible ceilings per the BICSI standards
        and the NEC.

Category 2: Out of Order

     a. Provide new clock system head-end equipment and clocks in classrooms, public areas,
        etc.

Category 3: Past Useful Working Life

     a. Upgrade school communications system head-end equipment.

Category 4: Enhancements

     a. Upgrade electrical service and provide new main switchgear and distribution equipment
        if necessary based on the HVAC loads and future programming needs.
     b. Replace all existing light fixtures with new super T8, T5, compact fluorescent and/or LED
        light fixtures to take advantage of utility company rebates and to comply with current
        energy codes and lower operating costs. Install occupancy sensors in all offices,

Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                Page 7
          bathrooms and classrooms. Install low voltage lighting control panels to control corridor
          and common area lighting.
     c.   Integrate lighting controls with HVAC system to optimize energy performance of the
          building.
     d.   Provide new audio-video systems in classrooms.
     e.   Augment the existing video surveillance system with new cameras where required.
     f.   Provide new access control system integrated with the video surveillance system
     g.   Provide point-of-sale system integrated with access control system.
     h.   Provide new telecommunications cabling infrastructure per the BICSI standards. Utilize
          Category 6/6A horizontal cabling infrastructure with laser optimized fiber optic backbone
          cabling infrastructure.
     i.   Provide new wireless data system with a/b/g/n radios.

Testing:

1. All testing shall be per ANSI/NETA MTS-2007 standard for maintenance testing
   specifications for electrical power distribution equipment and systems.

2. The following systems and equipment should be inspected and tested:
   a. Switchgear and Switchboard Assemblies
   b. Cables (feeders and branch circuits), Low Voltage, 600V Maximum
   c. Switches, Air, Low-Voltage
   d. Circuit Breakers, Air, Insulated-Case/Moded-Case
   e. Circuit Breakers, Air, Low-Voltage Power
   f. Motor Controls, Motor Starters, Low-Voltage
   g. Grounding System
   h. Emergency System, Generator
   i. Emergency System, Transfer Switch

3. The test report shall include the following:
   a. Summary of project.
   b. Description of equipment tested.
   c. Description of tests.
   d. Test data.
   e. Analysis and recommendations.

4. Test data records shall include the following minimum requirements:
   a. Identification of the testing organization.
   b. Equipment identification.
   c. Humidity, temperature, and other conditions that may affect the results of the
      tests/calibrations.
   d. Date of inspections, tests, maintenance, and/or calibrations.
   e. Identification of the testing technician.
   f. Indication of inspections, tests, maintenance, and/or calibrations to be performed and
   g. recorded.
   h. Indication of expected results when calibrations are to be performed.
   i. Indication of “as-found” and “as-left” results, as applicable.

Leominster High School
Leominster, MA
Existing Building Electrical Systems Overview
                                                  Page 8
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
                    G.   Fire Protection Report
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the need, feasibility and budget cost of adding a
fire-protection (FP) sprinkler system to this existing building. Also evaluated, is the need
and budget cost of bringing other related systems (fire extinguishers, hose-stations, and
fire protection maintenance procedures) up to current code.

The building structure, layout, and various hazard levels were examined and are
summarized herein. The existing sprinkler system, covering the main kitchen area and
the vocational school were also examined and evaluated.

Sprinklers and piping for the stage area (believed to be the “most hydraulically
demanding”) were laid out and budget hydraulic calculations were performed. This
permitted a more accurate determination of required new FP piping sizes, and overall
system budget costs.

The new sprinkler system evaluated is a full, NFPA 13 system, with sprinkler coverage
“through-out”. This is the system type required by code if the new fire protection
systems cost is less than 15% of the total renovation cost, OR if any building-additions
are constructed.

FP work also includes upgrades to the existing vocational school / main kitchen fire
protection systems, to improve coverage where hazard levels have increased, and
decrease the total coverage area of the existing riser, which exceeds code by about 20%...

Note: upgrades to the existing fire alarm system have been evaluated by the electrical
engineer it his report. Installation of a full NFPA 13 sprinkler system in an educational
use building, however, eliminates the code requirement for a fire alarm system. Thus,
much of the FA system work would be optional – not code-required.

Additional fire extinguishers to ensure meeting current code are also included in the
budget costs.

Current code has detailed requirements for maintaining each FP system. Current
maintenance practices would need to be expanded to meet code. Thus, an increase in
annual maintenance costs should be anticipated.

Budget costs for the various options examined are summarized in the table below.




Page 1 of 18                                                             Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09




                                      LHS COST SUMMARY
                                          ITEM      Budget
                                                     Cost

                                                                (Total cost - will be divided
    Base Splined Ceiling / Lights replacement      $1,076,250   among FP / Mech)

                             Base FP Electrical     $3,750

            Base New Sprinkler System Costs        $1,785,897

 "Other FP" (Hoses, Exting, Upgrade existing)
                                       Costs       $138,200

                            Sub-total FP costs     $1,927,846

  Sub-total FP Related Costs (i.e. Ceilings and                 NOTE: only 50% assigned to
                                         Lights)   $538,125     "FP".
                                                                Plumbing and HVAC work also
                                                                requires ceiling removal - 50%
                                                                assigned to these trades.
                                           25%     $616,493



                Budget FP Total Installed Cost     $3,082,464

   Increase in Maintenance Costs (Annual Re-
                                curring cost)       $10,500



Based on these results, the following work is recommended.

Unsprinkled areas:

       Provide a new, NFPA 13 system through-out.
       Reduce all storage heights to less than 12’.
       Review available storage areas and storage needs. Re-organize storage to keep it
       confined to designated storage rooms, with appropriate FP coverage.
       Connect new FP system alarms to a new central Fire Alarm Control Panel
       (FACP). NOTE: If the entire building is sprinkled, this eliminates the code
       requirement for a building-wide fire alarm system. The existing FA system may
       not need to be upgraded except for the panel.

Kitchen area:


Page 2 of 18                                                            Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09


       Replace all sprinklers ( approximately 50).
       Review Exhaust Hood FP system and upgrade as required

Vocational School:

       Laboratory “plunge-test” approximately 50 sprinklers, taken from representative
       office, halls, shops, and the auto-body / paint-booth area. If any samples fail, all
       sprinklers represented by that sample must be replaced. If no samples fail, no
       sprinklers require replacement.
       Provide additional piping and sprinklers to cover areas under and over the new
       mezzanines and wood offices.
       Reduce all storage heights to less than 12’.

Maintenance:

       Train in-house personnel, and provide required monthly inspections using in-
       house inspectors
       Provide additional required maintenance and testing of FP systems alarms and
       flow.

BUILDING DESCRIPTION

The Leominster High School is primarily a slab-on-grade, split level building of block
and brick construction. Most roofs are flat, with one attic / gable roof over a small, 2-
classroom science addition. Gross building area is approximately 275,000 square feet,
with a maximum building height above front-grade elevation of approximately 46 feet.

Ceilings are a mix of splined tile in the original 1961 building, and hung-acoustical tile in
the newer additions. The hung ceilings would allow for easy installation of new sprinkler
piping. In order to install sprinkler piping in the 1961 building, the splined tile ceilings
would either need to be removed and completely replaced, OR a new ceiling installed
below the existing ceilings. The new, lower ceiling option has two serious draw-backs.

   1. The custodian stated that even with the existing ceiling height, student jump up
      and poke holes in it. A lower ceiling would make this even easier.

   1. The upper part of the walls on each side of the main corridors is wire-glass. A
      lower ceiling would abut the glass in a un-finished-looking way, unless the glass
      were also replaced, adding significantly to the cost.

For all cost-estimates presented here-in, splined-tile ceilings are assumed to be removed
and replaced where-ever new sprinkler piping is required.




Page 3 of 18                                                              Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

The front of the building is 2-story, area containing primarily classrooms and offices,
with 2 cafeterias and the main kitchen on the 2nd floor. The main kitchen and some
surrounding storage / auxiliary rooms are the only portion of the non-vocational school
with existing sprinkler coverage.

Also in the front of the building is a small science-room addition. This is the only space
with an attic. The attic is of all-wood construction, and is too tall to be protected by dry
sprinklers off of a wet-sprinkler system. Thus either a dry or glycol system would be
required to protect this area.

The rear of the building contains 2 gymnasiums and an auditorium, plus auxiliary spaces
such as locker rooms, music and theatre classrooms, storage and mechanical spaces.

The left wing of the building contains the vocational-school area, with carpentry,
machining, drafting, culinary arts, plumbing, HVAC, auto-mechanics, and auto-
body/paint. This wing contains the most high-hazard spaces, but has an existing NFPA
13 fire protection system through-out.

We noted that the original construction of the building is primarily “non-combustible”,
with concrete block walls, and metal bar-joists and deck. Since original construction,
however, the building has been made more “combustible” in several ways. In some
areas, plywood has been installed over sheet-rock walls, to minimize the potential for
students to put holes in the sheetrock. Far worse, numerous all-wood offices and
mezzanines have been built in selected vocational school trade rooms. Mezzanines
typically have stored combustible materials on top, with all-wood, individual-student-
work-stations underneath. This construction both obstructs sprinkler flow, and
dramatically increases the fuel loading in these rooms. Both these changes reduce the
sprinkler spacing allowed, and increases the water-flow requirements. We did not see
any indication that the existing sprinkler system was revised accordingly,

Storage in the building seems to be a critical issue that we recommend addressing as part
of these upgrades. When a building has insufficient storage space, other spaces not
intended or designed for storage often end up being used for storage. We looked at
numerous small storage rooms that were under-utilized. But we also noted numerous
spaces (including several electrical rooms) not intended for storage, with large amounts
of combustibles stored in them. Electrical rooms containing stored materials violate
code.

Storage height is another aspect of the storage issue that needs to be examined.
Sprinklers require between 18” and 3’ clearance between the sprinkler deflector and the
top of storage (depending on the type of sprinkler and stored material). Several storage
rooms had stored materials stacked up to or above the bottom of the roof structure – with
less than 6” clearance between the sprinklers and the top of the storage. The stored
materials would obstruct the sprinkler’s water flow, potentially keeping it from reaching
the fire. This is also a code violation.


Page 4 of 18                                                              Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09


The custodial staff stated that they have taken large amounts of materials formerly stored
in this building, and are storing them in a closed school about 3 miles away. While this
might ease the storage issues for LHS, it increases the fire-hazard level of the closed
school, and may not be in the town’s best long-term interest.

If any new Fire Protection systems are to be installed, it is important that the use of every
room to be sprinkled be clearly defined. Storage rooms require a higher level of sprinkler
protection than electrical rooms or non-combustible mechanical spaces, so it is important
that storage be confined to designated storage rooms, and not leak into other spaces
having a lesser level of protection.

A storage plan should both include an assessment of “who needs to store what” and “how
much should be stored”, as well as an assessment of available storage areas, and the
maximum storage height permitted in each space.

The school does use listed flammable storage cabinets to store paints, thinners, and other
extremely high fire hazard materials. This helps reduce the worst fire-hazards to a
moderate level.

WHY FIRE PROTECTION ?

The 1st automatic fire suppression system was patented in England in 1723, and consisted
of a cask of water, a chamber of gunpowder, and a system of fuses. By the latter half of
the 19th century, a multitude of fire protection devices and design methods had come into
being, leading people to recognize the need for quality standards. The National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) was formed in 1896. NFPA design and installation
standard 13 forms the basis of all US fire-sprinkler system design.

The purpose of NFPA 13 is to “provide a reasonable degree of protection for life and
property from fire”. Fire data collected over many years indicates that the chances of
dying in a fire are reduced by 50-75%, and average property loss is reduced by 50-67%
when sprinklers are present. NFPA feels this simple comparison understates the value of
sprinklers, as it lumps all fires together – including those where the sprinkler system
failed to operate due to an accidentally closed valve, or where the building hazard had
changed without updating the sprinkler system accordingly.

Thus, a fire protection system can be expected to both save lives and reduce property
damage in the event of a fire. Leominster Fire Prevention’s Deputy Chief Kirouac
mentioned to us a school about the same size as LHS that burned, and was re-built for 83
million dollars. In hindsight, a fire protection system for the original school would have
cost approximately $1.5 million, saving the town close to 80 million dollars.




Page 5 of 18                                                             Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Two areas, totaling approximately 62,600 square feet, have existing, full (or originally
full) sprinkler coverage. This includes 5,155 sqft of main kitchen and selected
surrounding areas, and the 57, 450 sqft voc school.

In addition, the corridor surrounding the main-building science rooms has 4 double-doors
with 1 sprinkler on each side of each set of doors. This type of coverage is not “per
NFPA”, but must have been approved by the local authority having jurisdiction as an
attempt to keep any fire originating in one area from crossing into adjacent egress paths.
Note: in addition to flammable chemical use, all science rooms have a natural gas supply
at each work-station. This would pose the highest fire hazard in the event of a leak or
vandalism to the system.

All existing sprinkled areas are served by one service entrance / riser. The coverage area
for this riser exceeds the code maximum, and some of this area would be “moved” to a
separate riser as part of this project.

The service entrance is 6”, into the main boiler room, with an 8”, single-check-valve
back-flow preventer. A single-check valve backflow preventer no longer meets code,
and is not acceptable to modern water departments. A double check valve backflow
preventer will have to be installed as part of this renovation. Boiler-room piping is
grooved steel, so a double check valve could be installed relatively easily, with some
relocation of existing valves.

Sprinkler main-size reduces back to 6” after the back-flow-preventer station. The
service, riser-valve, and alarm apparatus all appear to be the same vintage as the kitchen
area sprinklers – approximately 33 years old. The sprinkler main within the boiler room
is exposed, but all piping to the kitchen area is above splined ceilings. Thus kitchen-area
pipe sizes cannot be confirmed, but are assumed in this study to be “as shown” on the
original sprinkler drawings.

Piping in the vocational school is either exposed or above hung ceilings. While sizes
have not been documented as part of this study, it is at least possible to do so.

Although the voc school occupancy use has not changed, the wooden offices and
mezzanines added since the fire protection system was installed do impact the fire
protection design criteria. At the very least, additional sprinklers are required inside the
offices and under the mezzanines.

But in areas designed with sprinkler-spacing for non-combustible construction, sprinkler
spacing would also need to be reduced. Possible alternatives are to eliminate the wood
structures altogether, or replace them with non-combustible structures. The structures
seem to serve a useful function, implying that if they were removed there is some chance
they would eventually be re-built. In that case, a great deal of money would have been


Page 6 of 18                                                              Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

spent to no-end. Thus eliminating them is not recommended. Replacing them with non-
combustible construction would provide the greatest level of safety, but would likely be
considerably more expensive than upgrading the sprinkler system. Thus upgrading the
FP system is the option included in all cost estimates.

FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

The Mass. State Building Code and Fire Prevention Regulations primarily define where
fire protection systems are required and the required system components. When the LHS
was originally constructed (1961), however, there was no State building code, so no fire
protection system requirement.

Buildings constructed prior to a code requirements inception are generally “grand-
fathered” and only need to be brought up to code if there is a substantial renovation .
Section 3401.1 of 780 CMR (Mass State Building Code - 7th edition) specifically defines
“substantial renovation” relative to fire protection system costs. If a fire protection
system’s installed cost is estimated to be less than 15% of the total renovation cost, the
renovation is considered “substantial”, and the Fire Protection (FP) system must be
installed. Per our conversation with the Fire Dept’s Deputy Chief Kirouac, and the
definitions section of Chapter 9, “fire protection system” would include fire-sprinklers,
fire extinguishers, and standpipes. Per 780 CMR 907.2.3, a fire alarm system is not
code-required in a fully sprinkled, educational use building. Thus any fire alarm-related
costs would not be included when determining if the renovation is “substantial”.

Per the local building department, the “fire protection system cost” also does include
required ancillary costs such as splined-ceiling removal and replacement. It would not
include the costs of non-required work such as hung-ceiling replacement.

In addition to the requirements of Chapter 34, Mass General Laws (MGL) 148, ch 26 A,
G, H, and I, has been adopted by the city of Leominster, and they also impact whether a
Fire Protection system is required. Deputy Chief Kirouac stated that effective 1/1/10,
MGL 148 now requires a sprinkler system be added through-out the entire building if any
addition is made such that the total new building area is over 7,500 square feet. Since
LHS is already over 7,500 sqft, any addition of any size would require that the entire
building be sprinkled.

Current code would require the following in a facility of this sort:

    1. Per 3400.7, existing buildings with a change in .... storage arrangements require
       an evaluation of the existing sprinkler system for compliance with NFPA 13 and
       25. If the evaluation determines alterations are required, the alterations must be
       made. An evaluation and upgrades to the voc school system are required under
       this section, due to the change in hazards and combustibility.




Page 7 of 18                                                            Sensible Solutions
                             LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                        FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                              FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

    2. Per 903.2.3, an Educational-use building over 12,000 square feet requires a
       sprinkler system “through-out”, designed and installed per NFPA 13, 2007
       edition. Thus, an NFPA 13 system would be required if the overall renovation
       meets the code-definition of “substantial”.

    3.     Per 903.6 , sprinkler systems must be maintained per NFPA 25. Currently the
          sprinkler systems receive maintenance on an “as-required” basis, which does not
          meet code.

    4. Per 903.3.6 and 7, a Fire Dept. connection (permitting the Fire Dept. to pump
       extra water into the sprinkler system) is required, located per the Fire Dept
       direction, with threads compatible with the fire dept.’s pumping trucks.. There is
       an existing, approved Siamese FD connection.

    5. Per 901.6, identification signs with specific text messages must be installed on all
       equipment, valves, etc. ID signs are not in place, and are recommended to meet
       this sections requirements.

    6. Per 903.4, water flow alarms have to both sound local Audio visual alarms, and
       be monitored by a central fire alarm control panel (FACP) communicating
       directly to the LFD via central station, master box, or some other immediate
       means. There is an existing FACP – see Electrical section of report for its
       capabilities and recommended upgrades.

    7. Per 904, Kitchens with commercial cooking equipment under type 1 hood
       exhausts require fire suppression, that also must be regularly tested and
       inspected. Both the main kitchen and culinary arts kitchen, have existing fire
       suppression systems, which are tested annually as required.

    8. Per 905, Class III standpipes are required if a building’s top floor is more than
       30’ above the lowest Fire Department access. At LHS, the top floor (main gym
       area lockers) is less than 20 feet above the surrounding grade level, so no
       standpipes would be required except as follows:

         a. Per 905.3.4, stages over 1,000 square feet require hose stations on both sides of
            the stage. The LHS stage is about 2,560 square feet. If the building is
            sprinkled through-out, the hose stations can be fed from the sprinkler system,
            but must meet discharge pressure and flow requirements of NFPA 14. Since
            LHS is under 70 feet in height, residual pressure requirements do not have to be
            met.

         b. Per 905.3.7, Class I standpipe hose stations are also required in the exit
            passageway of all areas containing “high-piled” combustible storage. NFPA
            defines “high-piled” as over 12 feet. A very few storage areas had storage over



Page 8 of 18                                                              Sensible Solutions
                          LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                     FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                           FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

         12’ high, but the most cost-effective way to address this would be to lower the
         storage height – NOT add standpipes.

    9. Per 906, labelled, approved, and visible fire extinguishers are required in a E-use
       buildings, installed per NFPA 10. In addition, this section requires fire
       extinguishers in all areas with commercial cooking equipment, and in any
       laboratory, shop or similar use. LHS contains 126 fire extinguishers distributed
       among 85 stations.

    10. Per 908, areas where toxic gasses are used require gas leak detectors with distinct
        audio-visual emergency alarms, and automatic shut-down of gas supplies. Per
        the local fire dept., these requirements would not apply to science labs with a
        natural gas supply. We are not aware of any other toxic gas storage.

    11. Also Per 908.6, machine rooms require refrigerant leak detectors with audio-
        visual alarms. This requirement would only apply if part of the building
        becomes air-conditioned.

    12. Per 914 – fire pumps (if required) must be installed in a dedicated 2-hour rated
        room with direct-grade access or 2-hour-rated passage to grade level. They also
        must be on an emergency power source in E-use with over 300 occupants.
        Current flow test results indicate that fire pumps are not likely to be required.

The NFPA standards primarily define how the Fire Protection Systems must perform and
how they will be installed.

NFPA general requirements are briefly summarized here:

    NFPA 13 – Sprinkler Systems

   1. Sprinklers are required “through-out”, except where specifically permitted to be
      omitted. Throughout means not only occupied spaces, but in electrical /
      mechanical rooms, closets, walk-in-coolers, attics, crawl-spaces, even concealed
      spaces such as enclosed spaces under wooden stairs, or combustible spaces above
      ceilings.

   2. Each Sprinkler “system” is limited to 52,000 sqft (light or ordinary hazard) or
      40,000 sqft (extra hazard) on a single floor, per riser. This minimizes the area
      taken out of service in the event of an equipment failure, or fire. Areas on
      different floors are not added together – for example, 52,000 sqft of both floors of
      the front, 2-story area could be served by a single riser.

       For LHS, the above limitation means that 5 risers would be required. Although
       multiple risers can be fed from a single water supply, in a spread-out building
       with a water supply on both sides such as LHS, it would reduce piping sizes and


Page 9 of 18                                                            Sensible Solutions
                            LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                       FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                             FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

       costs to locate risers serving remote areas in those areas. LFD Deputy Chief
       Kirauac stated they would prefer all equipment to be in one location, but they
       would accept distributed risers if hydraulically required, and if each one is marked
       by an outside beacon.

   3. The number and spacing of sprinklers in any room, and the minimum amount of
      water each sprinkler must discharge is defined based on the room’s “hazard
      group”. The basic hazard groups in NFPA 13 are

          a.    “Light hazard (Light)”,
          b.    “Ordinary Hazard (OH1 or OH2) and
          c.    “Extra Hazard (EH1 or EH2)”.
          d.    Spaces used for storage have special classifications depending on what
                materials are stored and how they are stored.

       Classrooms, offices, hallways, gymnasiums, and auditoriums are generally
       considered “Light hazard” by NFPA, and require the lowest level of sprinkler
       protection. Art classrooms containing oil-based paints and thinners, and science
       classrooms containing a gas supply, would be an exception, and require a higher
       level of protection.

       Almost all storage rooms at LHS are quite small (well under 1,000 sqft), with
       materials stored under 12’ high. With a few exceptions, storage is on shelves or
       in piles less than 30” deep (aisle to aisle). Most of these areas would be
       considered “miscellaneous storage”, and designed as an ordinary hazard
       occupancy (see exceptions below under “extra hazard).

       “Ordinary hazard” areas would include (group 1) the main kitchen, culinary arts
       kitchen, both kitchen service areas, and (group 2) exterior loading docks, the
       machine shop, metal-working (auto-body) shop, auto-repair-shop, carpentry shop,
       storage-areas of the HVAC, plumbing, and electrical shops, and the stage.

       We did not identify any areas that would be considered “Extra hazard”.

       Areas requiring special types of protection include the:

                Auto-shop Paint booths
                Stage
                Kitchen Hood Exhausts
                Storage with shelves (aisle to aisle) over 30” deep.
                Storage over 12’ in height.

   4. In addition to the hazard rating of an area, the fire protection requirements also
      depend on whether the construction is



Page 10 of 18                                                           Sensible Solutions
                          LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                     FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                           FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

          a. “combustible” or “non-combustible”.
          b. Obstructed or non-obstructed.

       The wooden mezzanines added in the Vocational School since original
       construction both make their rooms “combustible construction” and add
       obstructions to sprinkler flow that were not accounted for in the original design.

       Sprinklers in combustible construction are permitted to cover fewer square feet of
       area than sprinklers in non-combustible construction. Thus additional sprinklers
       would be required in these spaces if the mezzanines are to remain. Piping is sized
       based on the total flow in the code-defined “design area”. If more sprinklers are
       added to the design area (due to the change to combustible construction) the total
       flow would be higher and the existing piping might also need to be up-sized for
       the new flow rate.

       “Budget” hydraulic calculations will be performed on the HVAC shop to get
       some sense of the sprinklers modifications cost impact of these mezzanines.

   5. Sprinkler systems can be “wet” (piping always filled with water), “dry” (piping
      always filled with air, except in a fire), or one of several specialty types. NFPA
      recommends wet systems be used where-ever possible, as they provide the fastest
      response to a fire. The existing system is a wet-type.

   6. Being able to use a wet system throughout would be very advantageous to LHS,
      as wet systems have the smallest pipe size requirements.

       Small isolated cold areas in LHS could be sprinkled by “dry sprinklers” off of a
       wet system. This would apply to Walk-in freezers and coolers and Outside
       overhangs. The science addition attic has a 9’ roof-peak - too tall for to be
       covered by dry sprinklers. It would need to be sprinkled either with a dry system,
       or a small, isolated “glycol” branch off of the main wet system.

   7. Piping systems for Light hazard areas (including small OH rooms within a
      predominantly Light area) are permitted to be CPVC plastic, if the plastic can be
      run in a non-combustible space such as above a ceiling. Use of CPVC
      significantly reduces both material and labor costs. Higher-hazard piping systems
      are required to be metal – typically grooved-steel is used for lowest cost.

       At LHS, the vast majority of the building is “Light hazard” and could utilize
       CPVC piping if it could be installed in a non-combustible space above the
       ceiling.. This would require ceiling replacement wherever piping was run in the
       1961 building.

NFPA 14 – Standpipes (summary if very limited, since general standpipes are not
required)


Page 11 of 18                                                           Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09


Class 1 standpipes may be automatic, semi-automatic, or manual except no manual
stanpipes are permitted.in high-rise buildings (over 70 ft high).

Standpipes shall be wet unless subject to freezing.

The explanatory material in Annex 5.4 specifically states “It is the committee’s intent to
permit the omission of fire pumps in non-high-rise buildings, if the water supply is
adequate for sprinklers, and the fire dept. pumper can meet the stand-pipe demand.”

Thus, a manual standpipe (least expensive type) for the stage area has been included in
the budget pricing.


NFPA 10 – Fire Extinguishers

Selection of fire extinguishers is based on type and size of fires expected to occur.

Classes of fires:

A – ordinary combustibles – wood, paper, cloth, rubber, many plastice
B – Flammable liquids, greases, tar, oil, paints, solvents, alcohols, gasses.
C - Energized electrical equipment
D – combustible metals
K - cooking oils

The size and quantity of exinguishers required is based on the rooms hazard level. Room
hazards are defined as:

   1. Light hazard if has normal amounts of Class A materials, with less than 1
      gallon/room class B

   2. Ordinary Hazard if occaisionally has more than normal amts Class A, and < 5
      gal/room class B

   3. High hazard – storage, manufacturing, or packaging of Class As, or class B over 5
      gal./room

Building structure is be protected by Class A extinguishers. Specific occupancies are
protected by extinguishers with an appropriate class. Extinguishers can be “multi-
purpose, for example, type. ABC is common.

Class B fires must be protected with large (over 10 lb) dry chemical medium, with
minimum discharge of 1 lb/second.



Page 12 of 18                                                             Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

Class K fires must be protected with class K extinguisher. ID all K extinguishers
“Activate FP system prior to using extinguisher”

The quantity of fire extinguishers appears to be adequate at LHS. Some types may need
to be updated to more hazard specific types – for example none of the extinguishers on
the LHS list are noted as being type K. Non-K extinguisher in K areas (kitchens) should
be replaced at their next 6-year maintenance interval.

Extinguishers should be inspected monthly to ensure they are in place, are full (“hefting”
test), with no visible damage. They require (and at LHS they receive) annual minor
maintenance and 6 and 12-year interval major maintenance / testing. The fire-
extinguisher maintenance program in place appears to meet code except for a lack of the
monthly visual inspections..


NFPA 25 – FP Maintenance

Current NFPA code maintenance requirements are summarized below:

    1. Annual, visual inspection (from the floor) of all sprinklers for: leaks; “loading”
       (accumulation of foreign materils such as grease, lint, paint, etc); corrosion;
       physical damage;

    2. Annual visual inspection of the spare sprinkler cabinet to ensure it contains the
       proper type and quantity of sprinklers and wrenches.

    3. Annual visual inspection (from the floor) of pipe and hangers for: leaks,
       corrosion, extra weight, damage.

    4. Annual inspection (just before cold weather) of building to ensure all areas with
       water-filled piping have heat, and dampers, windows, etc are all closed.

    5. Monthly inspection of pressure gages for normal pressures, and damage.

    6. Quarterly inspection and operational test of alarm devices (flow switches)..

    7. Quarterly inspection of the hydraulic name-plate to ensure it is in place.

    8. Monthly inspection and annual test of control valves,
    9. Monthly inspection and annual testing of of back-flow preventors

    10. Quarterly inspection of fire dept connections.

    11. Annual full-flow test out main drain.



Page 13 of 18                                                           Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

    12. Sprinkler testing – laboratory testing of a “representative sample (minimum 1%
        of total installed). Test after 20 years, then every 10 years there-after. If any
        tested samples fail – replace all sprinklers represented by that test sample.

All existing sprinklers appear to be original, and the school has no records of any testing
on them. The kitchen area sprinklers are approximately 33 years old, and the voc school
sprinklers being approximately 20 years old. The kitchen-area sprinklers in particular
look extremely grimy, with dust and debris clinging to what appears to be a greasy
surface. These must be replaced, as NFPA prohibits “chemical cleaners or scrubbing” –
as these could damage the operating mechanisms. Voc school sprinklers are due for
laboratory testing.

Control valves and alarms have not been maintained on any regular basis. Sprinkler
system maintenance will cause the largest increase in annual maintenance costs.

FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES

Available flow and pressure:

The Leominster High School (LHS) is located on Granite St, which has a 10” dead-end
water main. “Dead end” means the main is fed from only one end, which generally
results in lower water flow and pressure than a “circulating” main, fed from both ends,
Available flow and pressure are critical factors in fire protection system design, as high
available flow and pressure, permit piping to be sized smaller, which can substantially
reduce the installed cost. Low available flow and pressure means larger interior piping is
required, and may mean “fire pumps” and special pump controllers are required as well.

The water main to LHS itself was originally an 8” loop, installed in 1961, with both ends
tied into the Granite St. main. The loop formerly encompassed the main classroom area
and Vocational school, and contained 4 fire hydrants. The auditorium and gymnasiums
were outside of the loop – see SK1. Subsequent renovation plans that are still available
indicate only minor upgrades to small portions of this loop. Thus we assume the existing
water services are currently 48 years old.

When the science addition was built in the year 2000 the loop was apparently cut and
capped in two places. As a result, the loop became 2, dead-end, 8” branches. It was
noted during the flow test, that one of the hydrants (nearest the existing fire-service
entrance) is no longer operational due to some kind of underground problem.

The most recent water flow test data available from the Water Dept was from 1994, and
showed a static pressure of only 67 psi, with a residual pressure of only 27 psi with a
hydrant flowing at 1093 gallons per minute (GPM). While this flow and pressure level
are certainly adequate for domestic water needs, we considered it in the “low” range for
this building’s fire protection systems, due to the building height (see required flow and
pressure, below).


Page 14 of 18                                                            Sensible Solutions
                            LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                       FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                             FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09


To provide the most accurate sprinkler pipe system and cost estimates, two new flow
tests were done as part of this study. Flow and pressure readings were taken both on the
LHS water loop, and on the Granite St. main. Taking readings in both locations permits
at least an indirect evaluation of the LHS water main condition.

The new flow test, performed on 10-1-09 showed the following results:

Test 1:         Granite St hydrant flowing, NW LHS hydrant read:
                Static Pressure 88 psi, Residual pressure 78 psi, 1445 gpm flowing

Test 2:         LHS NE hydrant flowing, SE hydrant read:
                Static Pressure 92 psi, Residual pressure 76 psi, 1300 gpm flowing

The difference in flow and pressure between the two tests is minor – indirectly indicating
that the LHS water mains have no major leaks. the existing LHS water mains should
provide adequate fire protection service for the systems required.

Required flow and pressure

Budget hydraulic calculations were performed on the stage area - considered the best
candidates for “the most hydraulically demanding”.

Stage: The stage is a hydraulically demanding area for three reasons:

   1. It requires additional, closely spaced, sprinklers around the proscenium,
   2. It has a very high roof (needs the most pressure to just lift the water to roof level)
   3. It requires a 2-1/2” hose station on either side.

Budget calculations show that a 6” main run back to the existing FP service entrance
would provide adequate flow and pressure for the stage sprinklers.

Because of the high pressure required to get an adequate flow pattern from the hose
stations, a “manual” stand-pipe is assumed. This means all the flow and pressure
required for these hose stations would be provided by the fire department pumper.

BUDGET COSTING METHODS

Total building square footage of “Light hazard, Ordinary hazard, and Extra hazard” areas
was calculated, Also the square-footage of high-bay areas such as the gyms and
auditorium, and the square footage of splined ceilings that would have to be removed for
FP installation. (Note: while it might make sense for the owner to also replace hung
ceilings and lights during the FP installation, it is not absolutely necessary, so this cost is
not included in the FP cost estimate.)



Page 15 of 18                                                              Sensible Solutions
                          LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                     FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                           FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

The number of sprinklers in each hazard area was then estimated based on typical
coverage areas per sprinkler for that hazard. While the cost of the actual sprinkler head
does not vary much with building hazard, the cost of the piping could vary significantly.

Most costs shown are based on square-footage, with adjustments made for the hazard,
pipe type, and installation method. Other costs are based on engineering experience.

Splined ceiling and light fixture removal and replacements costs are based on figures
supplied by the architect / electrical engineer. NOTE: Only ½ of the total splined ceiling
and light fixture costs are included in the FP total. Required HVAC and Plumbing work
also requires ceiling removal, so 50% of the ceiling / light cost is assumed to be
associated with that work.




Page 16 of 18                                                           Sensible Solutions
                           LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                      FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                            FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09



                                      LHS COST SUMMARY
                                          ITEM      Budget
                                                     Cost

                                                                (Total cost - will be divided
    Base Splined Ceiling / Lights replacement      $1,076,250   among FP / Mech)

                             Base FP Electrical     $3,750

            Base New Sprinkler System Costs        $1,785,897

 "Other FP" (Hoses, Exting, Upgrade existing)
                                       Costs       $138,200

                            Sub-total FP costs     $1,927,846

  Sub-total FP Related Costs (i.e. Ceilings and                 NOTE: only 50% assigned to
                                         Lights)   $538,125     "FP".
                                                                Plumbing and HVAC work also
                                                                requires ceiling removal - 50%
                                                                assigned to these trades.
                                           25%     $616,493



                Budget FP Total Installed Cost     $3,082,464

   Increase in Maintenance Costs (Annual Re-
                                curring cost)       $10,500

RECOMMENDATIONS

Unsprinkled areas:

       Provide a new, NFPA 13 system through-out.
       Reduce all storage heights to less than 12’.
       Review available storage areas and storage needs. Re-organize storage to keep it
       confined to designated storage rooms, with appropriate FP coverage.
       Connect new FP system alarms to a new central Fire Alarm Control Panel
       (FACP). NOTE: If the entire building is sprinkled, this eliminates the code
       requirement for a building-wide fire alarm system. The existing FA system may
       not need to be upgraded except for the panel, and perhaps selected high-hazard
       areas..

Kitchen area:



Page 17 of 18                                                           Sensible Solutions
                          LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL
                     FIRE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
                           FINAL REPORT – 11-19-09

       Replace all sprinklers ( approximately 50).

Vocational School:

       Laboratory “plunge-test” approximately 50 sprinklers, taken from representative
       office, halls, shops, and the auto-body / paint-booth area. If any samples fail, all
       sprinklers represented by that sample must be replaced. If no samples fail, no
       sprinklers require replacement.
       Provide additional piping and sprinklers to cover areas under and over the new
       mezzanines and wood offices.
       Reduce all storage heights to less than 12’.

Maintenance:

       Train in-house personnel, and provide required monthly inspections using in-
       house inspectors
       Provide additional required maintenance and testing of FP systems alarms and
       flow.




Page 18 of 18                                                            Sensible Solutions
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
                    H.   Structural Report
October 13, 2009




Mr. Eric Moore
Lamoureux Pagano and Associates, Architects
14 East Worcester Street
Worcester, MA 01604



Re:     Structural Review
        Leominster High School
        Leominster, MA


Dear Mr. Moore,

This review will describe, in general terms, the structural effects of renovating the existing Leominster
High School building to install new mechanical and fire suppression systems, as well as building new
science classrooms adjacent to the existing building. We have reviewed the available original
Construction Drawings, visited the site, and reviewed 780 CMR 3408.0 “Structural Requirements for
Existing Buildings,” of the Massachusetts State Building Code, Seventh Edition. We have based our
review on the premise that the mechanical systems throughout the entire building will be upgraded or
replaced, and new fire suppression systems will be installed throughout the building. We understand that
the limit and scope of the renovation may change, depending on costs, and we will try to present the
structural requirements in general terms so they can be coordinated with various renovation options.

Building Description:
Leominster High School is a one- and two-story masonry veneer building that was originally constructed
in 1961 and has received several additions, including 1976, 1989 and 2001. Refer to Figure 1 for
Building Plan showing the general building layout. In general, each addition is structurally isolated from
the original 1961 Building.

Review of existing conditions is difficult at this point due to the structure being covered by finishes, but the
exposed portions of the structure appear to be in good condition. Exterior walls appear to be in generally
good conditions, but require regular maintenance, including; cleaning and painting of exterior steel lintels,
expansion joint maintenance, and general masonry upkeep.

The approximate floor areas of the original building and additions are:
                                                     2
                 •   1961 Building:        162,500 ft
                                                     2
                 •   1976 Building:         93,800 ft
                                                     2
                 •   1989 Building:         26,200 ft
                                                     2
                 •   2001 Building:          4,500 ft
                                                     2
                           Total           287,000 ft

Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                              1
Consulting Structural Engineers
                                                 K                       C
                                                                                            J
                                                1976                    1961
                                                                                           1976

                                                                  H
                                                                 1976
                                   G
                                  1976                            B
                                                                 1961
                                   D
                                  1961
                                                    F
                       1989                       1976       COURT.                   E
                                                                                    1976
                                                          A
                                         1989            1961

                                          2001



                                          Figure 1: Building Plan

Building Construction Types:
The 1961, 1976, and 1989 Buildings consist of fairly similar construction types, including:
    • Foundations:
           o Exterior concrete frost walls
           o Full height concrete basement walls
           o Interior concrete spread footings
           o Concrete slab-on-grade
    • Floor Framing
           o Steel bar joists and wide flange beams
           o 1976 Addition includes composite slabs with shear studs
           o Steel deck-form deck and composite deck
           o Concrete slabs supported on deck
    • Roof Framing
           o Steel joists and wide flange beams
           o Metal deck

The 2001 addition is a group of modular classrooms built on concrete frost walls.

Building Code Requirements:
We have reviewed Chapter 3408.0, “Structural Requirements for Existing Buildings” to determine the
level of Work associated with renovating the existing building, and the Structural requirements that will be
associated with the Work. In reviewing the Building Code, we used the following criteria:

    •   3408.1.4 “Structurally Separate Portions of Existing Buildings. Where portions of an existing
        building are structurally separate, each portion shall be considered a separate building for the
        purposes of 780 CMR 3408.0”

Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                           2
Consulting Structural Engineers
             o   Our interpretation is that since each addition is structurally separate, each will be
                 reviewed independently.

    •   3408.3 “Classification of Existing Buildings.” Post-1975 or Pre-1975 (Prior to 780 CMR, the
        Massachusetts State Building Code).
           o The original 1961 Building will be classified as Pre-1975, and the additions will be
                classified as Post-1975.

    •   3408.4 “Level of Work on Existing Buildings.”
           o We have reviewed the requirements for the five different Levels of Work, and it is our
                opinion that the renovations to the original 1961 Building will require conformance to
                Level 2 Work, at a minimum. This opinion is due to the Building Classification of Pre-
                1975 and the extent of the renovation for upgrading the mechanical and fire suppression
                systems. Calculations will be required during a full Chapter 3408 review to determine
                whether the Level of Work need to be increased beyond Level 2 based on the ability of
                the existing Unreinforced Masonry walls to resist the Building Code mandated loads.
           o Also, it is our opinion that the renovations to the Post-1975 Buildings (1976, 1989 and
                2001 Additions) will require conformance to Level 1 Work. This opinion is due to the
                Classification of Post-1975 and the fact that no triggers for Level 2 Work or above will be
                enacted by the proposed work.

Our opinions are based on the following requirements for Level 2 Work, 3408.4.3:
   1. Change of Use of an area which is more than 35% of the floor area of the existing building.
             o 1961:                       No change in Use
             o 1976, 1989, 2001:           No Change in Use
   2. For Pre-1975 buildings, when rehabilitation or remodeling is accumulated over a floor area of
                  2
        20,000 ft or 50% of the total floor area, which ever is less, starting from January 1, 2008.
             o 1961:                       Renovation floor area is expected to be more than 50% of the
                                           total floor area.
             o 1976, 1989, 2001:           Does not apply, Post-1975.
   3. Increase in total framed floor area….etc.
             o 1961:                       There will be no increase in framed floor area.
             o 1976, 1989, 2001:           There will be no increase in framed floor area.
   4. Increase in effective seismic weight, with or without structurally attached additions, up to a lifetime
        limit of 10% of the effective seismic weight of the building that existed on February 28, 1997, or
        on the date of the certificate of occupancy if the building was built thereafter.
             o 1961                        Increase in effective seismic weight will not exceed 10% of the
                                           effective seismic weight.
             o 1976, 1989, 2001:           Increase in effective seismic weight will not exceed 10% of the
                                           effective seismic weight.
   5. Structural work involving….etc.
             o 1961:                       Structural work will not exceed limits shown in 3408.4.3.5.
             o 1976, 1989, 2001:           Structural work will not exceed limits shown in 3408.4.3.5.
   6. Exemption for Pile Foundations. Structural repairs of pile foundations are exempt from Level 2
        Work.
             o Self explanatory. Not Pile Foundation work to be completed through out building.

Structural Investigation Requirements of Level 1 Work (Required at Post-1975 Additions):
If there is any structural work required for the project, the Structural Engineer of Record shall:
     1. Verify that the work to be performed is in fact Level 1 Work.
     2. Make a field investigation of the areas and structural members affected by the proposed work.
     3. Evaluate the capacity of the existing structural elements affected by the proposed structural work.



Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                             3
Consulting Structural Engineers
At this point in time, minor modifications to the building will fall under these requirements and will need to
be reviewed on a case by case basis, and will not trigger a full building review.

Structural Investigation Requirements of Level 2 Work (Required at Original 1961 Building):
If the Level of Work at any of the buildings meets the threshold for Level 2, the Massachusetts State
Building Code requires a full Chapter 3408 Review and Report. The Review will include:

3408.6.2.1 Initial Survey of Existing Building. The Structural Engineer of Record (SER) shall make an
initial survey of the existing building consisting of the following tasks. Alternatively, a registered architect,
who will be the Architect of Record for the project, may substitute for the SER for the parts of the
investigative work that do not require a structural evaluation.
      1. Gather and catalog relevant available information on the existing building, such as drawings,
          specifications, shop drawings, geotechnical engineering reports, previous condition appraisal
          reports, and building department records.
          • The Architect of Record, Lamoureux Pagano & Associates, has gathered and cataloged the
               original Construction Drawings, with exception of the original Structural Drawings. Also, the
               Construction Drawings for the additions have been gathered.
      2. Perform a field survey to either verify the available drawings or to establish dimensions of the
          existing building, including layout and sizes, of relevant structural components.
          • A brief field survey was completed October 2, 2009 to familiarize ourselves with the school
               and to field verify general building components. A more extensive field survey will need to be
               completed when the scope of work is determined, and structural components are exposed to
               view.
      3. Perform a field survey to visually assess the condition of the structural components of the existing
          building.
          • Again, a brief field survey was completed October 2, 2009, but a more extensive field survey
               will need to be conducted should the structural components need to be measured or
               inspected.
      4. Identify load paths (or lack thereof) to the foundation for gravity load and lateral load, based on
          information gathered in the above tasks.
          • Based on our review of the existing drawings and site visit, it is our opinion that the original
               1961 Building has identifiable load paths for the gravity loads, including steel columns,
               beams, joists, metal decking and concrete slabs. The lateral load resisting system is
               currently unreinforced masonry walls, which will need to be investigated in accordance to the
               requirements of 780 CMR 3408.6.2.3.5.

3408.6.2.2 Foundation and Geotechnical Explorations. Level 2 Work. If the work does not involve an
addition or does not include an increase in gravity loads, and does not involve new shear walls or vertical
frames or reinforcement of existing shear walls or vertical frames to resist the lateral loads required in 780
CMR 3408.7.3, and if there is no indication of settlement or lateral movement of basement walls or
foundations, no foundation or geotechnical exploration is required. Otherwise, exploration shall be
performed as necessary to determine the foundation design parameters of the subsoils and the type and
condition of the existing foundations.
        • It is our understanding that the renovation will not include an addition, and any increases in
             gravity loads will me limited to mechanical equipment. Therefore, we do not foresee requiring
             a geotechnical investigation, unless a review of 780 CMR 3408.7.3 determines that new
             lateral force resisting elements are needed.

3408.6.2.3 Structural Evaluation of the Existing Building. As part of any review, the SER shall include the
following items:
        • 3408.6.2.3.1 Existing Structural Materials: Determine the strengths of existing structural
             materials in accordance with 780 CMR 3408.9.2.3 and 3408.9.2.4.



Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                               4
Consulting Structural Engineers
        •    3408.6.2.3.2 Repairs: The SER shall evaluate structurally hazardous conditions and
             determine which existing structural elements or systems are in need of repair or other
             remedial action, and determine the character and extent of the repairs or remedial action.
        •    3408.6.2.3.3 Gravity Load Capacity- Level 2 Work: Where there are structural changes to the
             floors or roofs, the SER shall determine the total service load capacity, and the net
             unreduced service live load capacity or the net service snow load capacity, as applicable, in
             the affected areas.
                  o Structural changes to the floors will need to be reviewed in affected areas. We do
                      not anticipate changing uses or structural framing within the building, which most
                      likely will not change live loads within the building. New mechanical loads on the
                      existing framing must be reviewed during any renovation.
                  o Structural changes to the roofs will need to be reviewed. It should be noted that the
                      original design snow load is unknown, but the 1976 ground snow load was 30 psf,
                      and the 1989 snow load was 35 psf. We assume that the original design snow load
                      was 30 psf, and did not account for the drifting snow loads that are required today.
                      The snow load will need to be calculated in accordance with 3408.8.2, which will
                      produce a design snow load of approximately 40 psf, even with allowable reductions
                      for review of existing buildings. The increased snow load, and inclusion of drifting
                      snow in any areas that are being structurally altered will most likely require structural
                      reinforcing of the metal deck and framing.
                  o It should be noted that if there is an increase in Work Level above Level 2, the
                      service load capacities of the floors and roofs need to be calculated, whether there
                      are structural changes or not.

        •    3408.6.2.3.5 Lateral Load Capacity: The SER shall determine the lateral load capacity of the
             existing building and its lateral load components relative to the lateral load resistance
             required for the level of work to be performed, and determine what is needed to provide the
             required lateral load resistance.
                 o Lateral loads need to be calculated in accordance to 3408.7.3 for Level 2 Work, and
                      applied to each structurally isolated building.
                 o Existing lateral load resisting system at each of the 1961 Buildings appears to be
                      Unreinforced Masonry Walls (URM). The URM walls would not be acceptable for
                      new construction, but are acceptable for existing buildings, provided they are
                      adequately attached to the floors and roof to transfer the in-plane shear forces.
                      Connections of URM shear walls to the floor and roof diaphragms shall be in
                      accordance with 3408.9.4.
                 o Computations for each building will need to be completed as part of any Level 2 Work
                      for the 1961 Buildings. Any new lateral force resisting elements required to resist the
                      computed lateral forces, must comply with the Code requirements for New
                      Construction.

3408.6.2.4 Structural Details: The SER shall evaluate the following details:
   • Connectivity of the Structural Elements:
            o The structural framing is generally not exposed to view, but based on review of the
                available information shown on the Architectural Drawings, incidental information on the
                Addition’s Structural Drawings, and partially exposed portions of the structure, it is our
                opinion that the structural component are adequately connected to resist intended forces.
   • Existence of anchors connecting floor and roof decks to concrete or masonry walls, and if they
       exist, their ability to provide lateral support to the walls and transfer in-plane shear from the decks
       to the plane of the walls.
            o Based on our site visit and review of the existing Architectural Drawings, it is our opinion
                that the existing masonry walls within the limits of the 1961 Building to not conform to
                these requirements, and will need to be corrected during any renovation. This will most


Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                             5
Consulting Structural Engineers
                likely include installing new clip angles and anchors to the existing floor and roof
                diaphragms to properly brace the tops of all masonry walls (interior and exterior).
    •   Existence of unreinforced masonry parapets, how they are supported at the roof diaphragm, their
        height measured from the roof diaphragm, and their thickness.
            o There are no noticeable masonry parapets on the Architectural Drawings.
    •   For masonry walls, the ratio of the distance between lateral supports to the thickness of wall.
            o Based on our review of the Architectural Drawings, the URM walls appear to conform to
                span-width ratios, provided that they are adequately connected at the floor and roof
                levels.
    •   Existence of brittle connections of precast concrete cladding components.
            o Typically, there is a band of precast concrete cladding around the classroom between the
                floor levels. The connections are not exposed to view, and will need to be investigated to
                verify their structural integrity.

Additions:
In accordance with 780 CMR 3408.1.3, structurally separate additions shall comply with the requirements
for new construction. It should be noted that drifting snow caused by new additions on the existing
building must be addressed during the design phase.

Conclusions and Recommendations:
We have reviewed the available documents for Leominster High School, as well as visited the site to
determine the Structural Requirements of renovating the existing building to install new mechanical and
fire suppression systems, as well as building new science classrooms adjacent to the existing building. It
is our understanding that the mechanical and fire suppression system will be upgraded throughout the
building. As a general requirement, all new construction must be in accordance with the Massachusetts
State Building Code, current edition. Due to the substantial upgrading of the mechanical systems, the
renovation must conform to the requirements of 780 CMR 3408 “Structural Requirements for Existing
Buildings.” As with the rest of 780 CMR 3400, the Structural Requirements are in place to allow repair
and alteration of an existing building while increasing public safety. One of the main determinates for the
level of review is the age classification of the building, whether it is pre- or post-1975, which was the
                        st                                                    st
introduction of the 1 Massachusetts State Building Code. Prior to the 1 Building Code, seismic loads
and detailing were not included in the design requirements to the extent that they were with the
establishment of the State Building Code. As a result, the review requirements for Pre- and Post-1975
buildings are different, and since Leominster High School has both Pre- and Post-1975 buildings, there
are different levels of review and repair required for renovating the different buildings. The following is a
brief list of the different requirements for the buildings; refer to the main body of the report for the
complete list of requirements:

Pre-1975 Buildings (Original 1961 Buildings) Requirements:
    • Review and Work to be in accordance with Level 2 Work, 780 CMR 3408.4.3.
    • Gravity load capacity of the structure will need to be reviewed only where there are structural
       changes to the floor or roof.
    • Lateral loads of each building must be calculated in accordance with 780 CMR 3408.7.3, and the
       ability of the structure to resist the calculated loads must be verified.
    • Snow Loads have increased from original design of 30 psf (assumed based on details and
       addition loads) to 40 psf for renovation work.
            o Structural changes to the roof will require local areas to be reviewed with higher snow
                 loads, as well as drifting snow loads.
    • Unreinforced masonry walls (interior and exterior) currently resist lateral loads.
            o Connection details do not conform to 780 CMR 3408 Requirements and need to be
                 designed and installed as part of any renovation. Connections are to be designed to
                 transfer in-plane shear loads, as well as resists out-of-plane wall loads.
    • Pre-cast concrete panels must be investigated for brittle connections in order to reduce seismic
       hazards.


Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                            6
Consulting Structural Engineers
             o Architectural drawings do not appear to show brittle connections, but field verification is
               required.
    •   Construction to conform to the Massachusetts State Building Code, current edition.

Post-1975 Buildings (1976, 1989, 2001 Additions):
   • Review and Work to be in accordance with Level 1 Work, 780 CMR 3408.4.2.
   • Evaluate structural elements affected by the proposed work.
   • New construction to conform to the Massachusetts State Building Code, current edition.

New Additions:
   • Structurally isolate additions to limit review and design implications on the existing building.
   • Review and strengthen existing building for drifting snow loads created by the additions, where
      required.

If you have any questions, please call.


Very truly yours,

BOLTON & DiMARTINO INC



Christopher Tutlis
Associate




Bolton & DiMartino, Inc.                                                                           7
Consulting Structural Engineers
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY
                    & ASSESSMENT
       I.   Hazardous Materials Identification
            Survey
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT
                    J.   Hydrant Flow Test Report
FLOW TEST INFORMATION SHEET
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:          LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL

    DATE:          10/1/2009       TIME:          9:45           AM           PM

TEST CONDUCTED BY:             DYNAMIC FIRE PROTECTION INC

WITNESSED BY:                  LEOMINSTER DPW

SOURCE OF WATER:                     8"           CITY         GRAVITY    PUMP        OTHER

FLOW TEST DATA:                              NOZZLE SIZE         2.5"

    FLOW @         STATIC @        STATIC       RESIDUAL         PITOT   FLOW GPM    COEFFICIENT
  HYDRANT #       HYDRANT #          PSI           PSI            PSI

      1                2             88            78             74          1445       0.9




    TOTAL

HYDRANT # 1 LOCATION           GRANITE ST. @ GUSTUVAS ST (EAST SIDE)

HYDRANT # 2 LOCATION           SCHOOL GROUNDS - NORTH OF CAFETERIA ENTRANCE




SUBMITTED BY: ALAN ROSEBERRY
FLOW TEST INFORMATION SHEET
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:          LEOMINSTER HIGH SCHOOL

    DATE:          10/1/2009       TIME:          10:00          AM              PM

TEST CONDUCTED BY:             DYNAMIC FIRE PROTECTION INC

WITNESSED BY:                  LEOMINSTER DPW

SOURCE OF WATER:                     8"           CITY         GRAVITY          PUMP       OTHER

FLOW TEST DATA:                              NOZZLE SIZE         2.5"

    FLOW @         STATIC @        STATIC        RESIDUAL        PITOT         FLOW GPM   COEFFICIENT
  HYDRANT #       HYDRANT #          PSI           PSI            PSI

      3                4             92            76             60             1300         0.9




    TOTAL

HYDRANT # 1 LOCATION           KINGMAN DRIVE - EAST SIDE OF MAIN PARKING LOT

HYDRANT # 2 LOCATION           SCHOOL DRIVE @ 2000 ADDITION




SUBMITTED BY: ALAN ROSEBERRY
                      QEMR MW GETTIH SJJ
                      LIVI ETTVS\




                                                                                                                                                                                             I\MWXMRK  QEMR MR
                                                                                                                                     )\MWXMRK  1EMR                                         +VERMXI WX




8LMW IRXMVI PSST RS
PSRKIV I\MWXW -X                                                                                                                                      ,]HVERX 
[EW VIQSZIH EX                                           XLMW L]HVERX MW                                                                               )\MWXMRK ,]HVERX
XLI XMQI SJ XLI                                          FVSOIR ERH                                                                                    6IEH ,]HVERX
 FYMPHMRK                                            RSR                                                                                          8IWX 
EHHMXMSR                                                JYRGXMSRMRK MX
                                                         LEW FIIR
                                                         XEOIR SYX SJ
                                                         WIVZMGI
                                                         TIRHMRK
                                                         VITEMV
                                                                                                                                                                                             ,]HVERX 
                                                                                                                                                                                             )\MWXMRK ,]HVERX
                                                                                                                                                                                             *PS[ ,]HVERX
                                                                                                                                                                                             8IWX 




                                                                                                                                                                          ,]HVERX 
                                                                                                                                                                          )\MWXMRK L]HVERX
                                                                                                                                                                          *PS[ L]HVERX
                                                                                                                                                                          8IWX 
                                                                           QEMR MW GETTIH SJJ   ,]HVERX 
                                                                           LIVI                 )\MWXMRK L]HVERX
                                                                                                6IEHMRK L]HVERX    )\MWXMRK  1EMR
                                                                                                8IWX 




                                            WGLSSP
                                           EHHMXMSR
        3. PRIORITIES
A.   Narrative
B.   Scope of Work/Cost
     Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                         3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                           A. Narrative


It is common for Feasibility Studies of this type to result in a set of repairs, renovations and
improvements that exceed available funding or produce a proposed capital project that will be
undertaken in multiple phases. To facilitate budget limitations or phased construction an order of
priorities for the intended scope of work is useful. Working with the Superintendent, OPM, and
Building Committee Members, LPA presented a wide range of proposed systems improvements,
code compliance issues, and opportunities for the high priority science lab addition. Over the course
of several meetings the specific scope of work items, by division of construction, were discussed and
ultimately organized into a chart that classifies the scope of work and identifies a construction
budget.


Obviously the highest priority items for the Leominster High School are those that will address life
safety issues and code compliance. Given the buildings age, LPA and its consulting engineers
examined the condition of critical electrical, HVAC, and plumbing systems to determine their
remaining serviceable life and made recommendations for repairs/upgrades. Virtually all components
of the building MEP systems are original to the structure and are either reaching or have exceeded
their life expectancy. It is anticipated that during the Schematic Design Phase further testing of
critical systems will be undertaken to refine the proposed scope of work within the MEP categories.


High priority is also given to the addition of science labs to better support the high schools
curriculum. Several options for adding square footage at the Science Department were considered
with a preferred option resulting in an addition in the approximate location of the existing portable
science labs.


The following Scope of Work/Cost Summary describes the Building Committee's recommendation for
a proposed scope of work that will address the highest priorities for Leominster High School's
physical plant. The vast majority of items are associated with mandatory code upgrades and
repair/replacement of critical building systems. The scope of work also provides for the school's
most pressing needs for additional classroom and science lab space.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           3. PRIORITIES
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Scope of Work/Cost Summary
          4. OPTIONS
A.   Narrative
B.   Scope of Work
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                          4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                          A. Narrative

Over the course of the study, from June through November, the school district administrators and
the Building Committee considered a wide range of opportunities for repairs and renovations at the
existing high school. Options for additions to the Science Department and general classrooms were
presented and endorsed as included within the study. Following completion of the existing
conditions inventory and assessment, the Design Team presented its findings in three categories as
follows:


           Category 1
           The Category 1 work represents mandated building repairs and upgrades to address life
           safety system requirements and mandatory code upgrades triggered by related scope of
           work.

           Category 2
           Category 2 items are building systems work necessary to address either malfunctioning or
           broken components. In certain instances recommendations for further testing during
           Schematic Design will be necessary prior to determining the full scope of work. However,
           LPA and its consulting engineers have described six or more items of work within this
           category with recommendations for repair.

           Category 3
           The Category 3 work addresses virtually every major building system as an opportunity for
           renovation. Most of the building systems, and virtually all components of those systems,
           are original to the date of construction and have exceeded their life expectancy. Although
           considered a lower priority than the Category 1 work, building systems components are at
           ever-increasing risk of failure in the coming years if not addressed at this time. Category 3
           also includes opportunities to make building improvements that will result in a better
           interior environment, reduce operating costs, and better support the Leominster High
           School Curriculum and educational program delivery. The wide range of possibilities were
           discussed among administrators and Building Committee Members and resulted in
           recommendations identified in the priorities summary.


The Feasibility Study/Options section was utilized to establish an order of priorities, construction
budget, and recommendation to the City Council for funding. In the event that the full scope of work
is not implemented, the Options section will become a valuable resource to the City and High School
facilities personnel as future capital projects are considered and schedule for on-going maintenance
and repair is established.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                      4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                               B. Scope of Work

  I.   CATEGORY 1 – LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND CODE-MANDATED UPGRADES

       A. Accessibility – Code Compliance: The entire site/building is required to comply with
          accessibility requirements for new construction if the value of the work exceeds
          approximately $8.8 million (30% of the full and fair cash value of the building). The scope
          of work required to achieve full compliance includes, at minimum, the following:

           1)    Site modifications (walks, ramps, stairs, parking spaces, signage, curb cuts, access
                 to fields, etc.).
           2)    Elevators and/or platform lifts to access the Locker Room level, Auditorium Lobby
                 level, Auditorium and Band Room depressed level.
           3)    Fixed seating modifications at Auditorium to provide at least thirteen accessible
                 wheelchair spaces and twelve companion seats.
           4)    Installation of assistive listening systems at Assembly spaces with more than fifty
                 occupants (Auditorium, Cafeteria and both Gyms).
           5)    Locker modifications to provide at least 5% accessible lockers at both typical
                 corridor lockers and changing room lockers.
           6)    Building entrance door, frame and hardware replacement. The public building
                 entrances at the 1961 building currently are not accessible due to the existing
                 hardware and size of the doors (30" existing vs. 36" required). Modifying the
                 existing entrances is impracticable; new doors, frames and hardware should be
                 installed.
           7)    Interior partition, door, frame and hardware modifications to provide AAB-
                 compliant operating hardware and door opening maneuvering clearances.
           8)    Stair handrail and nosing modifications, primarily at the original 1961 building.
           9)    Public toilet room and locker room modifications and renovations. Per AAB
                 regulations, public toilet, locker and shower rooms must be accessible (or a unisex
                 toilet room provided at each toilet group). The majority of public toilet, locker and
                 shower rooms in the 1961 original building are inaccessible and must be renovated
                 in order to provide at least one accessible water closet, lavatory and urinal (where
                 applicable). The addition of a unisex toilet room at each toilet room group was
                 considered, but requires taking space from educational program areas and
                 replicating it elsewhere. Scope of work includes the selective demolition,
                 replacement and/or installation of plumbing fixtures, toilet partitions, toilet
                 accessories (grab bars, mirrors, dispensers, waste receptacles, shower seats, etc.)
                 and interior wall finishes. Note that this option provides only the minimum
                 number of accessible plumbing fixtures required; all other existing fixtures remain.
           10)   Modifications to, or replacement of, operating controls and alarms (audio/visual) to
                 comply with AAB requirements. This includes replacement of the existing Fire
                 Alarm (FA) system, which is obsolete, does not meet accessibility codes, and
                 should be replaced in its entirety.
           11)   AAB-compliant signage, with Braille characters, throughout the building and site.
                 All permanent rooms (including classrooms, meeting rooms, toilet rooms, etc.)
                 require signage.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                       4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                  B. Scope of Work

CATEGORY 1 (continued):

           12)   Hazardous material remediation where existing construction is disturbed. Before
                 any renovation work can begin, the existing building is required to undergo testing
                 for the presence of hazardous materials (asbestos, PCB's, lead, etc.). In general,
                 components identified as hazardous materials must be abated if they will be
                 disturbed during the renovation work. A Hazardous Materials Identification Survey
                 was conducted by Universal Environmental Consultants (UEC) from September 8-
                 15, 2009, and indicates the presence of asbestos containing material (ACM) in
                 flooring material/mastic, pipe and joint insulation, doors, sealants, and other
                 miscellaneous items. It is expected that many of these materials will be disturbed,
                 and will therefore require remediation, at varying levels depending on the scope of
                 work ultimately chosen by the Owner.

           Where full compliance is impracticable, variances may be requested and are frequently
           granted for items such as door opening maneuvering clearances where the cost of full
           compliance is excessive relative to the total cost of the work. LPA's budget
           recommendation assumes that some waivers will be granted for such items.

       B. Structural – Code Compliance: Per MA Building Code Chapter 34, the building is
          required to meet Level 2 status if more than 20,000 SF of area is renovated. Scope of
          work is expected to include, at minimum, the following:

           1)    Structural analysis of the existing building.
           2)    Seismic/lateral force upgrades (new connections tying tops of existing masonry
                 walls to steel structure) to 1961 building.
           3)    Abate hazardous materials as applicable where related to structural work.

       C. Exterior Shell – CTE Roofing: The 1961 portion of the CTE wing roofing system leaks
          badly and is in need of immediate replacement. Structural integrity of the steel roof deck,
          framing and connections may be compromised due to corrosion. The existing roofing
          should be stripped to the metal deck, the deck inspected (and repaired as necessary), and
          a new PVC roofing system installed. New tapered roof insulation should be installed to
          provide a minimum slope of ¼" per foot; new intermediate roof drains will be required
          because of the increased slope. The roofing systems at the 1976 and 1989 CTE
          additions, while not in as poor condition as the 1961 area, also exhibit signs of imminent
          failure and should be considered a candidate for replacement as well; however the
          proposed budget is for the 1961 portion only. Scope of work includes the following:

           1)    Strip existing roofing system to the metal roof deck substrate.
           2)    Abate hazardous roofing/flashing materials as applicable.
           3)    Inspect and repair any metal roof deck damage.
           4)    Provide new PVC membrane roofing and flashing system.
           5)    Additional roof drains and associated plumbing work.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                      4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                               B. Scope of Work

CATEGORY 1 (continued):

       D. Fire Protection – Code Compliance and Associated Finishes/Lighting: Per MA Building
          Code Chapter 34, a fire protection system is required in buildings which are substantially
          altered or renovated. Substantial alteration or renovation is defined as where the value of
          the FP system installation is equal to, or less than, 15% of the total renovation cost (as
          determined by the local building official). Currently, only the CTE wing and original 1961
          Kitchen area have a fire protection system. The local building official has indicated that a
          limited NFPA 13 fire protection system (one that provides coverage to just corridors and
          one sprinkler head inside each room) is not an acceptable option and that a full NFPA 13
          system is required. Scope of work includes the following:

            1)   Provide full NFPA 13 FP system at all areas not presently covered by existing
                 system.
            2)   Replace existing sprinkler heads where over ten years old.
            3)   Modify existing FP system at CTE wing to provide coverage to non-original
                 mezzanines, storage racks and similar areas.
            4)   A portion of the original 8" water main loop around the building was cut off and
                 capped in 2001 when the modular science labs were built. Flow tests were
                 performed to establish the pressure and volume of available water; refer to 2.J
                 Hydrant Flow Test Information. Based on these tests, it is anticipated that the
                 water supply is adequate for the proposed FP system. However, in order to
                 minimize piping size and provide sufficient flow/pressure, more than one FP service
                 entrance will be required. Scope of work includes sitework to provide at least two
                 more service entrances from the existing 8" main, as well as interior work
                 (partitions, doors, frames, hardware, etc.) associated with FP equipment rooms.
            5)   Existing splined/hung ceilings and light fixtures should be selectively demolished
                 and replaced with new hung ceiling systems and high-efficiency light fixtures with
                 occupancy sensors, wherever the new fire protection system is installed, to allow
                 unimpeded concealed (above ceiling level) installation of the new FP system piping.
                 One exception to this is that, in areas where existing ceilings are 12' or higher
                 above the finish floor level (i.e. Gymnasiums and Auditorium), the FP system piping
                 may be run exposed.
            6)   The selective demolition work associated with ceiling and light fixture removal will
                 also require the abatement of associated hazardous materials.

       E.   Plumbing – Code Compliance: Scope of work includes the following:

            1)   Provide backflow prevention, on existing main domestic water service entrance and
                 cold/hot water feeds to 1976 science labs.
            2)   Provide central mixing valve station on domestic hot water tank.
            3)   Provide new adjustable temperature metering faucets on all public lavatories.
            4)   Provide pressure-reducing valve at main domestic water service.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                    4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                             B. Scope of Work

CATEGORY 1 (continued):

       F.   HVAC – Fume Hoods and Kitchen Exhaust Hood: Scope of work includes the following:

            1)   Provide compliant fume hood exhaust fans and controls for six (6) fume hoods.
                 Scope of work includes HVAC, electrical, roofing/flashing, and hazardous material
                 abatement.
            2)   Provide new compliant kitchen hood exhaust fan, controls and ductwork serving
                 main Kitchen hood at the 1961 building. Scope of work includes HVAC, electrical,
                 roofing/flashing, and hazardous material abatement.

       G. Electrical – Power Distribution and Life Safety Systems: Scope of work includes the
          following:

            1)   Existing power distribution systems at the 1961 building and 1976 additions, due to
                 their age, high risk of failure, and reported problems, are considered life safety
                 concerns. At minimum, the switchgear, panelboards and associated main circuit
                 breakers should be tested, and any deteriorated or faulty equipment replaced.
                 Additionally, all feeders and branch circuit conductors should be tested; any found
                 to be deteriorated or faulty should be replaced. The proposed budget for this item
                 is represented as a wide range due to the unknown condition of these systems; at
                 the minimum testing costs will be incurred for a comprehensive testing program,
                 while at maximum testing results could potentially dictate complete replacement of
                 the entire power distribution system.
                 It should also be noted that, because the electrical power distribution system is
                 close to or at its maximum capacity, any additional loads (such as new air
                 conditioning loads) will require upgrades to the system. In the event that AC loads
                 are increased, testing of the system will be unnecessary as it will need to be
                 upgraded anyway.
            2)   Existing exit/egress lighting, fire alarm (FA) system and the emergency generator
                 system (supplying back-up power to the first two items), due to their age and
                 potential for failure, are a life safety concern and should be replaced. Scope of
                 work also includes two-hour fire rated construction (partitions, ceilings, doors,
                 frames, hardware, etc.) for emergency equipment and feeders.

 II.   CATEGORY 2 - INOPERABLE, BROKEN OR MALFUNCTIONING SYSTEMS/COMPONENTS

       A. Exterior Shell – Window/Door Replacement: Scope of work includes the following:

            1)   Replace existing exterior hollow metal (HM) doors, frames and hardware, at 1961
                 building and 1976 addition, due to corrosion.
            2)   Repair existing masonry walls where damaged, cracked, tile has failed, etc.
            3)   Shell: Replace existing single-glazed aluminum windows, entrances, storefront,
                 curtainwall, greenhouse and skylights, at 1961 building and 1976 additions, with
                 new thermally broken extruded aluminum systems glazed with dual-pane low-E
                 coated insulating glass. Scope of work also includes selective demolition and
                 hazardous material abatement.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                       4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                B. Scope of Work

CATEGORY 2 (continued):

        B. Plumbing – Acid Waste System and Emergency Eyewash/Showers: Scope of work
           includes the following:

            1)    Test existing acid neutralizing acid waste system; provide new limestone fill as
                  required.
            2)    Provide tempered water supply to emergency eye wash and showers.

        C. HVAC – Science Lab/Media Center HVAC System, Classroom Exhausters and Toilet Room
           Exhaust: Scope of work includes the following:

            1)    Replace inadequate and malfunctioning HVAC system currently serving Science
                  Labs, Computer Rooms and Media Center/Support spaces, at 1976 addition
                  courtyard infill, with a new variable air volume (VAV) system controlled by a new
                  centralized DDC energy management control system. Replace existing rooftop unit
                  with new heating and ventilating (HV) unit with total energy reclamation feature.
                  Scope of work also includes selective demolition, hazardous material abatement,
                  structural improvements (related to new rooftop equipment) and roofing/flashing
                  work. Note that cooling is not provided in this option; refer to Category 3. for air
                  conditioning component.
            2)    Replace broken exhausters in existing 1961 classrooms. Scope of work also
                  includes selective demolition, hazardous material abatement, electrical and new
                  millwork associated with built-in unit ventilator/exhauster components.
            3)    Replace broken/inoperable exhaust fans at 1961 toilet rooms. Scope of work also
                  includes selective demolition, hazardous material abatement and roofing/flashing
                  work.

        D. Electrical – Clock System: Scope of work includes the following:

            1)    Provide new clock system head-end equipment and clocks in classrooms, public
                  areas, etc. throughout the entire building.

 III.   CATEGORY 3 - SYSTEMS/COMPONENTS AT RISK OF IMMINENT FAILURE AND OTHER
        IMPROVEMENTS

        A. Architectural – Science Lab/Classroom Addition/Renovation: Provide additional Science
           Lab/General Classroom Program Space – Scope of Work is based on Scheme 2
           Addition/Renovation and demolition of existing temporary modular Science classrooms.

        B. Interiors – Paint, carpet and VCT Finishes: Provide new interior finishes (painted walls,
           VCT, carpet, resilient base, etc.) throughout the 1961, 1976 and 1989 buildings.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                    4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                            B. Scope of Work

CATEGORY 3 (continued):

       C. Plumbing – HW Tank, Domestic Water Piping and New Plumbing Fixtures: Scope of
          work includes the following:

          1)    Replace domestic hot water tank with new indirect tank(s) coupled to new
                dedicated oil-fired domestic hot water boiler.
          2)    Provide new cold water, hot water and hot water recirculation distribution system
                in all portions of the 1961 and 1976 buildings if testing determines piping has
                deteriorated or contains lead.
          3)    Replace above-grade horizontal sanitary sewer and stormwater piping at 1961 and
                1976 buildings if testing determines piping has deteriorated.
          4)    Replace all existing toilet room fixtures, throughout the building (in addition to
                those replaced for accessibility reasons), with new low-flow plumbing fixtures.

       D. HVAC: Scope of work includes the following:

          D1.   HVAC- Auditorium HVAC Equipment:

                Replace existing HV system at 1961 building Auditorium with new packaged HVAC
                rooftop units (includes air conditioning components); clean and insulate existing
                ductwork (includes structural modifications and roofing/flashing work).

          D2.   HVAC – DDC Controls:

                Retrofit existing HVAC systems with new DDC energy management controls
                incorporating intelligent control schemes and CO2 ventilation control in high
                occupant density areas.

          D3.   HVAC – AC at Science Lab/Media Center:

                Provide air conditioning (AC) component to new packaged HVAC unit at 1976
                building Science Labs/Media Center; assumes that existing HV unit is replaced with
                new rooftop HVAC unit (including structural modifications, roofing/flashing work,
                hazardous material abatement and electrical work), under previous option IIC.

          D4.   HVAC – New Pumps, Classroom UV's, HW Piping, Gymnasium HV Unit and AC;
                Scope of Work Includes:

                1)    Replace existing hot water distribution pumps and provide variable frequency
                      drives (VFD's) for future retrofit.
                2)    Replace existing Classroom unit ventilators (UV's) and associated millwork
                      (counters, shelving, base cabinets, etc.) at the 1961 and 1976 buildings, UV's
                      to be sized for future low temperature water.
                3)    Replace existing heating system hot water supply and return piping at the
                      1961 and 1976 buildings.
                4)    Replace existing HV unit at 1961 building; clean existing ductwork.
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                        4. OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                 B. Scope of Work

CATEGORY 3 (continued):

                  5)     Replace existing window air conditioners at Administrative Guidance,
                         Faculty, SPED and other offices throughout the building with new packaged
                         rooftop unit central air conditioning (AC); includes architectural/structural
                         modifications as required for installation of new equipment and ductwork.

       E.   Electrical: Scope of work includes the following:
            1)     Replace obsolete PA/communications system head-end console.
            2)     Replace all pre-1979 existing light fixtures with new high-efficiency light fixtures.
                   Install occupancy sensors at all offices, toilet rooms and classrooms. Install low-
                   voltage lighting control panels to control corridor and common area lighting. Note
                   that FP system installation, described above (CATEGORY 1), requires a base level of
                   ceiling/light fixture replacement; this option would provide new fixtures at all other
                   locations.
            3)     Integrate lighting controls with HVAC system to optimize energy performance of
                   building.
            4)     Provide new audio/video systems in classrooms.
            5)     Augment the existing video surveillance system with new cameras and site lighting
                   where required.
            6)     Provide new access control system integrated with the video surveillance system.
            7)     Provide point-of-sale system integrated with access control system.
            8)     Provide new telecommunications cabling infrastructure per the BICSI standards.
                   Utilize Category 6/6A horizontal cabling infrastructure with laser-optimized fiber
                   optic backbone cabling infrastructure.
            9)     Provide new wireless data system with a/b/g/n radios.

       F.   Site: Existing bituminous pavement is deteriorating in many areas and should be ground,
            reclaimed, repaved and restriped.
5. CONSTRUCTION IMPLICATIONS

          A.   Narrative
          B.   Schedule
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                           5. CONSTRUCTION IMPLICATIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                        A. Narrative


During the Schematic Design Phase special attention must be given to the potential for disruption to
the school year given a construction project of this type and scale. Construction of this magnitude at
a school building without "swing space" available must carefully control the construction means and
methods to minimize the impact on the schools use of the building. A construction control plan
should address among other issues, hours of operation, dust control, noise control, and contractor
use of the site. Typically a phasing/sequencing plan will be provided to the contractor which
identifies how the construction will be undertaken to allow continued use of the building as
Leominster High School.


Since several categories of work have building wide implications, LPA has recommended the use of
portable classrooms as "swing space" or construction of the classroom addition "out of sequence"
with the balance of the work to provide "swing space" and minimize the need for portable
classrooms. Although further study of this important issue is warranted, the use of portables will
allow the school to vacate portions of the building which can be dedicated to contractor activities
and will, in essence, reduce the term of construction and associated construction costs. Until the
specific scope of work is selected, LPA recommends a three year term of construction for the full
scope of work and use of 10 portable classrooms for a period of 3 years. Once the actual scope of
work is known and greater detail is available through Schematic Design and Design Development
levels of the work, a construction plan of greater detail can be prepared for review and approval.


With the completion of the Feasibility Study the City Council will act on a proposal to fund a
Schematic Design Phase of the work within MSBA Guidelines. Following action by the Council, the
Feasibility Study will be reviewed at the administrative level of MSBA and recommendations for
refinement will be proposed by the MSBA Project Manager. The Leominster High School
repairs/renovations will then proceed to Schematic Design and for review and approval by the MSBA
Board sometime in early 2010. Once approved by MSBA, the City of Leominster will have 120 days
to appropriate project funding and proceed with more advanced Design and Contract Documents to
be followed by construction implementation. The project schedule can be summarized as follows:
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                          5. CONSTRUCTION IMPLICATIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                           B. Schedule


Short Term Schedule

December 14, 2009 - Authorization to Proceed with Design from
City Council

December 15 - February 15, 2010 - Schematic Design Process

February 15, 2010 - Submission to Massachusetts School Building
Authority Staff

March 8, 2010 - Presentation to City Council

March 30, 2010 - MSBA Board Meeting

After this the City has 120 Days to fund entire project

June 1, 2010 - Target Date for City to Fund Project

CTE Roof Schedule

December 15, 2009: Begin Construction Documents

February 15, 2010 - Roof work out to Bid

March 7, 2010 - Bids Due

April 1, 2010 - Target Funding in Place

April 21 - Roof work starts

Overall Schedule

Dec 15 - Feb 15, 2010 - Schematic Design

Apr 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010 - Design Development

Jul 1, 2010 - November 30, 2010 - Construction Documents

Jan 15, 2011 - Bids Due

Feb 1, 2011 - Notice to Proceed

Feb 1, 2011 - Jul, 2012 - Construct Phase I (New Addition plus
portion of Renovations)

August 2012 - August 2013 - Renovations (Phase II)
     6. ATTACHMENTS
A.    Drawings
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                            6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          A. Existing Site Plan
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          B. Pavement Assessment
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                              6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          C. Building Construction Dates- Lower
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                              6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          D. Building Construction Dates- Upper
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                    6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          E. Existing Lower Floor Plan
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                    6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          F. Existing Upper Floor Plan
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                   6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          G. Existing Gym Floor Plan
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                     6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          H. Existing Locker Floor Plan
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                 6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          I. Existing CTE Floor Plan
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                     6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          J. Existing Firewall Locations
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                  6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          K. Roof Installation Dates
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                      6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          L. Existing Building Elevations
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                       6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          M. Existing Building Elevations
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                       6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          N. Existing Building Elevations
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                                6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                                 O. Soil Survey




                                           Information obtained from Web Soil
                                           Survey website by USDA- Natural
                                           Resource Conservation Service
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                  6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                     P. Scheme 1




                                           Addition- 4,344 SF
                                           Renovation- 5,054 SF
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                                6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                                                  Q. Scheme 2




                                           Addition- 7,987 SF
                                           Renovation- 448 SF
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                 6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          R. Space Summary Page 1
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                 6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          S. Space Summary Page 2
Leominster High School
122 Granite Street, Leominster, MA 01453
                                                 6. ATTACHMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY                          T. Space Summary Page 3

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:372
posted:3/30/2011
language:English
pages:186