Save Williams Elementary School

January 29th, 2008
Right Sizing Committee
C/O Williams Elementary School
20691 Williams Highway
Williams, Oregon 97544

Dear Committee Members,

My name is Dennis Hart and I’m a registered Civil Engineer in Oregon and California and the Design and Construction Manager for the City of Medford Public Works Department, Engineering Division. On Jan 23rd, I visited Williams Elementary School to perform an assessment of the basement, roof truss system, and general school facilities. Additionally, I was asked to review the Three Rivers District Facility Maintenance REcommendation for Williams Elementary School written by Crow/Clay & Associates and make comments as needed.My findings are as follows:

1. Basement flooding: I spoke to the person in charge of maintenance at Williams School. Wes Nevotti, and he stated it has been a few years since the water last surcharged from below the foundation onto the basement floor. Since the storm ditch was fixed along the school’s frontage following the 1996-97 floods, water has not entered the basement from the parking lot ground level. Water is solely introduced through the sump pump wells and when the electricity is off or the sump pump(s) can’t handle the volume, water surcharges onto the concrete basement floors. A two prong solution far cheaper than the $103,000 recommendation is to buy a backup portable generator ($300-$700) to run sump pump(s) when the electricity is off and to install higher capacity pumps (approximately $200 each) to handle increased volume. This solution can be performed by maintenance staff thus eliminating $15,000 in Architecture fees associated with Crow/Clay’s recommendation.

2. Parking lot paving: At approximately $7-80/ton for asphalt concrete and using $5,000 each for grading and mobilization, approximately 1 acre (43,560 square feet) can be paved for $72,000. However, the existing gravel surface is in good condition and currently a pervious surface (water will drain through it). Another solution to mitigate dust problems is to use a dust abatement product. For example, Lignin costs approximately $0.65 per square yared place. If only the traffic areas, in lieu of parking stalls, are treated this would cost between $1000-2000 per treatment.

3. Automatic Irrigation system: According to Wes Nevotti, an irrigation system currently exists to irrigate the soccer field. It isn’t as convenient as an automatic system, but it works and doesn’t require an inordinate amount of time to operate. I coordinated with a City of Medford Parks Dept. facility maintenance supervisor and he obtained a few quotes on irrigating a 360 foot by 225 foot (regulation soccer field dimensions) field with an automatic system. Competitive pricing resulted in a $20,000 price tag for almost 2 acres of area. This type of work is labor intensive and volunteers could construct this item for material cost at approximately one-fifth the cost of Crow/Clay’s estimate ($36,000) and save the 15% Architecture fee ($5,400) associated with their recommendation.

4. Bow String Truss Repair: During my site visit, I climbed up to the attic and inspected the truss system. The system was in good condition with no visible damage to structural members. All bolts felt tight and wood members were free of cracks, splits, and deterioration. As a longtime resident of the Williams Valley, I know this roof has experienced numerous snowfall accumulations of 12″-24″ and the system seems unblemished. Maintenance personnel monitor the system each month and haven’t noticed any changes. Personally, I’m troubled by Crow/Clay’s report which seems to be practicing outside their field of expertise (Architecture) with their repair and cost assessment of this item. ORS 671.030 prohibits the practice of architecture from planning, designing, specifying or supervising the alterations or repairs to a building if the structural part of the building is involved.A structural engineer should be employed to diagnose the required repair and/or reinforcement for this item. Scott Pingle, of Kas and Associates, Inc., is a reputable structural engineer who has recently viewed and commented on the condition of the existing bow string trusses at Williams School. Moreover, an engineer familiar with bow string trusses and the Lorna Byrne Gymnasium collapse provided the following commentary:

These are excerpts from two emails received from Charley Greenwood of Greenwood Engineering who is an engineer familiar with the structural design of the Lorna Byrne Middle School gym (and therefore the Williams School gym which, I understand, is identical in design):

“As long as the repair/improvement work at the Williams gym included the installation of corner tension plates and proper hold downs, the building should last for many years-if it is not otherwise compromised. When I inspected the site [of Lorna Byrne Middle School] immediately after the failure, it was my opinion that $100 worth of simple brackets would have prevented the Lorna Byrne collapse.

“Yes, you can quote me as a licensed engineer in this and six other states who walked past the police tape on the morning after the collapse and conducted his own independent investigation of the facts My kids had gone to school there and many friends were in that building a few days before it went down.

“I was provided a set of the original plans to study by the maintenance man who stated that roofing tiles had been falling on the floor for weeks-indicating that the trusses were already under unusual stress conditions. Mr. Hoback, then principal of Lorna Byrne, did everything he could to keep me from conducting my own forensic study“

January 17, 2008 Charlie Greenwood-Greenwood Engineering

5. New Exterior Siding (Entire Complex): Crow/Clay & Associates cite areas where wind driven rain enters the wall then take a colossal leap to installing new siding on the entire complex. Naturally this requires repainting the entire facility. The combined cost is approximately $130,000, not including the Architectural Fee ($19,500). This assessment is based solely on the potential for dry rot.

6. Retrofit Interior and gym lighting: Crow/Clay & Associates recommends replacing all interior and gym lighting with energy efficient fluorescent lighting. Although a popular and noble venture, has anyone calculated the return period for the energy savings? Let’s look at simple math to gauge the results. Let’s say lighting represents 30% of a $1000/month electricity bill and the new lights reduce usage by 50% (Oregon Dept of Energy claim T8 lights use up to 50% less energy than T12 lights). So 50% of the $300/month bill will save $150/month. The result is a $61,000 investment ($53,000 + Architecture fees) will be recovered in approximetely 400 months or 30 years. Other variables, such as bulb replacement costs will reduce the return period, however it is important to understand that it looks like a poor investment unless subsixized through federal or state monies. Outside sources will provide funds to forward energy efficiencies. Why hasn’t Crow/Clay researched this or itemized it within their estimate? The same argument can be extended towards the $21,000 investment in more efficient windows; however, the efficiency percentages are less favorable than the lighting. Lastly, I spoke to staff at Williams School and they currently energize half of the lights within each of the 5 portable classrooms and all of the lights within the 2 standard classrooms. Each modular classroom has 33 housing units each containing 2 bulbs. Staff feels using half of the units provides ample light for the students. Uusing that data, I quickly calculated the number of instant start ballasts and T8 bulbs (4 footers) needed to replace the current lighting demand. The material price was approximately $2600 (95 ballasts and 230 lights). Installation of this item can be generously assumed to be 1 hour per ballast (100 hours total). I’ll assume $50/hour which totals $5000. Grand total is $7600. Crow/Clay’s price estimate for interior lighting is $33,000 not including the 15% Architecture fee ($4,950).Moreover, the current electrical code allows low voltage certified personnel to install the aforementioned ballasts without the high cost of a journeyman electrician. The district may have maintenance personnel with the appropriate certification to perform this work and further reduce installation cost.In summary, I’d say the list of recommendations is not needed, but merely someone’s vision of what is wanted. The scope of work is not refined and costs seemed unchecked. Quick analysis of a few items shows a large reduction in scope and price.

As the Design and Construction Manager with the City of Medford Public Works Department, I’m responsible for millions of dollars of design and construction each year. I consult with the Professional Engineering community to procure Bridge designs, Roundabout designs, and Intersection modifications. The engineering cost as a percentage of the construction price is generally between 5-10%. The numbers fluctuate based on specialty (Bridges) or consultant location (Portland or Medford).The majority of work recommended by Crow/Clay & Associates is not specialized and can be delivered through contract specifications. Other items such as lighting, painting, irrigation, basement drainage, etc, can be procured and managed by maintenance personnel. There seems to be no competitive pricing or solicitations of opinions for the recommended work. Estimated prices and the subsequent 15% fee will naturally remain inflated until a competitive market has been introduced.

If you have questions or comments or need further assistance, please call me at 846-0701.

Sincerely,

Dennis Hart, P.E. 

January 24, 2008  
Three Rivers School District
Attn: School Board of Directors
PO Box 160
Murphy OR 97533

Subject: Williams Elementary School
Williams OR

Dear School Board Members,

I visited the Williams Elementary School facility on January 20, 2008 to perform a walk-thru evaluation of several key areas that have been identified as the subject of focus in regards to recent consideration by the Three Rivers School District to close the school. I was accompanied by Wes Nevotti and Bob Morgan, who were extraordinarily helpful not only in explaining to me the purpose and importance of addressing the issues, but also their invaluable insight into the building, both historically and currently.My evaluation involved the visual assessment of key elements of the building’s architecture, with my subsequent comments based on my understanding of appropriate building material performance criteriia, building code applications, and life safety elements. My credentials include registration as an architect in the State of Washington with over 28 years of professional prectice in both the public and private sectors, with built projects throughout Washington, Oregon and Nevada. After a general briefing from Wes and Bob, they relayed to me four specific issues as the core of the school district’s concerns, those being 1) the structural integrity of the roof system supporting the gymnasium portion of the building, 2)the validity of flooding allegations in the basement, 3) the viability of the existing exterior building siding material, and 4) the concern for application of barrier-free accessibility throughout the facility. We then proceeded to physically investigate each of those issues, which are summarized individually in the following:

GYMNASIUM ROOF

We climbed up into the attic space of the gymnasium building so as to get an up-close view of the bowstring trusses and their supporting structure, and walked the transverse length of the entire structure as well as investigated the full length of the truss spans themselves. I was looking specifically for evidence of material deterioration, stress, cracks, misaligned or compromised connections, and other telltale anomalies that would indicate a possible deficiency in the structural capabilities of the roof system. After looking at the general as-built design configuration and examining varied random connections, I found nothing that indicated lack of structural integrity or anything that warranted consideration of “repairs or replacement” of the entire structural roofing system as referenced in the Board’s December 17, 2007 meeting minutes. As further substantiation, it was brought to my attention by Wes and Bob that there is a person (whose name I can’t recall) with a working background in structural systems whose services have been engaged by the school to regularly monitor, analyze, assess, and report any evidence of changes in the structural system and elements of the system. According To Wes and Bob, this person has been investigating this building monthly for quite some time and has reported that there has been no evidence of structural deficiencies or deterioration. If there is still overwhelming concern however, my recommendation for ascertaining a definitive determination of the building’s structural integrity would be to engage the services of a licensed structural engineer, who can provide a detailed analysis including confirmation of the integrity of the existing structure or recommendations for appropriate alterations if required.

BASEMENT

I was given a thorough tour of the basement of this facility, navigating from the old previously used library and classroom area through the current storage and mechanical spaces. Because of a comment stated in the Board’s December 17, 2007 meeting minutes concerning the basement’s history of “perpetually flooding”, I was consciously looking for evidence of ongoing water infiltration damage. I did see a few signs of past flooding occurrences (from years past), but what struck me as questionable was the fact that even though the entire Pacific Northwest was innundated with an inordinate amount of rainfall in the past month, I noticed that there were numerous low-lying book-filled shelves as well as book-filled cardboard boxes sitting directly on the concrete floor that showed no evidence of being contacted by water or even threatened by the intrusion of water. When I questioned Wes and Bob about this, they explained two things to me: 1) there are two active sump pumps serving the basement area which adequately evacuate any water that does happen to enter the basement floor, and 2) through their own monitoring of the situation that’s been referenced, they’ve uncovered what appears to be several specific areas of water intrusion caused by subterranean hydrostatic pressure pushing water up through cracks in the concrete floor, causing surface wetness only but no accumulation. And when that does happen the water is immediately diverted to the sump pumps. Therefore, it is my belief that the proper concern for the school district should not be over allegations of the basement “perpetually flooding”, which connotes a severe breach of water infiltration barriers, but rather addressing the identification of isolated water infiltration points and the subsequent appropriate resolution of that anomaly. There does not seem to be any apparent reason warranting excessive expenditure of money to resolve “flooding” issues.

EXTERIOR SIDING MATERIAL

Wes and Bob explained to me that the exterior of the building is sided with a combination of redwood horizontal T&G boards (on the gymnasium portion) and lapped horizontal fir boards on the remainder of the facility. All exterior siding is painted, except for a few isolated instances where either the paint is chipped or alligatored, or joints are not properly caulked or sealed., the condition of the exterior finish of the building appears to be acceptable and performing as expected. As is the nature with materials and finishes similar to these, a regular maintenance schedule (i.e. repainting, recaulking, etc.) is very important to maintaining a durable weatherproof barrier and preserving the desired appearance. I believe this is all that would be required at this facility.

ACCESSIBILITY

Although I wasn’t able to investigate thoroughly the facility’s detailed compliance with national accessibility requirements, as a professional practitioner of architecture I address accessibility issues on a regular basis and am quite familiar with the design and performance criteria. One of the things that arises consistently during facility assessments is the notion that existing buildings must comply with the latest code requirements in regards to accessibility, and that is simply not true. There are exemptions granted to existing buildings through the purview of the national accesibility codes (IBC 2006 and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003) which allow conditional nonstandard applications if strict compliance with current code is technically infeasible (IBC Section 3409). Therefore, in a cursory review of Williams School through visual assessment of existing conditions coupled with explanation of the building interior configuration from Wes and Bob, my belief is that the facility is generally in acceptable condition as pertains to accessibility criteria. I do have two primary concerns however, which I discussed with Wes and Bob. First, as a comment, it is the general desire of the disabled population to be able to use the same basic routes of travel, entrances, facilities and pathways as people who possess full mobility. A common complaint I often hear is when the building layout or site conditions of a facility require a disabled person to have to circumnavigate the normal path of travel or be relegated to going in “the back door” in order to access a building. The condition tends to emphasize a disconnect rather than offer a feeling of unity. However, it does not violate code. The issue at Williams School involves an accessible path of travel which is quite circuitous (having to enter the back side of the building), and which does not lend itself to being a “welcoming” portal for the disabled community even though it is a legal pathway. I see a very simple and relatively inexpensive solution to this issue, by creative redesign of the main entry to the school which incorporates a unified ramp and stairs to accomodate all people at the front of the building. Upon mentioning this to Wes and Bob, their enthusiasm over the idea led to their telling me that there are plenty of qualified individuals in the Williams community who would happily donate their time and talents to create and implement such a change. Secondly, if this approach were deemed excessive as it relates to the available budget, my strongest comment is that the existing facility lacks appropriate signage identifying the accessible path of travel. Signage and identification of defined accessible pathways throughout any facility is a vital link to appropriately accomodating disabled people, but that is absent at Williams School. The immediate solution of providing signage is utterly simple. As one of the services I perform on a regular basis through my regualr job, I can certainly provide a more detailed accessiblilty assessment of Williams School if you so desire.

In summary, I’m optimistic that the assessment I’ve presented through this letter serves to provide positive reinforcement for the Three Rivers School district’s Rightsizing Committee to appropriately evaluate and reconsider that Williams Elementary School is indeed a sound, viable and essential element of the Williams community. If you have any questions or comments on my evaluation, or if you desire further elaboration, please feel free to contact me by any of the means shown below.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues.

Sincerely,

John C. Martin

cc:
Michelle Sesock, Principal, Williams School
Linda DuBose, Rightsizing Committee member
Bob Morgan & Wes Nevotti, Williams School

Williams School just received this document yesterday. There are currrently two privately funded architectural/engineering studies being conducted on the Williams School facility. I will post them as soon as I receive them.Three Rivers School DistrictWillliams Elementary SchoolFacility Maintenance Recommendationsand Cost EstimateJanuary 2008Crow/Clay Associates Inc.125 W. Central Avenue, Suite 400Coos Bay, Oregon 97420Project No. 07370Study OverviewThis report outlines recommended repair and remodel projects that should be addressed if Williams Elementary School is to remain open for the next 5-10 years, or longer. The suggested work includes projects needed to:1. Conform to current code requirements2. Reduce energy consumption3. Improve security and accessiblility4. Improve functionality and5. Reduce maintenance costThe following is a budget summary estimate:Total Budget EstimateExterior Work $624,800Interior Work $377,500Contingency at 10% $100,230Permits at 2% $22,500Architectural/Engineering FeesPrinting/Reimbursables $168,700Total Budget Estimate $1,293,280See the following for more detailed descriptions of individual work projects.Exterior-see Attachment A for expanded description of work1. Asphalt overlay at parking lot, bus turn around and playgrounds. $72,0002. Construct handicapped accessible ADA ramps at (2) entrancesto gym. 1:12 maximum slope, steel pipe railings. $5,0003. Install new exterior plywood siding on entire complex (exceptfor 5 portable classrooms. $90,0003. Replace old single pane windows with new insulated thermal $21,000pane windows.3. Dry rot repair contingency at 10%. $11,0004. Replace asphalt shingle roofing on (4) portable classroom $22,000buildings.5. Install automatic irrigation system at soccer field and $36,000playgrounds.6. Construct new shed for storage of hazardous materials. $2,0007. Install 6” high chain link fence in front of school with (2) gates. $6,0008. Refurbish track area. Install new decomposed granite surface. $9,5009. Replace (7) exterior doors, complete with panic hardware. $15,00010. Install approsimately (6) security lights at parking area and $7,500selected campus locations.11. Remove existing underground fuel storage tank at playground $10,000area adjacent to outdoor restroom structure.11. Install new 2,000 gallon above ground fuel oil storage tank at $13,000north side of building or at bus turnaround area.11. ADD +/- $40,000 if oil contaminated soil is detected and $40,000requires abatement12. Construct handicapped accessible (ADA concrete ramp at $30,000front entry. 1:12 maximum slope; steel pipe railings.13. Paint Exterior (all buildings on campus) $54,00014. Gym roof structural reimforcementReinforce existing structurally deficient bow string trusses $47,800Reinforce existing roof diaphragm $22,50015. Install site drainage system to prevent flooding of basement $103,000during abnormally high rainfall.16. Insulate existing exterior wood framed walls at portions of $7,500gym/classroom building (R11 minimum blown in insulation).Exterior work total $624,800Interior-see Attachment B for expanded description of work1. Remove asbestos floor tile in classrooms and replace with carpet $8,0002. Retrofit all interior lighting on campus to increase energy efficiency $33,0002. Retrofit gym lighting: Remove existing incandescent lights and install $20,000new energy efficient gym fluorescent.3. Existing outside girls and boys restroom: Remodel, upgrade and $75,000expand restroom building as required. Restrooms to be handicappedaccessible.4. Remove (2) old ceiling mounted oil fired furnaces in gym and replace $58,000with roof top HV (heating/ventilating) units.4. Note: Add $10,000-15,000 for cooling option, (HVAC heat pumpsystem5. Add additional electrical receptacles throughout entire school as $41,000required for new technology equipment.6. Add additional security for computer lab and roof areas. Includes $7,500alarms, video surveillance cameras, etc.7. Paint entire interior of school. All walls and ceilings $35,0008. Basement Upgrade: Renovate as required to comply with current $100,000code for fire separation.Interior work total $377,500Attachment A-Exterior-Expanded Work Description and Comments1. Install 3” asphalt overlay at gravel parking lot and bus turn-around area. Install 2” asphalt overlay on existing deteriorated asphalt at playgrounds. The existing gravel parking lot to be re-graded to improve drainage prior to installing asphalt overlay. This will help reduce flooding in the basement. New paving will reduce dust and mud and keep school cleaner, thus reducing maintenance costs. Handicapped accessible parking stalls will be provided near the handicapped accessible entries.2. Construct handicapped accessible (ADA) concrete ramps at (2) entrances to the gymnasium. One entrance is on the south east corner and the other entrance is at the northwest corner. Ramps to have a 1:12 slope, steel pipe railings, both sides, and 36” minimum clear width. The existing concrete porches have 2 steps which are not handicapped accessible. The entries are approximately 15” above grade so will require a ramp run of approximately 20’ each. A non-conforming handicapped accessible ramp and entry was installed at the northeast corner of the gymnasium may years ago however a long loose gravel walk-way must be traversed in order to get to the ramp. A hard surface route must be provided from accessible parking spaces to an accessible entry.3. Install new exterior siding on entire complex (except for 5 portable classrooms). The existing painted lapboard and bead board siding is in very poor condition and needs extensive repair and painting. Wind driven rain enters the wall cavities at several locations and creates the potential for dry rot. Detailed dryrot review should occur prior to siding and window replacement project. The paint is peeling at several locations and will require removal as part of the prep work. The old paint more than likely is lead-based therefore would require removal and disposal by a licensed abatement contractor which is very expensive. The most cost effective solution may be to install new plywood siding over the existing siding to reduce the amount of lead paint abatement required. New siding would also correct the water intrusion problems. Painting of the siding is addressed in Item 13.4. Replace asphalt shingles on (4) portable classroom buildings, (2) classroom additions and computer lab addition. Existing asphalt shingles are at the end of their life cycle and need to be replaced.5. Install automatic irrigation system at soccer field and playground areas. This will greatly reduce custodial time, provide better play areas, and reduce water consumption.6. Construct new shed for storage of hazardous materials. Existing 8’ x 8’ wood framed shed is in very poor condition and needs to be replaced.7. Install 6’ high chain link fence in front of school with (2) double swing gates for auto/bus access. Fence to be installed on west side of parking lot. This will provide better security and control.8. Refurbish track area. The existing decomposed granite track is only about 36” wide. Runners must run in single file. Increase width to 12” and install 4” thick compacted decomposed granite running surface.9. Replace (7) exterior doors (at gymnasium and old classroom building). Existing doors, hardware, and panic bars are in poor condition. Some doors also need to be handicapped accessible. This work should be performed along with the re-siding project.10. Install approximately 6 additional security lights at parking area and other selected areas on campus. The cost estimate provided is for (4) pole mounted metal halide lights at parking area and (2) wall mounted metal halide lights on the building. This will provide added security at night.11. Remove underground +/- 2,000 gallon fuel oil tank at playground adjacent to south end of existing boy’s and girl’s restroom building. Removal of tank will be required to provide room for a proposed restroom expansion and upgrade for handicapped accessibility. The cost estimate provided assumes that the tank is not leaking. If the tank is leaking and soil contamination is discovered the cost of remediation is unknown. $40,000 contingency should be carried for this project.New above ground 2,000 gallon fuel oil tank will need to be installed to replace the underground storage tank. New tank could be located on the north side of the old classroom wing near the existing boiler room or could be located in the landscaped area at the bus turn-around.12. Construct handicapped accessible (ADA) concrete ramp at front entry. Ramp to have 1:12 maximum slope, steel pipe railings both sides, and 36” minimum clear width. Front entry is approximately 55” higher than the parking lot so will require a ramp run of approximately 60 lineal feet for 1:12 maximum slope. Currently the front entry porch consists of (10) 5 1/2 “ high concrete steps.13. Repaint the entire exterior of all the buildings on the campus. This work to be coordinated with the re-siding project.14. Gymnasium Roof: Repair/reinforce the existing bow string timber trusses and reinforce the roof diaphragm to increase the seismic (earthquake) structural stability. Reinforcing the roof diaphragm would include tearing off the existing roofing, adding braces to the roof diaphragm and installing new roofing.Following are excerpts from a structural engineers report titled “Bowstring Truss Evaluation/Survey-Gymnasium at Williams Elementary School-November 2000.”“The gymnasium at the south side of the original building was built in 1949 with a stage and restroom addition in 1957. The roof was designed by Frreeman and Hayslip and is constructed of curved built-up timber trusses, commonly called bowstring trusses, with wood purlins and diagonal wood board sheathing. It is nearly identical to the failed roof system at the Lorna Byrne Middle School in Cave Junction.” (Lorna Byrne catastrophic gymnasium roof collapse occurred in 1995).“The gymnasium roof is the same type of construction as the failed roof system at Lorna Byrne. The main concern about the design of the “bowstring” trusses is the lack of redundancy in member and connection strength. As exhibited by the Lorna Byrne event, failure of any one web member or small diameter single bolt connection can cause the entire roof system to collapse. There are known instances of this type of truss failing without any live loading.”“I strongly recommend that if the gymnasium is to be retained, truss and diaphragm upgrades be accomplished. This work would normally involve installing steel sideplates or cables along the bottoms of each truss, strengthening the column to truss connections, and installing blocking with metal clops or strapping at the roof diaphragm to wall connections.”Because the gymnasium wing was re-roofed in 1995, the District decided to monitor the bow string trusses each month instead of removing the new roofing in order to make seismic repairs. The monitoring is still going on. Monthly inspection reports are recorded each month and kept on file.If the school continues to remain open it is recommended that structural repairs to the roof system be performed as soon as possible.15. Install site drainage system to prevent flooding of basement during periods of abnormally high rainfall. There have been several times in the last 20 to 25 years when severe flooding has occurred in the basement. The sump pump(s) in the basement were not able to keep up and water depth has been as high as 18” at times. The problem occurs because surface water fills the ditch along side the highway in front of the school. When the ditch overflows the surface water flows toward the school building flooding the basement area. Water damage occurs each time the basement floods and some structural wood posts should probably be inspected for dry rot and replaced as necessary. Work would include installation of area drains, collection piping, discharge piping, sump pump(s) and electrical.Attachment B-Interior-Expanded Work Description and Comments1. Remove existing asbestos floor tile in (2) classrooms and computer lab and install new carpet. These classrooms are located between the old classroom building and portable classroom buildings and were built in the early 1950’s. Abatement of asbestos floor tile is complete at all other areas on campus.2. Retrofit all interior lighting on campus to increase energy efficiency. Existing lighting consists primarily of older fluorescent lighting with T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts containing PCB. Work to include replacing all lamps and ballasts with energy efficient version 34 watt T8 lamps and electronic instant start ballasts retrofitted in existing housing. All lenses to be cleaned and or replaced.Replace existing 300 watt incandescent light fixtures in gymnasium with new energy gym fluorescent (T-8). Lumen output will also be dramatically improved. New light switch panels need to be installed also because lights are now turned off and on using breakers in the gymnasium sub-panel.3. Remodel, upgrade and expand outside boys and girls restrooms. This facility is the only restroom available for students. In addition, this restroom facility should be available for use by visitors that attend extracurricular activities in the gymnasium. The existing facility is not handicapped accessible. The 2’-8” wide doors need to be replaced with 3’-0” wide doors and at least one toilet stall for each sex needs to be increased in size to conform with current code requirements. Some toilet fixtures will need to be relocated and/or replaced. The building needs to expand approximately 10 to 15 feet to the south to allow enough room to accommodate handicapped accessibility requirements. The existing stalls with deteriorated wood toilet stall partitions need to be replaced with laminate or metal toilet partitions. Expansion of the restroom facility will require removal of an existing underground fuel oil tank currently located near the south end of the restroom building. See Item 11 exterior.4. Remove (2) old ceiling mounted oil fired furnaces in gymnasium and replace with new HV (heating/ventilating) units. The existing units have exceeded their designed life cycle and could fail beyond repair at any time. Excessive repair work is currently required to keep the existing units operational. In addition there is no method to introduce outside air into the room through the heating system as required by code. New duct work with electric duct heater units should be installed in attic space and set up as required to introduce outside air. This system will only provide heating and ventilation. For approximately $10,000 to $15,000 more a roof mounted HVAC (heat pump) system could be installed which would provide both heating and air conditioning, however the existing roof trusses would need to be reinforced due to the additional weight of the unit(s).5. Add additional electrical receptacles throughout entire school as required for new technology equipment. 21st century technology (computer printer, fax, copy machines, etc.) require substantially more outlets and electrical capacity. Existing receptacles needto be upgraded and new outlets installed at selected locations. This will substantially improve safety and convenience.6. Add additional security for computer lab and roof areas. There has been an ongoing problem with vandals clombing on to roof at several locations. Proposed work to include alarms, video surveillance cameras, monitors, etc.7. Paint all interior walls and ceilings at all buildings on campus. This work could be done all at once during summer break which would be most cost effective, or painting could be spread out over a few years, but would increase the overall cost.8. Basement upgrade: The basement area is in very poor condition and presents a serious fire hazard in this old wood framed building. In 1996 the State Fire Marshall said that student activities in the basement would not be allowed to continue3 if the basement area was not brought up to current fire and life safety standards. This would include upgrading existing facilities, repairing/upgrading fire resistance of walls and ceilings and structural repair work. The School District opted to close the basement down in 1996 and currentlyuses the space for storage, which only helps to increase the fire hazard. Flooding of the basement is still a problem and still needs toi be addressed. Even if the basement is to remain closed to student activities the ceiling and exposed wood columns and beams shuld be upgraded to provide a 1-hour fire rating between the basement and main floor above.