Norton committee reviews MSBA schematic for middle-school roof; restoration and full-replacement options debated

The Norton School Committee on a recent meeting devoted an extended session to Norton Middle Schoolroof needs after architects and project managers presented a schematic design for an MSBA accelerated repair request and a range of cost, schedule and warranty options.

Consultants said the schematic construction-cost number used for MSBA submission is roughly $8.6 million, shown to the committee as a $9.9 million project once contingencies and other allowances are included. "If we go to full replacement instead of restoration, it's about $2,100,000 added," an unidentified consultant said during the presentation.

Why two options? The team explained that the roof is a mix of EPDM (rubber) roof areas and metal roof sections. The proposed restoration would remove wet insulation in affected spots (infrared testing identified about 7,132 sq ft of wet insulation, roughly 9.4% of the EPDM area), replace decking where degraded, then apply a three-part monolithic coating over the existing membrane; metal sections would be replaced. The restoration approach carries a manufacturer warranty stated by presenters as 20 years with some vendors claiming up to 25 years; full replacement could offer longer warranty options but increase scope and cost and require meeting current energy codes, which could force higher curb heights and additional demolition in areas such as low windows and flashing.

Committee members pressed the presenters on the long history of leaks at the middle school and asked how the project would avoid repeating past workmanship problems. "There were a ton of issues historically tied to workmanship, flashing and masonry details," a school official said, noting that the district has packages of historic correspondence and prior legal claims. Consultants said the MSBA program will review the scope and that the manufacturer who would warranty the restoration (named in the packet) previously deemed the roof a candidate for restoration.

Timing and financing were central to the discussion. Presenters said Nortonwould request MSBA approval on an October MSBA board agenda; an MSBA reimbursement rate in the presentation was about 55% (project-specific). That would make the town share roughly the stated town estimate once MSBAreimbursement is applied and contingencies accounted for. Committee members and staff discussed bringing the project to the town meeting warrant on Oct. 20 to secure local funding/authority and the possibility of requesting an MSBA extension if the district delays. Finance committee review was scheduled ahead of any town meeting warrant vote.

Committee members also asked about phasing and whether MSBA would reimburse a project executed in phases over multiple application cycles; presenters said it is possible but would require separate MSBA entries and could delay work several years and add mobilization costs. They cautioned that splitting scope can raise overall program costs and logistical complications.

The committee did not take a final project vote at the meeting. Leaders asked for follow-ups: verification of assumptions in the schematic report (HVAC, exhaust fans and rebalancing work noted in appendices), finalization of contingency amounts, updated moisture results and asbestos assessments, and a short community presentation for the town meeting that would explain the MSBA process, local share and risks.

Next steps: staff said they will refine the schematic documents, confirm the MSBA timeline, brief the finance committee and prepare materials for an October town meeting presentation. If the district seeks an MSBA extension or to change scope from restoration to full replacement, presenters said that would require additional coordination and could delay construction until the following construction cycle.

(Reporting note: quotes are attributed to speakers recorded in the meeting transcript. Cost and schedule figures are schematic-level estimates presented to the committee; final construction bids will determine final contract costs.)