PETERS TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT Peters Township School District - - PDF document

BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE

September 12, 2016

PETERS TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

Peters Township School District 2016 High School Feasibility Study September 12, 2016

TONIGHT’S AGENDA

• I. High School Feasibility Study
• a. Review of Goals of Feasibility Study
• b. Present Consensus Design Option for Renovations

i. Floor Plans ii. Site Plan

• c. Present Conceptual Project Budgets

i. Conceptual Design Option for Renovations ii. Hypothetical New High School

• d. Review Key Considerations for Next Steps

Peters Township School District 2016 High School Feasibility Study September 12, 2016

Review of Feasibility Study Goals

• 1. Facilities Assessment of High School
• a. Structural Assessment
• b. Building Envelope
• c. MEP systems
• d. Interior Finishes
• 2. Identify Shortcomings of Existing High School
• a. Entrance security
• b. Deficiencies in major venues
• i. Cafeteria
• ii. Gymnasium
• iii. Auditorium
• iv. Natatorium
• c. More large gathering spaces
• d. Zoning of Building
• 3. Create Educational Program
• a. Surveyed Staff, Teachers and Students
• b. Public Stakeholder Meeting
• c. Created Space Planning Program
• d. Reviewed Program for Space Utilization
• 4. Develop Design Options
• a. Building Program
• b. Address deficiencies
• c. Opportunities to improve safety and accessibility
• 5. Review Site Issues
• 6. Develop Cost of Additions and Renovations
• 7. Develop Consensus Design Option for Additions and Renovations
• 8. Compare Costs of Addition and Renovations to Hypothetical New High

School

PETERS TOWNSHIP PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL

EXIS EXISTING TING BAS BASKETB ETBALL LL CO COUR URTS

STADIUM STADIUM PLEASANT VALLEY PLEASANT VALLEY ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL

EXIS EXISTING TING TEN TENNIS IS CO COUR URTS

EAST MCMURRAY AY RO ROAD

EXISTIN ISTING J JAVELIN LIN CO COUR URT EXI EXISTI TING AS NG ASPHA PHALT PATH PATH

EXISTING SITE PLAN

PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL

SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

EXISTING SITE PLAN

PETERS TOWNSHIP PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM STADIUM PLEASANT VALLEY PLEASANT VALLEY ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL

EXI EXISTI TING TEN NG TENNIS COUR URTS TS TO BE DEM TO BE DEMOLISH SHED ED

EAST MCMURRAY AY RO ROAD

EXI EXISTI TING BAS NG BASKET ETBAL BALL COUR URTS TS TO BE DEM TO BE DEMOLISH SHED ED STAFF STAFF PARKI PARKING (193) 193) VISI VISITOR TOR PARKI PARKING ( NG (18) 8) EVE EVENT PA NT PARKI RKING NG ONL ONLY ( Y (31) 1) WOR WORK REL RELEASE STU STUDENT PARKI ENT PARKING (24) 24) SCHOO SCHOOL BUS L BUS (TY (TYPICAL CAL O OF 3 30) 0) STU STUDENT ENT PARKI PARKING (298) 298) STAFF STAFF PARKI PARKING ( NG (11) 1) STU STUDENT ENT PARKI PARKING ( NG (20) 0) PED PEDES ESTRI TRIAN AN WA WALK LK ZO ZONE NE EVE EVENT PA NT PARKI RKING NG ONL ONLY ( Y (26) 6) STU STUDENT P PARK ARKIN ING G (6 (67) 7)

PA PARENT PICK UP BUS TRAFFIC

STA STAFF AN F AND D BUS BUS E ENT NTRAN RANCE CE / / EXIT EXIT ST STUD UDEN ENT AN T AND PA D PARE RENT NT DRO DROPOFF / FF / P PICKUP KUP ENT ENTRANCE / EXIT / EXIT EXTE EXTENT OF EXI NT OF EXISTI TING NG PARKING L PARKING LOT BAS BASE OF OF HILLSIDE HILLSIDE NEW NEW T TICKET CKET OFFI FFICE CE NEW NEW ST STADI ADIUM UM ENTRAN RANCE CE EXIST EXISTING NG ASPH PHAL ALT PA T PATH TH NEW AMPH W AMPHIT ITHE HEAT ATER ER BUILT INTO BUILT INTO EX EXIS ISTING TING HILLSIDE HILLSIDE NEW NEW JA JAVEL VELIN CO COUR URT

LEGEND EXISTING BUILDINGS BUILDING ADDITIONS NEW FULL DEPTH ASPHALT AND STONE BASE NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALKS

* NOTE: NEW ASPHALT OVERLAY AT EXISTING PARKING LOTS

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL

SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

CONSENSUS OPTION

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

PARKING CALCULATIONS PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED STAFF STAFF VISITOR VISITOR STUDENT STUDENT TOTAL TOTAL 208 208 17 17 299 299 544 544 204 204 18 18 385 385 688 688 EVENT EVENT 57 57 WORK RELEASE WORK RELEASE 20 20 24 24

NOT NOTE: TO TO B BE U USED D DUR URING NG A AFTE TER R HOU HOURS EV EVEN ENTS TS ON ONLY LY

* *

I. CONSENSUS OPTION - RENOVATED H.S. WITH EXISTING NATATORIUM TO REMAIN

• a. High School - Renovation and Additions Construction Cost ("Hard Costs"):

$62,600,000

• b. Design Contingency and Construction Contingency:

$3,400,000

• c. Escalation Costs (Bids received in 2018) :

$5,400,000

• d. Furniture and Equipment:

$1,000,000

• e. Design Fees, Legal/Financing Costs, Permit Fees, etc. ("Soft Costs"):

$5,300,000 $77,700,000

II. HYPOTHETICAL NEW HIGH SCHOOL

• a. High School - New Construction Cost ("Hard Costs"):

$85,200,000

• b. Athletic Fields (includes 2 artificial turf practice fields and 1 natural turf baseball field

$1,000,000

• c. Design Contingency and Construction Contingency:

$4,600,000

• d. Escalation Costs (Bids received in 2018) :

$6,900,000

• e. Furniture and Equipment:

$1,000,000 f. Design Fees, Legal/Financing Costs, Permit Fees, etc. ("Soft Costs"): $7,000,000 $105,700,000 General Notes:

• 1. Hard costs are based on 2016 market conditions for construction costs.
• 2. Add 4% minimum cost escalation per year for any year beyond 2018 until bids received.

Peters Township School District 2016 High School Feasibility Study September 12, 2016 HYPOTHETICAL NEW H.S. - TOTAL CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGET: CONSENSUS OPTION - TOTAL CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGET:

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGETS

A new 305,000 SF facility that matches the Program developed by the District. This includes a 6-lane

• Natatorium. This also includes utilities, grading, site lighting, access drives and parking lot for 1000
• cars. This does not include cost for site acqusition.

Renovations to 200,000 SF of the existing building, three (3) new additions totaling 105 ,000 SF , demolition of 16,000 SF of existing building to accommodate new additional, repaving/reorganization

• f existing parking lot, and new parking lot for and total of 144 additional parking spaces.

Peters Township School District 2016 High School Feasibility Study September 12, 2016

KEY CONSIDERATIONS for Deciding Which High School Option to Pursue

Pretext: The High School Feasibility Study has delivered valuable information that can be summarized by stating the existing High School is structurally sound and can be renovated to meet the District’s educational curriculum needs with building systems capable of being sustained for at least 20 years. It is also an option to consider building a new High School which would also meet the District’s educational curriculum needs with the advantages of all new building systems but at a higher cost. The issue then becomes one of VALUE in terms of the District evaluating the costs and benefits to renovate the High School vs. building a new High School. Related to these are considerations the Board can evaluate:

• I. Identify Total District Capital Needs/Conceptual Costs within 5-10 year time frame
• a. Assess Conditions of all Schools in District and establish an Order of Magnitude Cost

i. Consider major building systems including Structure, Roofs, Building Envelope, HVAC Systems, Electrical Power, Lighting (Interior and Exterior), and Finishes. ii. Consider other potential Capital Needs/Costs related to all Schools

• 1. Consider access roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and athletic fields.
• 2. Consider any other improvements desired (e.g. technology.)
• b. Establish Conceptual Probable Costs to address needs at all other District facilities
• II. Consider Impact, if any, to other Schools for each High School Option
• a. District to conduct District demographic study.
• b. District to consider desired re-alignment, if any, at other Schools for each HS Option,

and if so, review specific educational/curriculum costs associated with such re- alignment.

• c. Identify Total Conceptual Costs for each High School Option and other School

facilities, including those for re-alignment, demolition, or other ancillary costs involved.

• III. Identify Impact of Total Conceptual Costs for each High School Option on District Budget
• a. District to research Financing Options available for each Option.
• b. District to investigate Millage Impact of Financing Options for each Option.

i. Determine if a referendum might be required for any Financing Option.

• IV. Consider advantages associated with the District making decisions in timely fashion
• a. Each year construction is delayed (or extended) costs could escalate 3 to 6%.