Urbana Elementary Feasibility Study Board Presentation - - PDF document

1

Crabtree, Rohrbaugh & Associates, Architects

• Urbana Elementary Feasibility Study Board Presentation
• Feasibility Study Milestones
• Steering Committee Meetings
• Faculty / Student / Community “Charrettes”
• Educational specification/Program Comparison
• Physical site and Building Assessment
• Option Development/Refinement
• Cost Analysis
• What is Next?

Community Input Meeting Faculty/Staff Input Meeting Committee Review of Draft Report Present Final Report and Recommendations to BOE

2

Feasibility Study Steering Committee

Brad Ahalt FCPS Construction - Senior Project Manager Ray Barnes FCPS Executive Director of Facilities Services Roger Fritz FCPS Director of Construction Jan Hollenbeck Urbana Elementary School Principal Robert Johnson FCPS Supervisor Cluster Maintenance Program Gloria Mikolajczyk MSDE Schools Facilities Architect Supervisor Beth Pasierb FCPS Facilities Planner Kathy Prichard FCPS Elementary Instructor Director Emily Reedy FCPS Communications Brett Stark FCPS Director of Curriculum Karen Wills Urbana Elementary School Teacher

Consultant Team Feasibility Study Team

Overview of Key Objectives of the Study

• Existing Facility and Site Study
• Built in 1960 with Additions in 1965 &1975 (1/3 renovated in

1975) = 64,133 SF

• Adhere to Maryland Public School Construction Program

(PSCP) Guidelines

• Educational Program Review
• Develop options w/constructability justification:
• 1. Renovate existing school
• 2. Modernization - Partial demo, additions & renovations
• 3. Complete demo & replacement of the school on site
• Complete estimated costs & schedules for each option

Feasibility Study Process

3

• Definition and Goals of Charrette
• Staff & Community Engagement
• Questions/Results

Community Engagement Community Engagement

• Student Participation
• Staff and Community Update Events

– Online Survey Results

If nothing else this project must….

4 Urbana Elementary Student Input

Student Artwork Comments:

Indoor/Outdoor School Windows Safety and Emergency Concerns STEM Nice Teachers Green House Two Stories Café Collaboration Space Magnet Programs

Existing Building Assessment

Built: 1960 Size: 64,133 SF Site: 19.87 Acres Enrollment: 985 (Equated) State Rated Capacity: 511

Years of Major Construction

5

Existing Building Assessment

EXISTING SITE: Site is rectangular with limited street frontage on Urbana Pike. Dedicated Bus Loop in front of school with Parent drop on adjacent Urbana Volunteer Fire Department Property

• n the western border

Great Heron Wetland borders the eastern side of the site. Interstate 270 borders the south side

• f the site .

Existing Site Plan N

Existing Building Assessment

Great Heron Wetlands

• Originally constructed through a grant in

2000.

• 1of 11 sites monitored by the Watershed

Management Division of Frederick County and directly affects Chesapeake Bay.

• Hands on outdoor learning environment

includes two ponds and native plants.

6

Existing Building Assessment

Existing Urbana Elementary School Floor Plan with Portable Classrooms

14 Portable Classrooms

Existing Building Assessment

7 Existing Building Assessment Feasibility Study Options

Overview of Proposed Options Option 1 – Phased Additions/Renovations While Occupying Existing Building Option 2 – Replacement School While Occupying Existing Building Option 3A – Replacement School While Relocated to Sugarloaf Elementary School Option 3B – Replacement School While Relocated to Portables

8 Feasibility Study Options

Option 1 – Phased Additions and Renovations while Occupying the Existing Building

Summary of Option 1

TOTAL PROJECT COST $54,165,520 Construction Duration – 44 Months Longest construction duration of all options; phased over 44 months. Most disruption of all options to the educational program, during construction. Most expensive option.

Feasibility Study Options

OPTION 2 – REPLACEMENT SCHOOL WHILE OCCUPYING THE EXISTING BUILDING

Summary of Option 2

TOTAL PROJECT COST $41,433,200 Construction Duration – 28 Months Less disruption to educational program than Option 1. Reduced construction time frame from Option 1. The new facility is located in central portion of the site, further from Urbana Pike. Option requires negotiations with adjacent Fire Department for construction access. Play areas and rear playfields will not be accessible during construction.

9 Feasibility Study Options

OPTION 3A – REPLACEMENT SCHOOL WHILE RELOCATED TO SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Summary of Option 3A

TOTAL PROJECT COST $40,128,436 Construction Duration – 24 Months Least disruption to educational program of all the

• ptions.

Shortest construction time frame of all the

• ptions.

Lowest cost of all options. Dependant on funding as requested by the Board

• f Education.

Potential to delay the opening of Sugarloaf Elementary School by one to two (1-2) years.

Feasibility Study Options

OPTION 3B – REPLACEMENT SCHOOL WHILE RELOCATED TO PORTABLES

Summary of Option 3B

TOTAL PROJECT COST $45,875,476 Construction Duration – 28 Months More disruption to the educational program during construction than Option 3A. Slightly longer construction time frame than Option 3A. Difficult site access during construction for parent drop-off access.

10 Recommendation

OPTION 3A – REPLACEMENT SCHOOL WHILE RELOCATED TO SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

It is the recommendation of this steering committee and supported by the majority of the Urbana community comments received by on-line survey, that Option 3A is preferred method to modernize Urbana Elementary School. The committee makes this recommendation with the following assumptions:

• 1. Sugarloaf Elementary School will be used as

temporary swing space during construction. This will affect the timing of planned redistricting in the Urbana community.

• 2. Construction funding for the Urbana Elementary

School modernization will be awarded as requested by the Board of Education in their current Educational Facilities Master Plan.

Urbana Elementary School Feasibility Study

QUESTIONS