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

PLEASANT VALLEY PLEASANT VALLEY ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL EXI EXISTI TING AS NG ASPHA PHALT PATH PATH EXISTIN ISTING J JAVELIN LIN EXIS EXISTING TING TEN TENNIS IS CO COUR URT CO COUR URTS EXISTING EXIS TING BAS BASKETB ETBALL LL COUR CO URTS PETERS TOWNSHIP PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM STADIUM ROAD AY RO EAST MCMURRAY EXISTING SITE PLAN EXISTING SITE PLAN PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

LEGEND PLEASANT VALLEY PLEASANT VALLEY EXISTING BUILDINGS ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL BUILDING ADDITIONS NEW FULL DEPTH ASPHALT AND STONE BASE * NOTE: NEW ASPHALT OVERLAY AT EXISTING PARKING LOTS EXISTING EXIST NG NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ASPH PHAL ALT PA T PATH TH EXI EXISTI TING BAS NG BASKET ETBAL BALL COUR URTS TS STU STUDENT ENT TO BE DEM TO BE DEMOLISH SHED ED PARKING ( PARKI NG (20) 0) STAFF STAFF NEW AMPH W AMPHIT ITHE HEAT ATER ER PARKI PARKING ( NG (11) 1) BUILT INTO BUILT INTO EX EXIS ISTING TING EXISTI EXI TING TEN NG TENNIS COUR URTS TS HILLSIDE HILLSIDE TO BE DEM TO BE DEMOLISH SHED ED BASE OF BAS OF HILLSIDE HILLSIDE PETERS TOWNSHIP PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL NEW NEW JA JAVEL VELIN CO COUR URT EXTE EXTENT OF EXI NT OF EXISTI TING NG PARKING L PARKING LOT PARENT PICK UP NEW NEW T TICKET CKET OFFI FFICE CE STU STUDENT ENT PA PARKI PARKING (298) 298) NEW NEW ST STADI ADIUM UM ENTRAN RANCE CE EVENT PA EVE NT PARKI RKING NG ONL ONLY ( Y (26) 6) PED PEDES ESTRI TRIAN AN WA WALK LK ZO ZONE NE STADIUM STADIUM STAFF STAFF PARKING PARKI (193) 193) WOR WORK REL RELEASE BUS TRAFFIC STU STUDENT PARKI ENT PARKING (24) 24) STUD ST UDEN ENT AN T AND PA D PARE RENT NT PARKING CALCULATIONS PARKING CALCULATIONS DROPOFF / DRO FF / P PICKUP KUP VISI VISITOR TOR ENTRANCE / EXIT ENT / EXIT EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED PARKING ( PARKI NG (18) 8) EVE EVENT PA NT PARKI RKING NG ONLY ( ONL Y (31) 1) STAFF STAFF 208 208 204 204 SCHOOL BUS SCHOO L BUS ROAD (TYPICAL (TY CAL O OF 3 30) 0) AY RO VISITOR VISITOR 17 17 18 18 EAST MCMURRAY STUDENT STUDENT 299 299 385 385 WORK RELEASE WORK RELEASE 20 20 24 24 * EVENT EVENT 0 57 57 TOTAL TOTAL 544 544 688 688 STUDENT P STU PARK ARKIN ING G (6 (67) 7) * 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 STA STAFF AN F AND D BUS BUS E ENT NTRAN RANCE CE / / EXIT EXIT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CONSENSUS OPTION PROPOSED SITE PLAN PETERS TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

Peters Township School District 2016 High School Feasibility Study September 12, 2016 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGETS I. CONSENSUS OPTION - RENOVATED H.S. WITH EXISTING NATATORIUM TO REMAIN 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 of existing parking lot, and new parking lot for and total of 144 additional parking spaces. 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 CONSENSUS OPTION - TOTAL CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGET: $77,700,000 II. HYPOTHETICAL NEW HIGH SCHOOL 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. 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 HYPOTHETICAL NEW H.S. - TOTAL CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGET: $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 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%.