mtlsd community forum jan 14 2009

8/14/2019 MTLSD Community Forum Jan 14 2009

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mtlsd-community-forum-jan-14-2009 1/81

Firm Profile

50 Years of Service

70% Registered Architects

Ranked 16th of Top Design Firms in 2005 by Modern Healthcare

AIA Healthcare Design Awards 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 05, 06

75 LEED Accredited Professionals

Mt Lebanon High School

January 14, 2009



• Update the community on the status of the

project

• Review the alternatives with updated costestimates

• Discuss financing options

• Obtain community feedback

Goals for this Evening



• Fall 2006 - De Jong Study Begins

– School Board begins program and space study with

educational planners, De Jong & Associates

– Educational Specification Team convened-5 meetings

held– 2 Community workshops held

• Winter 2007 - De Jong Final Report Presented to

Community

• Fall 2007- Selection Celli-Flynn Brennan Architectsand Planners (CFB) and OWP/P

Review of Project Activity



• Spring 2008 - Update presented prior to Board

Discussion meetings

• Summer 2008 - Community Forum

• Fall 2008 - P.J. Dick hired as ConstructionManager

• Winter 2009

– Design Advisory Team Meeting

– Community Forum

– 3 Neighborhood Meetings

Review of Project Activity



• January 20 - Neighborhood Meeting

– Markham Elementary


– Howe Elementary


– Jefferson Middle School

• January 26 - Special Board Meeting

– Fine Arts Theater-High School

• February 16 - Board Meeting

– High School

Future Meetings



Mt Lebanon Space Needs



Existing Building: 545,000 Square Feet

DeJong Report: 548,485 Square Feet

- 503,803 High School

- 44,682 District office/Maintenance/Custodial

Space Program



Design Team: 440,000 Square Foot Building20,000 SF District Services

420,000 SF High School Building

1,980 Rated Pupil Capacity

Additional Budgeted Areas

Site Buildings (Field House, Maintenance Facilities)

Design Team Space Program



• Classroom Clusters Based on Departments

• Classroom Size at 800 SF for Multiple LearningActivities and Technology

• Flexible Spaces for Interdisciplinary Work and ProjectBased Work

• Combination Lecture/Lab space for Science

• Department Offices for Teacher Collaboration

Program Features



Ability to Use Technology Anywhere in the Building

Resource Spaces for Learning

Special EducationLanguage Lab

Media

Applied Arts and Business Technology

Social Spaces for Informal Learning

Program Features



State of the Art Media/Technology Centers

Complete Arts Program

Maintain Auditorium and TheaterAdequate Support Spaces

Appropriately Sized Spaces

Appropriate Equipment and Systems

Modern Physical Education Areas

Program Features



62% of after hours usage is by groups other thanMt Lebanon School District

Potential Community Use AreasGymnasiums

Fitness Track

Fitness Area

Pool

AuditoriumLittle Theater

Technology/Media Center

Community Use Spaces



Existing Building Assessment



• Multiple buildings at various times since 1928• Square Footage: 545,255 SF

• Building does not support 21st century

teaching & learning

• Organization is Confusing

- No sense of where you are in the school

- No clear circulation which creates longer

travel times & potential

• Security issues

Building Assessment



- Lack of day lighting to interior occupiedspaces- MEP/FP (Mechanical ElectricalPlumbing/Fire Protection) equipment has

exceeded it’s life expectancy and iscostly to operate- Building exterior requires maintenance- Significant asbestos containingmaterials

-Life Safety (Fire Alarms, SmokeControl) systems require updating

Building Assessment



Environment / Sustainable Design



• Green Roofs

• Natural Ventilation – Solar Wind Towers

• Wind Turbines

• Day lighting and lighting controls

• Efficient Mechanical and Electrical Systems• Geothermal Heat loop

• Heat Exchange within Mechanical System

• Efficient water use systems, including use of grey water

• Recycled materials / Low VOC materials

• Pervious paving

Possible Sustainability Strategies



Teaching and Learning



To provide the best education

possible for each and everystudent.

Mission Statement



Mt. Lebanon Strategic Plan 2010

Student Learning Targets

Master district technology standards

Master district communication skills

Demonstrate the ability to work cooperatively

Apply problem solving strategiesMaster district reading and comprehension standards

Show responsibility for their own learning

Master district mathematics standards

Apply critical thinking skillsDemonstrate an awareness of current and cultural issues



Conceptual Design



Alternative Approaches/Phasing



Alternative Approach 1Repair Existing Building



1



Project Characteristics

• Maintain Existing 545,255 Square Feet-

• Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire Protection

Systems Replacement

• Asbestos Abatement

• Code Required Improvements

• Roofing Replacement

• Interior Finishes Due to Other Work

• Minimal Site Repairs

• Minimal Sustainability and Minimal Energy Savings

Alternative Approach 1 – Repair Existing Building



Educational Improvements

• No Change in Layout to Support 21st Century

Teaching & Learning

• No Change for Fine & Performing Arts Spaces

• No Change for Physical Education & Athletic

Spaces

• No Change for Classroom Size

• Adapt Existing Spaces to Fit Required Program




Impact on Students and Staff

• Multiple Construction Phases

• Length of Project 3-5 years• Student Disruption and Displacement




Alternative Approach 1ARepair Existing Buildings and Re-invent

Building C



Alternative Approach 1A – Repair Existing Building/Reinvent Building C

DESIGN

LIBRARY

MEDIA / RESOURCE

CAFE

LEARNING STUDIO

LEARNING STUDIO

LEARNING STUDIO




• Maintain Existing 545,255 Square Feet-

• Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Fire Protection

Systems Replacement

• Asbestos Abatement

• Code Required Improvements

• Roofing Replacement

• New Interior Finishes Throughout Building C

• Minimal Site Repairs

• Minimal Sustainability and some Energy Savings





• Classroom Size at 800 SF in Building C

• Includes some 21st Century Teaching & Learning

Opportunities

– Social Spaces for Informal Learning

– Resource Spaces for Learning

– State of the Art Media/Technology Centers

– Some Flexible Spaces

• No changes to Fine and Performing Arts Spaces• No changes to Physical Education and Athletic

Spaces




Alternative Approach 2Additions and Renovation



2

2



2 2

2



2

2



2

Alt ti A h 2 Additi d R ti




• 440,000 Square Feet- 294,000 SF New (67%)

- 146,000 SF Renovated (33%)

• Renovated Areas Like New

• Site Work Required for Additions

• Phased Demolition and Additions

• Substantial Energy Savings & Sustainability Initiatives

• Significantly Reduced Operations & Maintenance Cost

• Significantly Improved Building Safety & Security

Alternative Approach 2 – Additions and Renovation



Alt ti A h 2 Additi d R ti




• Fewer Construction Phases

• Length of Project 3-4 years• Less Student Disruption and Displacement

• No Modular Classrooms

Alternative Approach 2 – Additions and Renovation



Alternative Approach 2ANew Building and Renovate

Performing Arts




• 440,000 Square Feet

• Building B Original Retained for other Uses

• New Building except for Auditorium and Fine Arts

Theater

• Site Work Required for New Buildings

• Phased Demolition and Additions



• State-of-the-Art Building Safety & Security

Alternative Approach 2A – New Building and Renovate Performing Arts




• Classroom Size at 800 SF

• Includes many 21st Century Teaching & Learning

Opportunities

– Social Spaces for Informal Learning

– Resource Spaces for Learning– State of the Art Media/Technology Centers

– Departmental Classroom Clusters

– Many Flexible Spaces

• Renovated Performing Arts Spaces and New Fine ArtsSpaces

• New Physical Education and Athletic Spaces





• Two Construction Phases

• Length of Project 3-4 years• Minimal Student Disruption and Displacement





Alternative Approach 3New Building



3

3



3 3

Alternative Approach 3

3





3




Alternative Approach 3 – New Building




• 440,000 Square Feet All New

• Building B Original Retained for other Uses

• Rework Entire Site



• Best Community Access to Public Areas

• State-of-the-Art Building Safety & Security





• Two Construction Phases

• Length of Project 3 years• Minimal Student Disruption


Alternative Approach 3 New Building



Budgets

Architect’s Cost Estimate – July 2008



Alternative 1 Alternative 1A Alternative 2 Alternative 3

REPAIR BUILDING REPAIR BUILDING

RE-INVENT BUILDING C

RENOVATION / ADDITIONS

NEW SCHOOL

$79.8M $97.3M $118.7M $131.7M

Estimated Construction cost only. Consultant Fees, Construction

Testing, Furnishing, and Escalations are not included

Architect s Cost Estimate July 2008



Construction Manager Cost Estimate – December 2008

Independent budgeting effort

Built up budget based on information provided

• July 22, 2008 Design Team Presentation

• Existing Building Documents and site visits

• Documents of completed projects provided to PJ Dick to

establish quality

• LEED Silver Rating



Total Cost Estimate – January 2009



1 1A 2 3REPAIR BUILDING REPAIR BUILDING

RE-INVENT BUILDING C

RENOVATION / ADDITIONS

NEW SCHOOL

Complete project costs including contingencies (15%) and soft costs.

Does NOT include state reimbursements (estimated at $15.1 to 16.6

million).

ota Cost st ate Ja ua y 009

$103.2M $123.9M $138.8M $157.9M

2ANEW BLDG

RENOVATE P. ARTS

$156.3M



ESTIMATED STATE REIMBURSEMENT TBD TBD $15.1 Million $15.1 Million $16.6 Million

MT LEBANON DISTRICT COST TBD TBD $123.7 Million $141.2 Million $141.3 Million

This slide has been updated from the Community Meeting Presentation to reflect that escalation has been included in these budgets



Reduction in Size of Structure

– Size already less than DeJong study

– Further potential impacts on Program

Reduction in Quality

– Life Cycle Costs/Energy Efficiency

– Long Term Maintenance Impacts

– Level/Durability of Finishes

– Reduce LEED© Certification Options

Cost Reduction Decisions



ProjectSize

MillageCost

$100,000home

$200,000home

$300,000home

$70 million 2.01 $ 17 $ 34 $ 50

$110 million 2.91 $ 24 $ 49 $ 73

$120 million 3.17 $ 26 $ 53 $ 79

$130 million 3.43 $ 29 $ 57 $ 86

$140 million 3.69 $ 31 $ 62 $ 92

$150 million 3.95 $ 33 $ 66 $ 99

$160 million 4.21 $ 35 $ 70 $ 105

Cost per Month for Homeowners



• Bond Issues

– Issuing bonds is the most common way schooldistricts raise funds for school renovations

– Bond Rating is Moody’s Aa2, the highest in

Western PA for school districts

– Bonds take between 45 and 60 days to issue

• Debt Limit

– Act 1 establishes a debt limit for school

districts in Pennsylvania

– Current available debt limit for Mt. Lebanon is

$110 million

Financing Options



• Districts are limited to borrowing base

• Electoral debt exempt from borrowing base

calculation

• Electoral debt is debt approved by voters at

election

Debt Act Referendum



R f d O i



• Debt Act does not allow for multiple questions or

multiple options in the single referendum .

• If referendum fails there is a 5 month moratorium

on any discussions or actions regarding the HighSchool project

• After 5 months, the Board would be able to renew

discussions regarding the High School project

Referendum Options

Range of Options



Range of Options

Renovation/Addition


Repair/Renovation


New Construction


Project Costs in 2009 Dollars

$0 $175 to 180 M

Range of Options



Range of Options

Renovation/Addition


Repair/Renovation


New Construction


1 1A

3

2 2A

$110 M Threshold

Project Costs in 2009 Dollars

$175 to 180 M$0

As requested this slide will be updated to proportionally represent current budget estimates



Al i A h 1A P d C



•Minimize the cons from Alternative 1 and gain educational

improvement in Building C

Alternative Approach 1A – Pros and Cons

Alt ti A h 2 P d C



•Significant New Construction

•Existing building areas are renovated “Like New”; therefore,

quality of space is similar to Alternative 3

•All Program area provided and Improved Program

Adjacencies

•Complex Construction Sequencing to maintain adequate

classrooms during construction

Alternative Approach 2 – Pros and Cons

Alt ti A h 2A P d C



•As Cost approaches Alternative 3, option is less desirable

Alternative Approach 2A – Pros and Cons

Alt ti A h 3 P d C



•Most educational improvement

•Best Program relationships•Building Square Footage is Right-sized and Efficient

•Maximum opportunity for Energy & Operating Cost Savings

•Maximum building life expectancy

•Improved Public Use of Community facilities

•Three story building

•Integrates Universal Design

•Highest First Cost•Temporary Connection between “C” and New Building

Alternative Approach 3 – Pros and Cons

Meeting Objective



g j

We need your input on these questions forthe Board to move forward with a decision:• Should Alternative 1, or less work, be considered?

• Given the cost of the Alternatives, should we consider an

Alternative 4 which is $110M by reducing square footage

and the extent of renovation?

• What emphasis do you put on construction phasing relative

to the impact on students?



Thank You!