I have been keeping quiet on the latest high school update that took place on Monday. I still have a lot of questions myself and I wanted to get feedback from people prior to me posting my thoughts here. You can see the full architect presentation on the District website here. There is also a recent Almanac article on the project here.
First, if you hadn't heard, there is a new design for the structure itself. Rather than describe it in detail, I'll link to a Post-Gazette article here that has a picture of the proposed design. This design reuses the space in Building B, the Little Theater, and the Auditorium. Building B would house multiple floors of classroom space. This change was perhaps the biggest one of all as we had been told time and again that Building B was NOT reusable for classroom space. I am sure there is a simple explanation on how this was figured out, but it would still be good to know.
This new plan gives us a brand new athletics wing that would house a new practice and competition gym along with a pool, locker rooms, and athletic support staff offices. In addition to the Athletic wing, we would build a brand new academic wing as well. This academic wing would provide for the latest classroom learning technologies and spaces.
What I found good about this presentation was that the design is maybe 100 times better than what we were originally shown. Something like this is far better at keeping with the traditions of Mt Lebanon. From that perspective alone it was a relief to see so much progress being made.
The costs for this solution right now stand at about $120 million with the architect and construction manager looking for an additional 10% reduction in the coming weeks. To be sure, bids for construction work nowadays are coming in under budget and that 10% reduction may very well be attainable.
Besides the question about B Building being used as classroom space, I came across some cost information that I found interesting. Last August I had posted some cost information from the PDE, RSMeans, and the Bethel Park high school project. I also linked to the actual PDE cost documentation here.
The new design calls for 440,000 sq ft building at $120,000,000. 33% renovation construction and 67% new construction. According to PDE statistics and various architectural sites, renovation costs should come in around $110-120/sq ft and new construction at $212/sq ft. This is before the recent economic downturn.
If we are renovating about 145,000 sq feet, then that cost should be around $16 million. If you take the remaining square feet (about 295,000) then that would mean we are spending $104,000,000 on the new areas of the school. $104 million divided by 295,000 square feet equals more than $350/sq ft. PDE says (remember, pre economic downturn) that we ought to be paying in the neighborhood of $212/sq ft. Bethel Park had their costs pegged at about $204/sq ft last time I looked (linked above). Even understanding that we have asbestos and demolition and phasing to do, such a premium seems unreasonable.
So what's this mean? Either we are paying a HUGE price tag to renovate Building B or we are paying far too much per sq ft for new construction.
Here's what I am thinking. For $212/sq foot of NEW construction, (PDE pre-economic downturn numbers), we could build a 400,000 square foot high school for $84,800,000. This is very much in line with what is happening at Bethel Park.
I asked at the meeting on Monday for the architect to provide a breakdown of cost by building.
Add to the information above the uncertainly that comes along with floating bonds year after year after year (literally) to avoid a referendum to pay for a project of this magnitude, the huge pension liabilities coming due, our unfunded health care (OPEB) liabilities, state budget shortfalls that impact our basic education subsidy, and an inability (note, I am not saying "unwillingness") of this board to delve into the base budget to evaluate the possibility of further cost savings in our budget, and I still am of the mind that we cannot afford a project like this until we pay down our outstanding debt. I also get that I am most likely in the minority on this issue. There is a mindset out there that says "we have to do SOMETHING". While I am on this Board and in the minority on this I will work to ensure that that "something" does not include paying too far over market value for what we are getting.
The next step in the process is a special meeting on June 1st. The architect has asked us to vote on this option at that time so that he can move the PlanCon process forward. So, if you want your voice heard, you need it have it heard in the next two weeks.
Thanks for reading.
James
