Questions & Answers

4. For option 1,

a. What % is 278K square feet of the total HS square feet?

RESPONSE: It is approximately 86% given the current sq’ of HS at 320,000 sq’

5. How intrusive is an option 1 renovation in occupied schools (phasing discussion)?

RESPONSE: One way to recognize the estimated impact of intrusion in each option is to see the “Phasing Costs” listed on the detailed preconceptual options. Option 1 has a phasing estimated cost of $5M, option 2 is $5M, option 3 is $7.5M and option 4 has $250K. Option 3 is considered the most intrusive and option 4 the least.

6. What is MEP?

RESPONSE: Mechanical (M), Electrical (E), Plumbing (P)

7. What does $215 per square foot renovation cost get you?

RESPONSE: This is a square-foot estimate that reflects recent renovation costs for similar projects per square foot. The specific details of a renovation are identified in the facilities assessment report as well as other cosmetic matters. You can find the facilities assessment report here.

8. Will asbestos removal impact the students?

RESPONSE: Asbestos removal, if needed, will take place under the safety practices outlined in Federal law and is often done in summer months outside the window of normal student or other public access.

9. HVAC vs. MEP?

RESPONSE:

HVAC – means Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning

MEP – means Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing

10. Has your firm prepared an estimate to repair the pool?

RESPONSE: There are reports on the issues associated with the pool with most recent found here. The district has asked D’Huy Engineering to provide a review of the pool conditions and to issue recommendations on how to best address the matters. There are no specific costs provided to address the pool at this time.

11. What would be the number of seats in the new auditorium?

RESPONSE: There have not been definitive determinations on seating count. Feedback from the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee range from seating for 800-1600. Furthermore, the seating in auditorium is associated with seating in other spaces including the gymnasium. The challenge is that there are no spaces in the high school to bring the entire student body together. This is feedback that we need to consider in greater detail.

12. Could a balcony be added to the existing auditorium?

RESPONSE: It has not been determined at this time if one could or could not be added.

13. Will 2000 students fit into the 4a sq ft?

RESPONSE: Option 4A is estimated at 308,000 sq’ for 1,700 students.

14. Where would the new classrooms in option 3 be located?

RESPONSE: This requires engagement of an architect to demonstrate the best location(s) for classrooms.

15. Is there a plan that shows how the options extend the life of the building?

RESPONSE: The extended life of the building will be dependent upon two things:

1.The manufacturer’s warranty/life cycle of products/equipment installed

2.The number, type, location, flexibility, and purpose of spaces within the building to deliver the instructional program today

and in the future.

16. Where would the new school be built on the existing campus?

RESPONSE: The district will engage an architect to provide recommendations in the development of the three concept designs assuming option 4 is further developed to determine where a new school can be built.

17. Can the admin office be relocated to the Audubon School?

RESPONSE: The Audubon School is currently being prepared for demolition.

18. What is the current capacity at sewer plant? Why is it necessary to move it offsite?

RESPONSE: The high school sewer plant is permitted for 27,000 gallons per day. There are a number of advantages to eliminating the existing sewer plant.

i. Eliminate environmental liability for the school district

ii. Add space on the property for other uses

iii. Reduce energy costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs

iv. Eliminate planned capital improvement costs

v. Eliminate unplanned emergency repair costs

vi. Eliminate sludge hauling costs

vii. Eliminate regulation, permitting, and reporting costs

19. For options 3 and 4, the plan is to move the district admin into the high school. Given the potential for intruders into schools, what is the rationale for putting the decision makers in a potential crisis in the same space as the intruder / hostage situation?

RESPONSE: There are a number factors to consider in making a final determination with these two options. Safety and emergency response is certainly one of the most critical along with efficiency and cost savings potential. Further review of this is certainly required.

20. Does options 1-3 remedy the water infiltration issues in classrooms?

RESPONSE: There are several classrooms that have water infiltration challenges. Those challenges need further investigation prior to assuming that they are or are not included in the said preconceptual options at the estimated costs outlined. It is certainly going to be a priority if choosing these options to address water infiltration wherever possible.

21. What concerns us is the lack of detailed quantitative or professional analysis of the current condition of the school, the educational benefits and drawbacks of the four options presented, or any context for / illustration of how the committees conclusions were reached.

RESPONSE: The organization, process, and outcomes from of the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee is clearly outlined here. The final report from the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee can be found here.

22. Projected enrollment for the next 50 years, and the basis for the projection. Will a new building (or renovated building) be the right size going forward? Which options are more flexible if the projections turn out to be incorrect?

RESPONSE: The current enrollment projections are for the next 10 years and can be located here. The current high school is a combination of the original junior high and high schools. This now has a capacity for 2,150 students. Using options 3 and 4, the district can right-size the building to accommodate a student population of about 1,700.

23. Inspection reports of school systems deemed in need of renovation (such as the HVAC system) documenting in detail their inadequacies, failings, and needed improvements.

RESPONSE: The 2023 Facilities Assessment with Conditions report for the high school, administrative building, and transportation garage were accepted by the district. A summary of the outcome is provided here.

24. Can parking issues be managed other than by expanding parking lots? Can events be scheduled differently, or driving among students curtailed to those who strictly need to drive independently? Better “late bus” options?

RESPONSE: Parking recommendations were reviewed by a subcommittee of the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee and can be found here.

25. What are the average ages of the buildings here?

RESPONSE: The high school was constructed in 1961 and the administration building in 1965.

26. Cost of pool and auditorium looks to be $?? Based on the two options?

RESPONSE: The pool and auditorium construction costs listed in the February 20, 2024 presentation are approximately $15M.

27. What would happen to the current pool and auditorium spaces?

RESPONSE: While we need specific architectural recommendations, it is estimated that the auditorium would be rebuilt with options 2 and 3 in place and the pool would be built on the perimeter of the building to allow for greater accessibility and use by students and the school community. Options 2 and 3 would then allow the building to recoup space for other program spaces.

28. What are the advantages of doing away with the Farina building?

RESPONSE: The Farina Admin Building will require $1.9M in renovation/improvements. The building operates on its own systems (HVAC, etc.) and requires regular maintenance. Lastly, the removal of the building avoids the renovation costs and ongoing maintenance and energy costs while freeing up space for parking and allowing the district and building offices to support each other where and when appropriate.

29. How did the visited schools populations compare to ours?

RESPONSE: We visited Pottsgrove and Upper Merion, both having slightly smaller student populations. We visited Avon Grove who is planning their high school for 1,700 students, which is about 100 more than Methacton has at the current time.

30. Relationship with NMTCC considered in this project?

RESPONSE: Our relationship with North Montco Technical Career Center is strong. They are currently having issues with space in their building. Where and when appropriate, the district will consider options to support our students and this program when considering options 4A & 4 B.

31. Capacity and enrollment, if it’s 2150 in this building, are there empty classrooms here now?

RESPONSE: There are no empty rooms. Some rooms are empty at certain times of the days based on schedule. There are rooms not used due to water infiltration. There are rooms used for storage, because there is little available storage.

32. Grants: It looks like PA has a couple of programs for reimbursement. Plancon?

RESPONSE: PlanCon is an acronym for Planning and Construction Workbook, and is a set of forms and procedures used to apply for reimbursement. The forms are designed to: (1) document a local school district's planning process; (2) provide justification to the public for a project; (3) ascertain compliance with state laws, regulations, and standards; and (4) establish the level of state participation in the cost of the project. Currently, no new applications are being accepted and the state legislature has not funded new projects for over last 15 years.

33. How long is the longevity of these earlier options?Would we be back here doing this again in 10 years for a renovation?

RESPONSE: Each option has a level of longevity in terms of the life span of the equipment and products used in renovation/new construction. Each will require future investments in terms of replacements once they reach their end of life. The challenge is determining if the replacements should incorporate improvements to address the recommendations outlined by the campus planning committee. This means that investments are or are not being made with consideration to the future, solving of the identified challenges, and potentially limiting operational and programmatic value for the next 50 years.

34. We were shown the infamous “Heat Map” in the forum. Were the metrics used to color code the map based upon subjective “Gut” feel by one of our consultants? Was the decision purely subjective?

RESPONSE: The Heat Map is designed to visually represent what is reasonable to accomplish given the option and priorities.

35. Were members of the Methacton High School Planning Commission instructed to create a wish list of “Big Ideas”?

RESPONSE: The Methacton High School Planning Committee was asked to provide recommendations from each of the 11 subcommittee topic areas. The recommendations were to be summarized as big ideas on large Post-it pads for sharing with fellow committee members.

36. Were those “Big Ideas” than prioritized by Superintendent, the District and/or the Committee?

RESPONSE: All 63 recommendations were prioritized by committee vote.

37. Were those “Big Ideas” then used to create the “Heat Map”?

RESPONSE: The recommendations were used to create the priorities listed on the heat map.

38. Is the Heat Map a compilation of “Big Ideas”?

RESPONSE: The heat map is designed to visually represent what is reasonable to accomplish given the option and priorities.

39. Please explain why voting on a path forward for a new High School (Option 4), while completely ignoring all of the other more cost-effective alternatives, is not locking us into building a New High School?

RESPONSE: Options 1, 2, and 3 are estimated to be less costly and at the same time address fewer of the priorities.

40. Why would the District and/or the Board invest roughly $150,000 to develop Option 4 and then abandon it?

RESPONSE: The district needs to proceed further with one of the four options. It will cost the district more to explore effectively options 1, 2, and 3. To this end, the option that addresses nearly all the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee recommendations is option 4.

41. How do you know that moving forward on Option 1, Option 2 and/or Option 3 are not better and more cost effective options compared to moving forward on Option 4? Could you provide us with the information?

RESPONSE: Options 1, 2, and 3 are estimated to be less costly and at the same time address fewer of the priorities.

42. Where did the $380 per square foot figure used to calculate the $119,914,40 replacement value of the High School come from?

RESPONSE: Bureau Veritas conducted the calculations.

43. How accurate is the estimate of $380 per square foot in the calculation of the Replacement value?

RESPONSE: Bureau Veritas is a national firm that regularly conducts these types of calculations.

44. Is the $380 per square foot figure used to calculate the $119,914,40 replacement value of the High School estimate or an actual cost?

RESPONSE: Bureau Veritas is a national firm that regularly conducts these types of calculations and did so based on their methodology.

45. Does the $119,914,40 replacement value of the High School include all soft costs, inflation and/or escalation similar to those found in Options 4A and 4B?

RESPONSE: The replacement cost is the amount it costs to replace the school with same equipment, features, and materials.

46. Can you provide the public with the data used to calculate the $380 per square foot figure?

RESPONSE: Bureau Veritas conducted the calculations based on their methodology.

47. Can you provide the public with all of the calculations used to obtain the $380 per square foot figure?

RESPONSE: Bureau Veritas is a national firm that regularly conducts these types of calculations.

1. What is the borrowing cap?

RESPONSE: According to the report issued by Public Financial Management (the Methacton School District’s financial advisor), the remaining borrowing capacity as of the date of the presentation (January 23, 2024) is $201M. Assuming that the borrowing for renovation/new construction takes place over a 3-4 year period and during that same 3-4 year period the district continues to experience moderate increases in assessed property value while paying down existing debt, that available limit will increase.

2. Is scenario 1 in the PFM borrowing scenarios above the Act 1 index?

RESPONSE: No. The Act 1 index limits the school district’s real estate tax increases each fiscal year unless the proposed tax rate increase is approved by voters through a referendum or the school district qualifies for an Act 1 exception approved by PDE. No borrowing scenario is estimated to require the district to go above the Act 1 Index.

3. Are we starting from 0 to fund the minimum $70M investment?

RESPONSE: The determination on how a renovation or new construction project is funded has not be determined. The obvious choice is through borrowing the funds needed to address a project. The district has some capital project funds to potentially use to offset borrowing.

4. Is the referendum threshold dependent on the amount of debt?

RESPONSE: The threshold is dependent on a number of factors including debt and revenue. By law the threshold is based on a formula that considers 225% of the average of the last three years of revenue less any existing debt.

5. Is the $54.29 over and above the normal tax increase to cover salaries, benefits, operating costs etc.?

RESPONSE: The scenarios listed below represent the estimated tax impact on borrowing for these listed amounts ONLY for average district property valued at $444,824.60. This does not take into consideration other cost increases in annual operating budget.

Scenario 1 - $100M Borrowing tax increase is $54.29

Scenario 2 - $140M Borrowing tax increase is $144.06

Scenario 3 - $180M Borrowing tax increase is $278.52

6. How many years will the tax increase in the PFM scenarios be in effect?

RESPONSE: We estimate borrowing over the next 25-30 years and that the tax impact will continue forward.

7. Did we prepare a lifetime cost analysis for the borrowing?

RESPONSE: The cost analysis was presented to the Board on January 23, 2024. That presentation can be found here. The cost of borrowing is estimated given the current market conditions.

8. What is the interest cost on $210M?

RESPONSE: The interest cost on $210M has not been factored into any scenario presented to date.

9. Would like a full financial (detailed) plan on the cost of ownership of the school with option 4.

RESPONSE: A financial analysis of an actual approved plan will be provided. We are currently working with preconceptual ideas that have comparative costs (here) and a financial analysis that estimates borrowing scenarios (see here).

10. What is the interest cost of borrowing $210,000,000?

RESPONSE: We have not estimated the interest of borrowing this amount. It is not an amount that is associated with any of the borrowing scenarios or preconceptual options.

11. What is the lifetime cost paid by a taxpayer on a $210,000,000 new high school?

RESPONSE: We have not estimated the interest of borrowing this amount. It is not an amount that is associated with any of the borrowing scenarios or preconceptual options.

12. Why does tax rate jump so much between scenario 1 and scenario 2 for only 40M more?

RESPONSE: Below you will find the image depicting the wrap around debt and the impact or peak of the debt based on the borrowing amounts. The amount and peak point drive the jump between scenarios.

13. Possibility to use grants to pay for some upgrades?

RESPONSE: The district will be seeking grants and other financial options to limit the tax burden before, during, and after renovation/construction.

RESPONSE: The sewer plant is not separately metered for electric. The below is the estimated electrical with other known annual planned expenses:

$30,000 was spent at the end of 2022 for maintenance to the sand beds. We also must renew the NPDES permit every 3 years at a cost of $3,000. The above costs do not include other labor and expenses for general maintenance and upkeep.

Using the Arcola/Skyview campus as a benchmark (same # of grades as HS) and upsizing for Farina and Transportation, it is estimated that the annual effluent charges to LP would be approximately $28,705 for collection and $22,440 for treatment for an annual total of $51,145.

Annual Fee

M&B Environmental (Operator)

$17,000

Lab Testing/Sludge Hauling/Supplies & Chemicals/Repairs

$28,000

$19,500

Pollution Insurance

Electricity (estimate - 5% of $300K)

$15,000

Total

$79,500

15. Renovation costs, what data did you use to calculate those?

RESPONSE: The owner’s representative used recent projects of similar type projects.

16. Impact on homeowners, what is the interest cost on 200M over the payback period?Effect on taxes?

RESPONSE: We have not calculated the interest cost of $200M. This was not part of the fiscal scenarios presented on January 23, 2024. If the Board approves the district to explore options 4A/B further, the district will present fiscal analyses on each of the developed concepts.

17. How do you make a decision to explore the most expensive option, Option 4, without evaluating the less expensive options (Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3)?

RESPONSE: This provides direction in an exploratory process to develop concepts to provide greater specificity on a potential comprehensive plan; provides the greatest potential in addressing challenges, future programming, and optimal experience; is likely the least disruptive to the current and future educational operation/program/experience; and establishes a ceiling of outcomes with which future modifications can be derived/scaled back/consider alternates. All other options are simply estimated to cost less and address less priorities.

18. Tax Increase for this year it is projected to be 5%. You’re going to add that to our current increase?

RESPONSE: The tax impact of borrowing for facilities will be included along with any other tax impact for operation of the district.

19.What is the projected fee or cost for an engineer/architect to develop Option 1?

RESPONSE: District is in process of seeking an architect for the high school matter. We estimate that fees can range from 4%-6% of a given project.

20. What is the projected fee or cost for an engineer/architect to develop Option 3?

RESPONSE: District is in process of seeking an architect for the high school matter. We estimate that fees can range from 4%-6% of a given project.

21. What is the projected fee or cost for an engineer/architect to develop Option 4?

RESPONSE: District is in process of seeking an architect for the high school matter. We estimate that fees can range from 4%-6% of a given project.

22. Is there any analysis of the cost to develop each option (Options 1, 2, 3 and 4) vs. just the New School Option (Option 4)? Could you provide that to the public?

RESPONSE: The six-month exploratory process for option 4 is estimated to cost between $125K - $200K. All other options will increase in time and costs.

23. Has the District and/or its consultants performed a detailed analysis of cost and impact to the taxpayer for each of the Options, by year, and over the life of the loans?

RESPONSE: The District’s financial advisors have provided a detailed analysis on three borrowing scenarios of $100M, $140M, and $180M. These can be found here

24. How much would each Option cost the average taxpayer per year and over the life of the loans?

RESPONSE: Based on the below listed borrowing scenarios:

• Scenario 1 - $100M Borrowing results in a tax increase of $54.29

• Scenario 2 - $140M Borrowing results in a tax increase is $144.06

• Scenario 3 - $180M Borrowing results in a tax increase is $278.52

On an average home value is $444,824.60

25. Why is moving forward with Option 4 the most “Cost-effective solution”?
 

RESPONSE: This provides direction in an exploratory process to develop concepts to provide greater specificity on a potential comprehensive plan; provides the greatest potential in addressing challenges, future programming, and optimal experience; is likely the least disruptive to the current and future educational operation/program/experience; and establishes a ceiling of outcomes with which future modifications can be derived/scaled back/consider alternates. All other options are simply estimated to cost less and address less priorities.

26. We were told at the forum that the projected costs referred to in the presentation are mere estimates and do not reflect what the actual costs may be. Is this true and if so, why isn’t the District pursuing the “actual” costs for each and all of the individual options?

RESPONSE: The costs listed in the February 20, 2024 presentation of preconceptual options are estimates based on recent similar projects. With the approval of the Board on March 26, 2024, the district will proceed with development of concepts with more detailed costs. Actual costs do not become available until the district has determined a project on which they would go out to competitively bid. Only then will actual costs be realized.

27. What is the total interest cost associated with a $205,000,000 borrowing for a New High School? Option 4B. Please provide me with the dollar figure and not a reference to a technical document.

RESPONSE: We have not made the calculation on the borrowing of $205,000,000.

28. What is the total interest cost associated with a $183,000,000 borrowing for a New High School? Option 4A. Please provide me with the dollar figure and not a reference to a technical document.

RESPONSE: We have not made the calculation on the borrowing of $183,000,000.

29. Dr. Zerbe told our forum that the total cost for Option 4B was projected to be $440,000,000 dollars. Is this accurate? If not, what is the total projected cost for Option 4B.

RESPONSE: The District presented the costs associated with borrowing scenarios:

• Scenario 1 - $100M Borrowing.

• Scenario 2 - $140M Borrowing.

• Scenario 3 - $180M Borrowing.

The total costs for each borrowing can be found here. Each preconceptual option has not been calculated for total costs at this time.

30. Dr. Zerbe confirmed that the total interest cost over the life of the loan for Option 4B was $240,000,000 dollars. Is this accurate? If not, what is the total projected interest cost for Option 4B over the life of the loan(s).

RESPONSE: Dr. Zerbe shared the estimated costs of borrowing scenarios which can be found here.

1. What does “there are no requirements for referendum vote” mean?
RESPONSE: Act 1 requires a voter referendum if the district proposes to increase its real estate tax rate over the Act 1 index.

The district must submit a referendum question in the next primary election stating the proposed tax rate and the rate at which it will be levied to the electors of the school district, and a majority of the electors voting on the question must approve the proposed tax rate.

2. Are you estimating that a referendum will happen?
RESPONSE: We believe that a referendum will not be required given the borrowing scenarios and the range of costs associated with the preconceptual options.

3. There should be an Option 5 – new property/new campus – eye to the future – everything centralized.
RESPONSE: Locating a property within the two townships that can provide the space and central location has been considered. We may find that this option must be explored further given the outcome of the concepts presented under further exploration of option 4.

4. Please clarify what the SB is voting on in March. Confusion with the online form options vs. new construction motion. Who made the recommendation for option 4?
RESPONSE: The superintendent recommended that the Board take action on the following recommendation:

Approve the administration to prepare recommendations for a comprehensive High School campus plan that:

• Engages the Board approved architect, owner’s representative, and solicitor

• Provides no fewer than three concept designs with estimated costs, timelines, and impact for a new high school

• Provides for public input on concept designs

• Provides recommendations and feedback to be presented at a special meeting in the future

5. Did you take the options numbers from the BV study?
RESPONSE: The options presented are provided by D’Huy Engineering, the district’s owner’s representative based on recent school renovation/construction projects.

6. Could you show where the 2nd floor cross over would be located? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to add a 2nd floor?
RESPONSE: The owner’s representative (Engineering Firm) determined that creating a 2nd floor on top of an existing 1st floor structure, barring any investigation into the structural design of the 1st floor, would generally be an unreasonable financial consideration and is not recommended.

7. Would like to understand if we can have a 3-4 story building vs. a horizontal building with elevators/stairs.
RESPONSE: This is the work that will be required under the next phase of the planning process that will include architects and result in concepts that can be reasonably accomplished.

8. Why does the plan say “minimum campus investment” is 70M which is mentioned in the flyer sent to the public? But all mentioned options are more expensive than that.
RESPONSE: The minimum investment is $70M based on the 2023 Facilities Assessment with Conditions report and with the work being completed over time within the district Master Facilities Plan schedule over the next 5-10 years.

9. What will the estimated cost of improvements purchase (for example, is the proposed HVAC renovation a brand-new HVAC system with room-by-room temperature and humidity controls, or simply bringing the existing system back into good repair?) What criteria were used to determine the desired level of improvement and value for investment?
RESPONSE: A presentation was provided (here) in 2022 that took into consideration the need for any replacement to include an improvement in dehumidification. As such, the 2023 Facilities Assessment with Conditions report is established as a replacement of like for like systems (currently the HS does not have dehumidification management).

10. Detailed descriptions of educational opportunities that are limited by the existing building, and how a new building would specifically address these in ways that a renovation could not. What criteria are used to determine that those gains are worth the cost? How many students would materially benefit?
RESPONSE: Discussions with high school staff in September 2023 resulted in significant feedback that can be found here. The next step of the exploratory process is to have deeper conversations with respects to the current challenges and clearly highlight the benefits for consideration.

11. Efforts that have been made (or could be made) to mitigate problems associated with the current school layout and how effective they have (or have not) been.
RESPONSE: The district has an annual budget that includes funding for general maintenance of all school buildings. It has an asset maintenance program that helps with making annual improvements. The district also has a 10-year Master Facilities Plan that helps guide facility needs. There have been pool, traffic, parking, and HVAC studies all completed in the past five years that have had little to no impact on addressing improvements to:

• Parking
• Traffic
• Aesthetics
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Sewer Plant
• Central Office
• Transportation Buildings
• Campus Safety
• Auditorium
• Band Room
• Choral Room
• West Wing Classrooms
• High School Kitchen
• Pool
• Boiler Room
• Art Room
• Science Classrooms
• Tech Ed Classrooms
• Athletics Office
• LGI
• Principal’s Office
• Math Labs

12. There has been some allegation of sustainability gains in constructing a new building, but these are not guaranteed to happen because something new is built. Have these gains been compared against the fuel consumed and waste material produced in demolition and construction, or the quantity of gasoline that will be used if more parking is available (and consequently more students choose to drive to school)? Detrimental effects from increased impervious surface and increased application of deicing chemicals?
RESPONSE: These types of analyses have not been conducted. The district is considering sustainability impact in a final proposal. This requires much conversation and consideration.

13. Page 11-15 of the February 29 Open Form Presentation assigned colors representing the effectiveness of each option at meeting various priorities, but nowhere is it explained how color of the dot assigned to each option and priority were determined.
RESPONSE: The priorities are taken from the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee recommendations. The experience of our owner’s representative was used to determine how much or how little a priority area was likely to be achieved within each option.

14. Decisions on spending ranging from $95 million to $205 million require all that analysis and more. A poor decision will reduce the district’s spending flexibility for years to come, and leave us with fewer resources to handle the consequences. We respectfully demand that the school district make this information available on the campus planning website, with sufficient time for consideration before the school board makes any binding decisions about the future of the high school campus.
RESPONSE: The district has made available the data, presentations, and recommendations that stretch over a two year period. All we have produced at this time is a listing of concerns, challenges, and opportunities for how the future of this campus, with the right investment, can have an on our collective future. More work on what exactly can be done, and the analysis associated with real concepts will be forthcoming. As such, the recommendation that the Board is considering for a vote on March 26, 2024 is to explore one of the 4 preconceptual options proposed on February 20 (here). This will take about 6 months.

15. Would you know about grants before or after borrowing funds?
RESPONSE: Such grants as the PECO energy savings grants are typically done after the installation; however; the district would consider as much as reasonably applicable in advance.

16. Why can’t we house those buses at a First Student property?
RESPONSE: We can have First Student house the buses for us, however; there are challenges with doing so. Currently, we pay First Student by route. The route costs include the overall expense of the bus, driver, maintenance, and facility. A change to relocating the buses and having the parking for individual drivers will increase our annual costs. Second, depending on the location of the new bus depot (or building), there may be a cost increase/change in fuel that is currently purchased by the district and can continue to be done, but mileage could impact this annually.

17. For options 4A and 4B – you are talking about locating the building in a completely different spot on the property?
RESPONSE: In order to build new while maintaining the operation of the existing building, the district is asking their architect to provide options for locating the new structure while considering the recommendations from the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee.

18. What are our projections on enrollment based on our current elementary schools? Does it warrant larger size of 4B?
RESPONSE: The larger sq’ size of option 4B is not based on the need to house more students. It is based on the assumption that will allow for flexible design concepts to address things like seating count in the auditorium, number of lanes in the pool, and spacing in classrooms. The enrollment projections indicate that enrollment will remain consistent for the next 10 years with a school being constructed to handle between 1,600-1,700 students.

19. Will increased size allow us to bring back students placed out of District? Transition program, apartment program, student store.
RESPONSE: We intend to incorporate the recommendations from the Methacton High School Campus Planning Committee, which asks for us to create transition program space in the HS in place of busing students elsewhere for the program. We will seek opportunities in options 4A and 4B.

20. The new construction, what are you demolishing?
RESPONSE: If new construction is the final determination, the assumption without having prepared detailed plans is to construct a new school on the property and demolish the current school once we were able to occupy the new school.

21. How do you scale back a new building to a renovation?
RESPONSE: You use the developed new building concept to value engineering, make alternative decisions, and size determinations to the extent reasonable to maintain the value, improvements, and costs targets. You may, at some point, need to abandon the new-build concept and start a renovation concept if you are unable to meet your target outcomes. You keep all the feedback from students, staff and the community in making future determination regardless of the option explored.

22. Once you have architect and plans, what comes next?
RESPONSE: If the Board approves the recommendation to proceed with exploring option 4 at the March 26, 2024 meeting and they approve an architect for the project, the exploration of concepts is estimated to take six months. Assuming that one of the concepts is then approved it is estimated to take another 18 months to develop the schematic design through preparing bid documents.

23. You are recommending option 4, are you disregarding 1, 2, and 3?
RESPONSE: The recommendation is to explore option 4. This provides direction in an exploratory process to develop concepts to provide greater specificity on a potential comprehensive plan; provides the greatest potential in addressing challenges, future programming, and optimal experience; is likely the least disruptive to the current and future educational operation/program/experience; and establishes a ceiling of outcomes with which future modifications can be derived/scaled back/consider alternates.

24.Have quotes, estimates and/or bids been obtained relative to engaging an Engineer/Architect to evaluate not just one but all of the options? (Options 1, 2, 3 and 4) If so, can we see those bids or estimates so we can determine whether or not they are excessive?
RESPONSE: Please see (here) the cost estimates prepared by D’Huy Engineering on each of the four preconceptual options. There is no other information available and is why the recommendation is to explore Option 4 further to gather more detail.

25. Why aren’t each of the options being developed along with a detailed analysis of cost and impact to the taxpayer by year and over the life of the loans?
RESPONSE: This provides direction in an exploratory process to develop concepts to provide greater specificity on a potential comprehensive plan; provides the greatest potential in addressing challenges, future programming, and optimal experience; is likely the least disruptive to the current and future educational operation/program/experience; and establishes a ceiling of outcomes with which future modifications can be derived/scaled back/consider alternates.

26. Is Option 1 being considered or has it been removed from consideration?
RESPONSE: The Superintendent is recommending that we further explore option 4. This does not mean that the other options are no longer considered. It simply means that we are not proceeding with further exploration of such at this time.

27. We were told by Dr. Zerbe that Option 1 is no longer being considered because he could not as Superintendent support that option. Is that true? If not, Does Dr. Zerbe support moving forward on Option 1?
RESPONSE: Dr. Zerbe is recommending the Board authorize the administration to further explore option 4.

28. Why was the decision made by Dr. Zerbe to “move forward” on Option 4 without fully developing and analyzing each and/or all of the Options including interest costs and overall costs to the taxpayer for each option?
RESPONSE: The recommendation to further explore option 4 will provide the Board and our school community with a fully developed plan with more detailed costs and analysis.

29. Under what conditions, circumstances and/or scenarios would the District not build a New High School and/or abandon Options 4A and 4B?RESPONSE: The further exploration of option 4 will allow the district to review three concepts with costs/timelines/impact to determine what can be accomplished given the established priorities. A review of these three concepts will determine if we proceed with a concept or make modifications, or seek alternative option for consideration.

30. Please explain why voting on a path forward for a new High School (Option 4), while completely ignoring all of the other more cost-effective alternatives, is in the best interest of the taxpayers?
RESPONSE: Options 1, 2, and 3 are estimated to be less costly and at the same time address fewer of the priorities. Considering the taxpayers ensures that we further explore option 4 to determine if this is the best investment in our school community be for the next 50 years.

31. Under what circumstances would you and/or the Board abandon Option 4 and “Scale back” to a renovation?
RESPONSE: We will not know this until we are able to evaluate the three concepts proposed under the recommendation for option 4.

32. How do you “Scale Back” to a renovation using drawings, renderings, budgets and/or plans that were created for new construction and an entirely different building?
RESPONSE: The architect can use the feedback from students, staff, and community in their design of spaces in developing concepts under each of the other options. Options 1, 2, and 3 will simply address some of the recommendations at a lower total cost.

33. Dr. Zerbe confirmed that it would not be possible to “scale back” to Renovation from New Construction at our forum. Is that true? If not, why not?
RESPONSE: Dr. Zerbe confirmed that you would not be able to use concept drawings for options 1-3, but the concepts, feedback from students, staff, and community can be used if further exploration of those options is determined.

34. Per the Bureau Veritas study, the replacement value of the High School was $119,914,400 using the total square feet of 315,564 and Cost per square foot of $380. Who calculated the price per square foot of $380 in the Replacement value estimate for the High School?
RESPONSE: Bureau Veritas conducted the calculations.