beach elementary school feasibility study ......feasibility study presentation to calvert county...

BEACH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLFEASIBILITY STUDY

Presentation toCalvert County Board of Education

February 7, 2019

FEASIBILITY STUDY Process

Step 1: Information Gathering & Evaluation• Compare Existing Building Program vs. Project Goals & Ed Spec

• Evaluate Existing Building Issues

• Code Analysis / Review

• Building Specific Diagrams

• Site Plan Analysis

Step 2: Concept Design• Proposed Concept Bubble Diagrams Depicting General Planning

Concepts

• Committee Input is Applied to Diagrams Combinations of Preferred Features

Incorporated of New Committee Input

Development of Refined Approaches

Step 3: Development of Plan Options• Concepts are refined into Formal Plan Approaches and Technically

Scrutinized

• Engineering Disciplines are Applied

• Code Compliance

• Cost Estimating

• Sustainability, Energy Conservation & Life Cycle Cost Analysis

• Construction Schedule, Duration, and Phasing Plan

Step 4: Technical Report Preparation• Prepare Board of Education Presentation and Brochures

• Prepare IAC Feasibility Study Submission

FEASIBILITY STUDY Stakeholder Advisory Group

• The study is the result of it’s collaborative process

• Thank you to the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for dedicating your time, knowledge, and efforts into this process

Dr. Michael Shisler, Principal, Beach Elementary School

Casey Grenier, Teacher, Beach Elementary School

Gwen Redden Henderson, Parent, Beach Elementary School

Mary Sterling, Parent, Beach Elementary School

Shuchita Warner LEED AP, Director of School Construction, CCPS

Darrell Barricklow AIA, LEED AP, Supervisor of School Construction, CCPS

Gregg Gott, Supervisor of Operations, CCPS

Ed Cassidy, Director of Transportation, CCPS

FEASIBILITY STUDY Program Goals

• Existing Building

Area: 54,893 GSF

SRC: 514 students

9 Portables

• Proposed Building

Ed Spec NSF: 50,115

Ed Spec GSF: 67,860

Ed Spec SRC: 600

Admin

Instructional

Media Center

Special Ed

Gym/ Cafe

Music/ Arts

Building Services

FEASIBILITY STUDY Exist ing Condit ions Evaluation

• Architectural Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects

• Civil Collinson Oliff & Associates

• Structural ADTEK Engineers

• Mechanical James Posey Associates

• Electrical James Posey Associates

• Plumbing James Posey Associates

• Data / IT James Posey Associates

• Life Safety Smolen Emr Ilkovitch Architects

James Posey Associates

• Cost Estimating MK Consulting Engineers

FEASIBILITY STUDYApproach Comparison

APPROACH 1Phased While Occupied

Minimize Demolition

Maximize Adaptive-Reuse

Minimize Sitework

Satisfactory Program &

Adjacencies


Increase Demolition

Increase New Construction

Improve Sitework

Good Program & Adjacencies

APPROACH 3A*Phased While Occupied

APPROACH 3BPhased While Occupied

APPROACH 3C

REVITALIZATION MODERNIZATION REPLACEMENT

Complete Demolition

All New Construction

Site Redevelopment

Ideal Program & Adjacencies

*Retains 2006 Addition

The purpose of a feasibility study is to determine the project approach, not to design the building

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATIONSite & Floor Plan

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATIONPhasing Plan

existing building

addition

demolition

renovation

new building

PHASING KEY

SY 1

1

2a

SY 2 SY 3

2b

3

site

PHASING SCHEDULE 39 Months

phas

e 0

phas

e 2

site

phas

e 3

phas

e 1

ab

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATIONAdvantages

• New addition and renovation allows for 21st century learning environments

• Front entry faces Bayside Road

• Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off

• Achieves Site Program

• All Teaching Spaces receive Natural Light and Views

• Defined Pod Structure for Each Grade

APPROACH 1: REVITALIZATIONDisadvantages

• Keeps most of building’s existing infrastructure

• Choke point from main entry to instructional core of the building

• Does not meet all ed spec adjacencies Cafetorium to Gym

Instrumental Music to 4th & 5th

Grades

• Media, Art & Music have to traverse through the open Cafeteria

• No Natural Light in Cafeteria

• Gym SF remains the same

• 1971 addition revitalization is costly

• Admin and Public Program is distant from Instruction (long travel distance)

• Gym is remote from Play Fields

• Differing Floor Elevations

• Nose to Tail Bus Parking

• Longer Construction Duration due to Phasing

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATIONSite & Floor Plan

2nd floor

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATIONPhasing Plan

existing building

addition

demolition

renovation

new building

PHASING KEY

phas

e 0

phas

e 2

phas

e 4

phas

e 1

phas

e 3

site

a

b

SY 1

1

2

SY 2 SY 3

3

site


4a

4b

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATIONAdvantages

2nd floor


• A clear front entry faces Bayside Road


• Achieves Site Program with exception of Outdoor Dining

• Media Center is Prominent on Front of Building


• 2nd Floor allows views toward the Water

• Clear separation of Public vs. Private Secure evening use

APPROACH 2: MODERNIZATIONDisadvantages

2nd floor

• Choke point from main entry to instructional core of the building

• Does not meet ed spec adjacencies for some programs General Music to Stage

Art to Music Suite

Instrumental Music to 4th & 5th Grade

• Gym is remote from Play Fields

• Outdoor Play Areas are remote from Cafeteria

• Differing Floor Elevations

• Media Center is not Centralized

• Must cross Bus Loop from Parking Lot

• Drop-off Loop creates a push condition


APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWOSite & Floor Plan

2nd floor

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWOPhasing Plan

phas

e 0

phas

e 2

phas

e 4

phas

e 1

phas

e 3

phas

e 5

site

SY 1

1

2

SY 2 SY 3

3

site


4

5

existing building

addition

demolition

renovation

new building

PHASING KEY

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWOAdvantages

2nd floor




• When students enter they split into two directions eliminating pinch point

• Media Center is Centralized


• Achieves all Adjacencies

• Large Courtyard can serve Controlled Outdoor Learning Environments

• Clear separation of Public vs. Private Secure evening use

• Ideal Building Location Phased While Occupied Replacement

APPROACH 3A: REPLACE. PWODisadvantages

2nd floor

• Gym does not directly open to Play Fields

• May have Differing Floor Elevations

• Single loaded Corridor is Inefficient

• Service is visible from Bayside Road Will require screening


APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWOSite & Floor Plan

2nd floor

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWOPhasing Plan

existing building

addition

demolition

renovation

new building

PHASING KEY

phas

e 0

phas

e 2

phas

e 4

phas

e 1

phas

e 3

site

SY 1

1

2

SY 2 SY 3

3

site


4

site

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWOAdvantages

2nd floor

• Achieves 21st century learning environments



• Media Center is Centralized & Prominent on face of Building



• Large Plaza focuses the design on Outdoor Learning Environments The shape provides features of a

courtyard without being a courtyard

• All play areas are remote from street

• 2nd Floor allows views toward the Water

• Clear separation of Public vs. Private with secure evening use

• Gym and Cafeteria are tucked away

• Portables do not have to be moved

• Ideal Building Location

APPROACH 3B: REPLACE. PWODisadvantages

2nd floor

• Parking is Remote from Entry Service area is visible from parking

and possible secondary entrance


APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENTSite & Floor Plan

2nd floor

3rd floor

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENTViews

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENTPhasing Plan

existing building

addition

demolition

renovation

new building

PHASING KEY

SY 1

1

2

SY 2 SY 3


site

phas

e 0

phas

e 2

phas

e 1

site

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENTAdvantages

2nd floor

3rd floor

• Lighthouse concept acknowledges Nautical identity of Community

• Fronts both roads

• Achieves 21st century learning environments Large, Controlled Collaboration

Spaces

• Separated Bus & Student Drop-Off Very long Drop-off Loop

Preferred Bus Loop Stacking


• Media Center is Centralized



• 2nd & 3rd Floors Views of Water

• Clear separation of Public vs. Private with secure evening use

• Ideal Building Location Takes advantage of learning

opportunities from the creek

• Shorter Construction Duration

APPROACH 3C: REPLACEMENTDisadvantages

2nd floor

3rd floor

• Vertical Circulation

• Highest Gross Area Greatest collaboration opportunities

• Parking is remote from entry

SUMMARYArea Comparison


ExistingDemo.Reno.NewTotalEfficiency

54,893 18,237 36,693 31,666 68,359

73%



54,893 39,466 15,320 52,321 67,641

74%

APPROACH 3APhased While Occupied


54,893 51,985

2,912 64,570 67,482

73%



54,893 54,893

0 67,135 67,135

75%

APPROACH 3C


54,893 54,893

0 69,692 69,692

72%


SUMMARYProgram Comparison


AdminGuidanceItinerantGrades 1-5Pre-K & KSpecial EdMusicVisual ArtsMedia CtrPEFacilitiesCafetorium

NETGROSS

97%101%

85%100%100%

96%134%

93%98%78%99%

111%

100%101%



NETGROSS

100%106%104%

98%96%

101%98%97%

101%101%

97%103%

99%98%



NETGROSS

100%100%105%

99%99%

100%91%85%

100%100%

96%101%

99%100%



NETGROSS

102%97%89%

100%98%

100%98%

101%100%100%

95%106%

100%99%

APPROACH 3C


NETGROSS

108%134%101%

99%100%101%

99%95%98%

101%105%100%

100%103%


SUMMARYCost Comparison


Duration39 months

Construction Cost$22,850,970

Contingency (13%)$2,970,626

Escalation (15.6%)$4,034,624.35

Constr. Budget$29,856,220

Life Cycle

O&M Expense: $8,425,508

40 Year Cost:$38,281,729


Duration30 months



Escalation (13.8%)$3,505,377


Life CycleO&M Expense: $8,337,011

40 Year Cost:$37,336,040


Duration30 months



Escalation (13.8%)$3,558,605



40 Year Cost:$37,348,040


Duration30 months



Escalation (13.8%)$3,455,929



40 Year Cost:$36,457,955

APPROACH 3C

Duration27 months



Escalation (12.8%)$3,256,948



40 Year Cost:$36,891,578


SUMMARYOveral l Results


ExistingDemo.Reno.NewTotalEfficiencyDuration

Const. Budget

Life Cycle

54,893 18,237 36,693 31,666 68,35973.2%

39months

$29,856,220

$38,281,729



Const. Budget

Life Cycle

54,893 39,466 15,320 52,321 67,64174.8%

30months

$29,999,029

$37,336,040



Const. Budget

Life Cycle

54,893 51,985

2,912 64,570 67,48273.5%

30months

$29,439,375

$37,348,040



Const. Budget

Life Cycle

54,893 54,893

0 67,135 67,135

75% 30

months

$28,589,959

$36,457,955

APPROACH 3C


Const. Budget

Life Cycle

54,893 54,893

0 69,692 69,692

72% 27

months

$28,801,639

$36,891,578


RECOMMENDED APPROACHBy Stakeholder Advisory Group

Stakeholder Advisory Group Unanimously Recommends the Replacement Approach

• Offers ideal building and site learning environments and adjacencies

• Eliminates failing existing building conditions

• All options were relatively equal in construction budget

• Reduces complexity and duration of construction limiting interference to instruction

• Offers best life cycle cost analysis

beach elementary school feasibility study ......feasibility study presentation to calvert county...

Documents