Questions & Answers - Process

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:

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.