ShareThis Page
Hampton High School renovation action timeline presented | TribLIVE.com
Hampton/Shaler

Hampton High School renovation action timeline presented

908845_web1_hj-lockers-022218

Action steps for a high school renovation was presented at the Hampton Township School Board’s meeting by Dr. Michael Loughead, superintendent.

As a possible renovation is seriously discussed by the school board and administration, HTSD school board member Lawrence Vasko recently requested some sort of timeline be established as the process moved forward.

Loughead said this is a “roadmap of where we’re going and the next steps to take.”

Action so far included a first building renovation feasibility study presented last November by VEBH Architects, which was followed by that firm’s final feasibility study at a January school board meeting.

The concepts would reflect the ideas behind an academic redesign presented last fall by Dr. Marguerite Imbarlina, Hampton’s high school principal, and her fellow academic redesign team members.

VEBH’s current feasibility designs are conceptual at this point and have not been accepted or approved. The school board has yet to make any decisions on this and are still in the beginning design stages.

Per the VEBH designs and estimates, the cost for construction and design associated to the high school renovation “conceptually at this stage” would be $35 to $38.5 million with a traditional normal project length of approximately 36 to 48 months, according to Cassie Renninger, registered architect with the Pittsburgh firm.

She noted soft costs would be approximately $7 million.

There is funding opportunity through a state program called PlanCon A, which may only be available for a very short window on July 1 to get into the funding “queue.” So, some actions have to be taken now to be ready for that submission opportunity, said Loughead.

Loughead’s presentation last week included a timeline for decision-making, first noting there are several items to be considered for decisions, including the PlanCon submission, engagement of architect, a submission of short- and long-term project resource planning, and an independent analysis on the presented feasibility study.

The last point was accomplished at last week’s school board meeting where they approved P.J. Dick Incorporated to do the third-party analysis on the VEBH design at a cost of $2,910.

“We want to have another set of eyes on these and get some feedback,” Loughead said.

Following Loughead’s suggested timeline, the board would consider an architect for PlanCon A at its April 1 school board meeting. This meeting would also review results of P.J. Dick analysis of the VEBH high school feasibility study.

The meeting April 8 would include addressing short- and long-range resource options for the high school project, per Loughead’s presentation. This would come prior to the budget presentation for the 2019-20 school year set to be held in a special board meeting April 29.

Loughead said next month’s meetings will mark critical decision points. Key items that will be addressed on the April 8 and 29 meetings include a multi-year plan designed to support the resources required for a high school project. This multi-year plan will include three tiers of financial commitment and will address a project with or without PlanCon resources, as Loughead noted they do not know if they will receive funding through this or not.

As noted, the current conceptual design would call for approximately $45 million including soft costs, Loughead said. So they would want to look at several other levels and “look at the budget and how we would fund it.”

The board will review the PlanCon A submission, if available, at the May 6 meeting. June actions include reviewing both the draft of the PlanCon A submission and the proposed multi-year resource plan for the project, he said.

A final 2019-20 budget that could include the first phase of multi-year resources for the project may be approved at the school board’s June 1 meeting.

The final part of Loughead’s suggested timeline includes a work session Aug. 5 to review the outcome of a PlanCon A submission; discuss the scope of a high school project informed by the PlanCon outcome and high school project resource planning conducted in coordination with the 2019-20 budget; and to consider engagement of an architect to formally initiate a High School Renovation Project.

They should know more about funding by this time, said Loughead.

“We want to make good, informed decisions,” said Loughead.

The current conceptual design would include using a lot of the current space, but reconfiguring or making functional improvements with the existing layout, with three small additions.

VEBH also included an optional Fridley Field House redesign that could cost between $3 to $4.5 million, dependent on design, according to the their November presentation.

Categories: Local | Hampton_Shaler
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.