Feasibility Committee Recommendation

Wilkes-Barre Area School District

6/8/2015

P a g e | 1

Wilkes-Barre Area School District Feasibility Report

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Time Line of Events ....................................................................................................................................... 3

District Wide Feasibility Study Summary ...................................................................................................... 4

Task Force Summary ................................................................................................................................... 20

External Task Force ................................................................................................................................. 20

Internal Task Force .................................................................................................................................. 28

Design Team Summary ............................................................................................................................... 31

Transportation Summary ............................................................................................................................ 34

District Transportation Report ................................................................................................................ 34

Student Transportation of America (STA) Report ................................................................................... 35

Financial Team Summary ............................................................................................................................ 43

Feasibility Committee Recommendations .................................................................................................. 53

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 56

P a g e | 2

Introduction

The Wilkes-Barre Area School District is an urban, public school district located in Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania. Wilkes-Barre Area School District encompasses approximately 123 square miles. The

district includes the city of Wilkes-Barre, as well as smaller surrounding municipalities. It serves Bear

Creek Township, Borough of Bear Creek Village, Borough of Laflin, Buck Township, City of Wilkes-Barre,

Laurel Run Borough, Plains Township, and Wilkes-Barre Township.

The Wilkes-Barre Area School District serves a resident population of approximately 62,000 and provides

basic educational services to approximately 7,000 students. The district currently operates five

elementary schools, one junior high school, and three high schools.

In August 2014, the Wilkes-Barre Area School District authorized a District-Wide Facility Study with a

focus on developing options to address facility and educational deficiencies associated with the districts

secondary high schools. The District formulated a Feasibility Committee including Board Members,

district employees, and design professionals. Committee meetings were held weekly and included

discussion with various internal and external district stakeholders. This document serves as a summary

of events and findings leading to the recommendation by the Feasibility Committee.

P a g e | 3

Time Line of Events

May 2014 - District Administration is made aware of structural issues at Coughlin High School that require safety measures to be enacted.

August 2014 - The Wilkes-Barre Area School Board of Directors authorizes the Feasibility Study for all district buildings.

September 2014 - Initial Wilkes-Barre Area School Board Feasibility Committee meeting. o Weekly committee meetings were held thereafter.

December 2014 - Completion and presentation of the Wilkes-Barre Area School District Feasibility Study.

December 2014 – Submission of PlanCon documentation to PDE for Mackin School Project.

January 2015 - Wilkes-Barre Area School Board of Directors authorized the formation and selection of the Wilkes-Barre Area School District Task Force.

February 2015 - Initial Wilkes-Barre Area School District Task Force meeting. o Weekly meetings were held by both the Internal and External Task Force Committees in

addition to several joint meetings.

April 2015 – Wilkes-Barre Area School Board of Directors will begin to take all steps reasonably necessary to submit Plan Con A for the High School Building Project by July 1, 2015.

May 2015 - Public presentation of the Wilkes-Barre Area Task Force Internal and External Committees.

June 2015 - Feasibility Committee Recommendation

P a g e | 4

District Wide Feasibility Study Summary The District Wide Feasibility Study focused on the renovation of existing buildings and the possibility of new construction. After the December public meeting it was determined that it would not be feasible to renovate Coughlin or Meyers High School as both buildings were deemed functionally obsolete. A summary of the report’s findings are presented below. The complete presentation can be found in its’ entirety on the district website at www.wbasd.k12.pa.us.

P a g e | 5

P a g e | 6

P a g e | 7

P a g e | 8

P a g e | 9

P a g e | 10

P a g e | 11

P a g e | 12

P a g e | 13

P a g e | 14

P a g e | 15

P a g e | 16

P a g e | 17

P a g e | 18

P a g e | 19

P a g e | 20

Task Force Summary

External Task Force The External Task Force presented their findings on May 28, 2015 during a special board meeting held at

Solomon Plains Junior High School. The External Task Force presentation is included below.

A D V A N T A G E S A N D D I S A D V A N T A G E S O F S C E N A R I O S F O R A

W B A R E A S C H O O L D I S T R I C T H I G H S C H O O L

External Taskforce

Scenarios

Scenario 1 : One High School

Scenario 2: Keep GAR open as a high school and build at the current Coughlin site

Scenario 3: Keep GAR open as a high school and build at the current Meyers site

P a g e | 21

Advantages One High School

Opportunity to physically close schools and keep operational costs down

Transportation – while more students would be bussing to one school, the operational costs of running three separate schools would offset any additional bussing costs

Teachers in the district could focus on teaching one grade or one discipline rather than teaching an array of classes and grades to fill-in a schedule

P a g e | 22

P a g e | 23

P a g e | 24

P a g e | 25

P a g e | 26

P a g e | 27

P a g e | 28

Internal Task Force The Internal Task Force presented their findings on May 28, 2015 during a special board meeting held at

Solomon Plains Junior High School. The Internal Task Force presentation is included below.

WILKES-BARRE AREA

SCHOOL DISTRICT INTERNAL TASK FORCE

BUILDING COMMITTEE ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

Scenarios

•Scenario 1 New Building at Meyers

•Scenario 2 New Building at Coughlin

•Scenario 3 One Central High School

•Scenario 4 Two High School System

P a g e | 29

NEW BUILDING AT MEYERS

ADVANTAGES• Larger property size (7.7 acres)

• Less transportation could be required

• Traffic patterns maybe less complicated

• Campus-like setting along with Kistler Elementary

• More parking for staff and students

• Room for future potential growth

• Close proximity to Wilkes University

DISADVANTAGES• Loss of Athletic Complex

• Longer commute for Northern population

• Possible loss of parental support from northern population

NEW BUILDING AT COUGHLIN

ADVANTAGES• Central location in the city

• Access to extended learning (King’s, Wilkes, LCCC)

• Student parking

• Close proximity to LCTA transportation hub

• District keeps stadium at Meyers H.S.

DISADVANTAGES• Less property ( < 2.5 acres)

• Lack of faculty parking

• No room for future growth

• No green space or outdoor space available

• Traffic patterns for transportation maybe congested

• Coughlin is a much more marketable site to sell than Meyers.

• Possible loss of parent involvement from the southern population of WBASD

P a g e | 30

ONE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL

ADVANTAGES

• Equal opportunity for all

students

• Larger variety of extra-curricular

activities could be offered to

student population

• More efficient operating costs

• Ease for providing staff

development

• More efficient availability of

resources

• Ability to team teach (teachers

with common preps)

Disadvantages

• Limited Flexibility

• Transportation cost

TWO HIGH SCHOOL SYSTEM

Advantages

• Better flexibility

• Neighborhood school

• Keeps construction costs down

Disadvantages

• Unable to provide an equal opportunity for the entire secondary high school population in the WBASD

• Increased operating costs to run two high schools

• Limited number of extra-curricular activities offered to students

• Staff development will have to occur at two sites instead of one.

• Less efficient availability of resources

• Less opportunities for team teaching and grouping educators with common prep periods.

P a g e | 31

Design Team Summary The following slides explain the process the design team undertook to analyze the condition of the

secondary centers in the WBASD, along with a review of the feasibility of locating a new high school (or

high schools) on select sites not currently owned by the district.

The first step was to develop an estimate of cost for the renovation of 2 of the existing high schools,

being Coughlin and Meyers. Given the deteriorating structural condition of both schools, these costs

were seen as extremely high. The design team then looked at 4 sites, 3 of which were new and 1 of

which is owned by the district, Empire Street. The analysis of the 3 new sites - Murray, Biscontini, and

Pagnotti - revealed costs that were challenging to the school district’s overall budget. At that time, the

school board directed the design team to evaluate the development characteristics of the present sites

of Coughlin and Meyers. In order to fully understand the cost implications, a geotechnical report was

commissioned for both sites, with results reported herein. Finally, a side-by-side comparison of the

Coughlin and Meyers sites was prepared to identify factual advantages or disadvantages for each site.

Existing Building Renovation Estimates:MEYERS COUGHLIN

(260,600 SF) (179,970 SF)

Site Utilities $ 1,700,000 $ 625,000

Mechanical Systems (HVAC) $ 9,000,000 $ 4,000,000

Electrical, Power, & Lighting $ 8,000,000 $ 3,700,000

Plumbing Systems & Fixtures $ 3,200,000 $ 1,500,000

Fire Protection $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000

Asbestos Removal $ 1,000,000 $ 650,000

Architectural * $ 20,000,000 $ 16,200,000

Structural Repair:

Exterior Masonry and/or Lintels $ 16,000,000 $ 10,000,000

Frame Connections per Seismic Code $ 25,000,000+

Courtyard Walls/Seismic Bracing $ 25,000,000+

Boiler House Demolition $ 200,000

CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 85,100,000 $ 62,275,000

F,F, & E $ 3,000,000 $ 2,200,000

Soft Costs @ 20% $ 17,900,000 $ 12,550,000

Contingency at 10% $ 8,500,000 $ 6,275,000

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 113,500,000 $ 83,200,000

P a g e | 32

New Site Development Estimates:MURRAY BISCONTINI PAGNOTTI

LAND ACQUISITION:

Purchase Price $ 7,250,000 $ 4,050,000 $ 6,000,000

Soft Costs @ 5% $ 375,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000

TOTAL ACQUISITION COSTS $ 7,625,000 $ 4,250,000 $ 6,300,000

LAND DEVELOPMENT:

Site Utilities $ 2,000,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 3,000,000

Soils Remediation (New Fill) $ 1,500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,500,000

Road Infrastructure $ 1,250,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000

Parking $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000

Pedestrian Bridges $ 2,000,000

Railroad Protection $ 300,000 $ 300,000

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS* $ 7,800,000 $ 8,200,000 $ 9,000,000

TOTAL SITE COSTS $ 15,425,000 $ 11,875,000 $ 15,300,000

* Land Development Costs per 2014 District-Wide Feasibility Study

Empire Street Site Analysis:The Empire Street Site is owned by the Wilkes-Barre Area School District. During the 2014

Feasibility Study analysis, aspects of the site presented challenges to the siting of a new high

school building.

Foremost were concerns about the site’s mining history. It was historically a spoil dump, and

the immediate area was deep mined. Reportedly shafts exist just to the north and south of the

site. The mining history is substantial enough to cause concern that replacing poor soils would

present an issue during design. Specialized foundation systems will be required if unstable

soils are found at boring depth.

The site itself is zoned M-3 Heavy Industrial; it is surrounded by industrial uses, including an

automobile graveyard that has encroached into the southeast end of the site, with the

possibility of contaminants leaching.

Empire Street is not pedestrian friendly; there is only one approach from the Heights

neighborhood due to the concrete culvert of Spring Creek. Vehicular access requires bridge

construction. Generally, the site is physically separated from its surroundings..

All of these issues combined , plus a Phase I environmental study’s

recommendation for a Phase II, led the team to consider Empire Street a poor choice for a significant investment.

P a g e | 33

2015 Geotechnical Report:A preliminary geotechnical study was performed by Geo-Science Engineering Company in

May of 2015 and the following conclusions were reported:

1. The mining conditions are more favorable beneath the Coughlin Site, as there has been

no deep mining beneath that location.

2. There have been hydrostatic issues due to the high watertable at the Meyers Site, with

uplift at the field occurring during the 2011 high water event. The potential issue with

hydrostatic uplift does not exist at the Coughlin Site.

3. The soils conditions at the Coughlin Site are better suited to the development of the

Coughlin site as compared to the Meyers site. Soils characteristics indicate a high probability

that at the Coughlin Site a building can be built with a conventional foundation, whereas at

the Meyers Site specialized foundations will be required.

In conclusion, these findings suggest that Coughlin will be a less expensive site to

develop. It is Geo-Science’s professional opinion is that the Coughlin site

is better suited over the Meyers site for the development of a new school from a

Geotechnical standpoint .

The Geotechnical Report can be viewed in Appendix A.

P a g e | 34

Transportation Summary

District Transportation Report The following are estimated transportation figures to transport 9th through 12th grade students from the

current Meyers High School enrollment area to Coughlin High School. The graduating classes of 2016

through 2019 current enrolment was utilized.

Class Enrolment Total

2016 151

2017 141

2018 165

2019 146

603(Student that would require daily transportation)

** Plus or minus 5%

To Transport Students from MHS to CHS:

603 students equals about 13 buses of which 3 could be incorporated into existing bus runs currently

under contract to Williams/STA. If incorporated under current runs the cost for the 3 buses to the

district would be $0.00. At the current rate of $318.41 per bus X 10 buses X 180 days =$573,138.00

additional cost. Under the current reimbursement rate from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of

approximately 40% the cost to the district would be an additional $343,882.80 per year.

Students can also be transported via LCTA at a cost of approximate $1.50 per day and the amount of

transportation cost incurred by WBASD would be reimbursed at a rate of 63%.

If we apply the number of 23% of the students that currently utilize LCTA transportation at CHS to the

student population at MHS that would reduce the number of Williams/STA buses to 7 and further

reduce the transportation cost by $103,164.84 (adjusted to include state reimbursement 171,941.40 X

40%)

$343,882.80 Per year adjusted additional cost with Williams/STA

-103,164.84 (reduction of buses by utilizing LCTA)

+ $13,886.10 (LCTA adjusted cost)

$254,604.00 Total transportation cost to WBASD to transport from MHS location to CHS location.

To Transport Students from CHS to MHS:

909 students currently enrolled at CHS, 213 students utilize LCTA transportation (approx.. 23%) the

remaining students 696 equals approximately 15 buses that would be transported by Williams/STA. If

incorporated under current runs the cost for the 4 buses to the district would be $0.00. Current rate of

P a g e | 35

$318.41 per bus X 11buses X 180 days =$629,640.00 additional cost. Under the current reimbursement

rate from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of approximately 40% the cost to the district would be

and additional $377,784.00

213 students X $1.50 per day X 180 days = $57,510.00 X current reimbursement rate of 63%=

$21,279.00 per year.

$399063.00 Total transportation cost to transport students from CHS to MHS

In summation by transporting students from the MHS area to the CHS area will save WBASD

$144,459.00 per year at current rates and current reimbursement rates.

Another area where the number of students requiring transportation can be decreased is to

differentiating between Meyers High School and GAR High School enrolment area, currently there are

40 streets that are listed as either MHS or GAR, the student has the option of choosing the school they

will attend.

Student Transportation of America (STA) Report After researching the options presented by the Wilkes-Barre Area School District please allow this this presentation to serves as a summary of findings and conclusions. There are 3 key components to my findings. They are as follows;

1) Safety (likely #1 on the minds of parents) 2) Time of arrival (likely #1 on the minds of students/teachers) 3) Cost (likely #1 on the minds of elected board/tax payers)

Many of the Coughlin students utilize either STA buses or LCTA buses. However, the students that live in the East End and North End sections of Wilkes-Barre are considered to be within walking distance. We currently transport approximately 303 of the 909 students that attend Coughlin. From which 192 of these students are being transported to Coughlin using the shuttle/transfer buses out of Solomon Jr. High. If the Coughlin students remained at the Coughlin site there would be no change to their current bussing for Coughlin students. If these students had to be taken to the Meyers location, they will no longer be able to utilize the shuttle/transfer bus system that is in place. Also, the other 4 buses that take students directly to Coughlin will not have sufficient time to pick up their students and drop them off at the Meyers location with enough time to make it back for their elementary school routes. The only option available to transport Coughlin students to the Meyers location would be the addition of 7 buses, at an additional cost of $401,196.60 per year (as of 2014-15 school year). This is based on the number of students utilizing the buses at this time. As for Meyers students, the majority of Meyers students are within walking distance of the school. The only students that are transported to and from Meyers are Special Education students.

If Meyers students had to be transported to the Coughlin location, the most efficient option would be to utilize the 3 existing routes that have the time and availability to transport high school students at no additional cost to the district. Along with the addition of 3 buses that would act as a

P a g e | 36

shuttle/transfer bus from Meyers to Coughlin, at an additional cost of $171,941.40 per year (as of the 2014-15 school year). Once again, these numbers are based on the number of students enrolled at this time. In summary, of utmost concern is the safety and welfare of the students that we serve. In considering which of the two locations; Coughlin or Meyers, to ultimately fulfill that concern, one needs to look at several contributing factors, including: traffic patterns, vehicles utilized, student commute times, student arrival times, and cost. Given such, and from a safety-centric and transportation operations standpoint, I contend that Coughlin provides the necessary and expected results.

P a g e | 37

P a g e | 38

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

P a g e | 41

P a g e | 42

P a g e | 43

Financial Team Summary

3,120,000

490,000

100,000

3,710,000

(138,000)

3,572,000

P a g e | 44

P a g e | 45

P a g e | 46

P a g e | 47

P a g e | 48

P a g e | 49

P a g e | 50

P a g e | 51

P a g e | 52

P a g e | 53

Feasibility Committee Recommendations

This evening the Feasibility Committee of the Wilkes-Barre Area School Board will be

making its final recommendation to all members of the board.

This recommendation is based on months of meetings and countless hours devoted to

unraveling the layers of issues our buildings have presented to this current board and an

attempt to balance the needs of our students, educators, communities, and taxpayers.

Since the formation of the Feasibility Committee in September 2014, there was not one

meeting or moment that did not present a significant challenge to all members of our

committee. The meetings were long, spirited, and sometimes extremely intense, but at no time

did any board member or committee member veer away from our central mission-to do the

best we could with the information and resources we had available to us in a responsible

manner.

At the beginning of this feasibility journey, I suspect all of us hoped we would be able to

address all of our problems with one fell swoop, but as we continued to research the

overwhelming scope of this project and the true reality of our financial resources, we began to

shift direction.

To be clear, every non-district and district-owned site that was reviewed by the feasibility

study was vetted extensively regarding the advantages, disadvantages, and cost to our district

and taxpayers. The committee even had extensive conversations regarding properties not

included in the feasibility study. The public/private partnership (P3) was discussed often, even

with officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. It was never clear that the

P a g e | 54

uncertainty surrounding such a partnership held any advantage or benefit for the Wilkes-Barre

Area School District. The P3 may, however, be an avenue to travel for future district projects.

Tonight’s recommendation is not the ultimate final solution for all that ails our district

facilities. We believe that no committee can have all the answers, but we feel very strongly that

this report and recommendation puts our district at the starting line of a future in which the

Wilkes-Barre Area School District offers its students a quality educational program in buildings

that we will be proud of and, most importantly, our students and employees can thrive safely.

The Feasibility Committee recommendation is based on the following:

1) Initial feasibility report of December 2014 and the renovation costs

of Coughlin High School and Meyers High School.

2) The land acquisition and site development costs of non-district

owned properties.

3) Transportation logistics and projected costs.

4) Geo Technical studies.

5) Internal and External Task Force reports.

6) Design Team research of district-owned properties.

7) Financial roadmap for project funding and completion based on

recommendations of Wilkes-Barre Area School District Business Office and

projected debt service structure by PNC capital markets.

The Feasibility Committee of the Wilkes-Barre Area School Board recommends the

construction of a 9th through 12th grade building on the site that is currently Coughlin High

School.

P a g e | 55

Additionally, we recommend a 7th and 8th grade addition be built on the current Kistler

Elementary district-owned property.

If this project is approved, at its completion the school district will have a:

-K to 8 campus at the Solomon/Plains complex

-K to 8 campus at the Kistler complex

-a 9 to 12 high school on the current Coughlin High School site

-a renovated Mackin building

-at this point, GAR will remain a 7 to 12 Junior/Senior High School

It is also recommended that the district pay close attention to the short and long term

maintenance plan recently developed for all district buildings by our construction partner

Apollo.

The Feasibility Committee of the Wilkes-Barre Area School Board strongly urges the board to

vote for the approval of the first wave of this project at a special meeting to be held on June

10th, 2015 and encourage this board and future boards to work with the community and the

limits of our budget on short and long term solutions for all our facilities.

P a g e | 56

Appendix A

P a g e | 57

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60