NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REED SITE, ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Transcription

1 NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REED SITE, ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONCEPT DESIGN

2 BLPC + PFRC JOINT MEETING BUILDING LEVEL PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC FACILITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE 1. Welcome/Opening Remarks 2. Concept Phase Cost Estimating 3. BLPC / PFRC Discussion & Comments 4. Bridge / Upper Lower Options 5. BLPC / PFRC Discussion & Comments 6. Public Comments 7. Next Steps & Adjourn March 14, 2018

3 BLPC + PFRC 3 WELCOME / OPENING REMARKS

4 PROJECT PARAMETERS 1. Create a new neighborhood elementary school with an attendance zone 2. Support APS Strategic Plan Goals, specifically Goal #4 Provide Optimal Learning Environments 3. Address capacity by providing at least 725 seats 4. Open by start of school Spend a maximum project cost $49 million, with options for less BLPC + PFRC 4 CORE MISSION

5 Apr 2018 TBD 2018 Nov 2018 Mar 2019 Jun 2019 Sep 2021 CONCEPT DESIGN SCHEMATIC DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION BIDDING CONSTRUCTION Concept Design SB Approval Schematic Design SB Approval Design Development Submission Construction Document Submission Final Design SB Approval School Opens Use Permit Approval Building Permit Approval NOV 2018 MAY 2019 BLPC + PFRC 5 OVERALL PROJECT TIMELINE

6 CONCEPT DESIGN SCHEMATIC DESIGN 25 Oct 15 Nov 29 Nov 13 Dec 10 Jan 24 Jan 21 Feb 21 Mar tbd tbd tbd tbd 07 Jun? Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC SB Info Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC Joint PFRC BLPC SB Info Building & Site Design Meetings Transportation Meetings Site Tour Community Forum Concept Design Approval Community Forum Schematic Design Approval Dec 10 Jan 17 tbd tbd Jun 21? BLPC + PFRC 6 Concept / Schematic Design Timeline

7 SUMMARY OF MARCH 8 UPDATE Final concept phase estimates for all six options where higher than preliminary estimates Staff intended to recommend the Integrated option due to its overwhelming committee and community support Staff determined that the following are not feasible due to BLPC/PFRC feedback and/or cost estimates: Integrated - $5-6 million over funding available Standalone - $5-6 million over funding available, unpopular North unpopular, major costs for utility relocations East unpopular, poor arrangement for administration/teaching Seeking feedback on the Bridge and Upper Lower options since each is estimated at the maximum funding available BLPC + PFRC 7

8 BLPC + PFRC 8 CONCEPT PHASE COST ESTIMATING

9 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES Based on feedback from the Architect s professional cost estimator using primarily hand sketches and narrative descriptions Produced concurrently with ongoing BLPC/PFRC meetings where design iterations change on a frequent basis Developed and shared with BLPC/PFRC to assist in meeting the minimum, mid-range, maximum cost design options requirement in the BLPC charge BLPC + PFRC 9

10 11/29 01/24 LOW HIGH North B high $48.5 $50.5 East low $50.5 $44.0 Bridge (South B) mid $47.5 $49.5 Standalone $50.0 $53.0 Integrated $48.0 $50.0 Upper Lower $46.0 $48.0 BLPC + PFRC 10 Summary of Cost Estimates

11 FINAL CONCEPT PHASE ESTIMATES To ensure that the School Board s action is based on the most complete and upto-date information, final estimates are prepared at the end of each project phase. Process for developing the final estimates: Architect s professional cost estimator (A/E) and Construction Manager at- Risk (CMR) complete independent estimates Team discussions as needed during draft estimates to clarify design A/E and CMR meet to review draft estimates and reconcile scope A/E and CMR provide revised estimates incorporating reconciliation efforts Estimates influenced by both historic cost databases and current market conditions. Input from subcontractors confirms that the DC market remains very busy and that material costs for some trades continue to experience above average increases. BLPC + PFRC 11

12 11/29 01/24 Pre-reconciliation LOW HIGH A/E CMR North B high $48.5 $50.5 East low $50.5 $44.0 Bridge (South B) mid $47.5 $49.5 $48.5 $51.1 Standalone $50.0 $53.0 $52.6 $56.1 Integrated $48.0 $50.0 $52.1 $57.1 Upper Lower $46.0 $48.0 $48.8 $50.5 BLPC + PFRC 12 Summary of Cost Estimates

13 11/29 01/24 Pre-reconciliation Post-reconciliation LOW HIGH A/E CMR A/E CMR North B high $48.5 $50.5 East low $50.5 $44.0 Bridge (South B) mid $47.5 $49.5 $48.5 $51.1 $49.9 $50.0 Standalone $50.0 $53.0 $52.6 $56.1 $54.8 $55.6 Integrated $48.0 $50.0 $52.1 $57.1 $55.9 $56.5 Upper Lower $46.0 $48.0 $48.8 $50.5 $49.2 $49.4 BLPC + PFRC 13 Summary of Cost Estimates

14 CAN COSTS FOR INTEGRATED OPTION BE REDUCED? A/E and CMR reviewed Integrated option to see if costs could be reduced $55.9 to $56.5 million final A/E and CMR concept estimate range for 4-story version $55.1 million CMR estimate to reduce 4-story version square footage comparable to other options $54.5 million CMR estimate for the 3-story version To get the Integrated option close to the maximum funding available major square footage and student capacity reductions are required; for example, 500 seat capacity instead of 725 BLPC + PFRC 14

15 BLPC rank PFRC rank BLPC rank PFRC rank CMR estimate: $55.1 M 1 1 CMR estimate: $55.6 M 4 4 Integrated 4-story option (3-story: $54.5) Standalone CMR estimate: $50.0 M Bridge East CMR estimate: $49.4 M Upper / Lower North BLPC + PFRC 15 Final estimates from Construction Manager at-risk

16 BLPC + PFRC 16 BLPC / PFRC DISCUSSION & COMMENTS

17 BLPC + PFRC 17 BRIDGE SCHEME

18 EXISTING BLPC + PFRC 18 Existing Site Plan

19 BRIDGE SCHEME Pros Retains existing investment in building and expands vertically one floor Smallest footprint is primary design driver No major utility relocation Buildings of similar scale 2 grades with easy access to corner park for play amenities Cons Bridges over utilities & small bridge may be transition choke point Complicated renovation Very spread out & less than ideal instructionally Missing extending learning and teacher work spaces w/ grades K-3 Highest transition time, including having to go outside Cafeteria probably undersized Currently slightly over budget BLPC + PFRC 19 Bridge Scheme, site plan

20 BRIDGE SCHEME (OLD SOUTH B) BLPC + PFRC 20 CONCEPTS

21 SOUTH SCHEME OPTION B K K K K K 1 1 CAFE GYM PK KIT ADM ST PK BLPC + PFRC 21 Program Layout, Level 1

22 SOUTH SCHEME OPTION B READ LIB ART BLPC + PFRC 22 Program Layout, Level 2

23 SOUTH SCHEME OPTION B TCH RES BLPC + PFRC 23 Program Layout, Level 3

24 SOUTH SCHEME MASSING MODEL BLPC + PFRC 24 Massing Model

25 BLPC + PFRC 25 UPPER / LOWER SCHEME

26 EXISTING BLPC + PFRC 26 Existing Site Plan

27 UPPER LOWER SCHEME Pros Lowest cost option Keeps existing asset with low renovation costs Lowest transition time with smaller upper and lower school communities Operated as one school with one admin No major utility relocation Existing second floor swing space = built in expansion v/s trailers 4 grades with easy access to corner park for play amenities Cons Larger footprint that pushes further into site 15 more parking spots may be required by Zoning Cafeteria probably oversized Some tree loss BLPC + PFRC 27 Upper/Lower Scheme, site plan

28 UPPER/LOWER SCHEME BLPC + PFRC 28 CONCEPTS

29 UPPER/LOWER SCHEME RES. K TCH K 1 1 K K 1 K 1 1 AD. GYM STAGE CAFE SERV / KIT G CAFE KIT PK PK S MUS. ART AD. REC. CL GYM BLPC + PFRC 29 First Floor Plan

30 UPPER/LOWER SCHEME ART/ MUS. R LIB. MUS. S S MUS. R R R R BLPC + PFRC 30 Second Floor Plan

31 UPPER/LOWER SCHEME R EXT. LEARN. R TCH R EXT. LEARN. R BLPC + PFRC 31 Third Floor Plan

32 UPPER LOWER SCHEME MASSING MODEL BLPC + PFRC 32 Massing Model

33 BRIDGE UPPER/LOWER BLPC + PFRC 33

34 BLPC + PFRC 34 BLPC / PFRC DISCUSSION & COMMENTS

35 BLPC + PFRC 35 PUBLIC COMMENTS

36 BLPC + PFRC 36 NEXT STEPS & ADJORN

37 NEXT STEPS March 21 st BLPC/PFRC Transportation Meeting March 22 nd or April 5 th Information Item to School Board TBD Schematic Design phase BLPC/PFRC kick-off BLPC + PFRC 37 NEXT STEPS

38 ADJOURN Provide feedback to APS via project For further information, please contact: APS Project Manager Ajibola (Aji) Robinson PMP County Project Manager Nicole Boling BLPC, PFRC, and Community Meeting dates are scheduled and posted on the APS project website: Provide feedback and comments to Arlington County: BLPC + PFRC 38 ADJORN