Consultants present data-driven 10-year facilities options; high school and SRS highlighted

Consultants from Integrated Construction Solutions (ICS) presented an initial, “data‑dump” draft of a 10‑year capital plan to the Wallingford‑Swarthmore School District facilities committee on April 23, showing multiple renovation options for the high school and SRS, updated enrollment projections and districtwide maintenance needs.

The presentation aimed to assemble condition assessments, enrollment projections and cost estimates into a set of options for the board to review before any decisions. “A plan will be financially viable, aligned with district priorities and educational vision, and actionable on a year‑over‑year basis,” Phil Solomon of ICS said during the presentation.

Solomon and fellow ICS presenter Tim Geiger asked the committee for feedback rather than votes, describing the packet as a first cut: a compilation of condition assessments, system life‑cycle estimates, and a range of project scopes and costs. The consultants said the materials will be revised before presentation to the broader community.

Why it matters: ICS put the high school at the top of a list of capital needs because multiple building subsystems are at or beyond useful life, and because projected enrollment and program needs narrow the district’s options for short‑term relief. The draft shows the cost of “doing everything” across all buildings over 10 years at roughly $156 million (an aggregated, unconstrained list of deferred maintenance and recommended projects), and presents more targeted options for individual buildings.

Enrollment and capacity: Geiger summarized updated demographic work from the Pennsylvania Economy League that the district used for planning. He said current total district enrollment is about 3,730 students and that the latest five‑year planning projection the consultants used was about 2,930 students — roughly 250 fewer than the older 2022 projection the district had used. Geiger cautioned that the updated numbers reflect recent birth‑rate and enrollment trends and that the district’s capacity analyses assume removal of modular classrooms as an educational goal.

High school options and costs: ICS presented three tiers of work for the high school. The base renovation option shown in the packet was about $67 million; a mid‑tier option that adds more renovation and square footage was shown near $117 million; a most‑comprehensive option reached roughly $138 million. The consultants noted those figures are estimates and can be pared or expanded depending on priorities and funding.

Solomon and Geiger detailed program priorities discussed with building leaders — replacement of modular classrooms with permanent space, additional auxiliary gym space, renovation of the media center and auditorium updates, more life‑skills classrooms and sprinkler coverage for legacy portions of the building. Geiger said the base plan as previously presented would bring the building to roughly an 80 percent utilization target under the updated enrollment scenario.

SRS (Swarthmore/Rutledge School): The consultants offered staged renovation options for SRS, including a targeted systems upgrade of about $28–29 million and a more complete alteration that the consultants listed at about $39 million. The level‑2 option focused on HVAC and systems; the level‑3 option included broader interior and site work plus provisional modular swing space for phased construction.

Districtwide condition and maintenance: ICS showed a systems‑by‑systems life‑cycle analysis and advised the committee that several buildings’ systems are nearing or beyond typical useful life (20–25 years for many major subsystems). The consultants presented a 10‑year “do everything” list for maintenance and repairs as a baseline; they emphasized the board can scale that list down to “warm, safe, dry” priorities or create a multi‑year, funded phased plan.

Energy and sustainability: The ICS team provided energy benchmarking showing the high school near the 50th percentile for energy use (average among peer buildings) while several elementary schools performed in the top quartile. Geiger discussed lifecycle tradeoffs for geothermal versus solar at the high school, saying geothermal often offers a quicker payback while solar can be paired with other incentives; both require project‑specific life‑cycle costing.

Programmatic space and special education: The consultants said they had worked with building principals and the district’s special education leaders to include space needs for life‑skills, behavioral health and insourced special education services. Committee members and staff discussed the potential to bring some services back from intermediate unit providers into district space — a move consultants said would affect capacity calculations and staffing needs.

Full‑day kindergarten: ICS produced a space estimate for districtwide full‑day kindergarten of roughly $10 million for the construction of needed classroom space; consultants warned that delivering full‑day K will likely require redistricting and careful operational planning because existing classroom footprints and building locations do not align with a straightforward districtwide conversion.

Next steps: The consultants said they will incorporate board and administrative feedback, refine cost estimates and community materials, and return with tighter options and funding scenarios. No formal board action was requested the night of the presentation. The facilities committee asked the ICS team to prepare materials suitable for a public open house and to produce year‑by‑year snapshots showing lower‑cost “warm, safe, dry” scenarios alongside larger renovation options.

Ending: Committee members praised the data‑driven approach and pressed for continued community engagement and clearer year‑by‑year cost scenarios before any decision or bond consideration.