Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Stadium topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cheltenham SD estimates $12 million base cost for high school stadium; bids open March 13

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff told the Facilities Committee the stadium project’s construction base is now estimated at $12 million because of required gatehouse work, soil disposal and inflation; bid opening is scheduled for March 13 and the district has already procured bleachers, transformer, track and turf.

Cheltenham School District staff reported to the Facilities Committee that the district is now looking at a $12,000,000 construction base for the Cheltenham High School stadium, with a public bid opening scheduled for March 13. Liam Swigard, the meeting presenter, said the estimate reflects a rise from an earlier $10 million figure after adding a required gatehouse and applying a roughly 14.2% inflation adjustment for costs estimated in 2022.

The update matters because the stadium project is a major item in the district’s long-range capital plan and carries schedule, budget and site logistics implications for summer construction. District staff said substantial site work will be needed, including removal and off-site disposal of regulated soils, procurement already completed for bleachers, the electrical transformer, the track and turf, and a remaining bid package covering the gatehouse and surrounding site work.

"So that's how we got from point a point a to point b, on this project. It's where we're now looking at a $12,000,000, construction base," Swigard said. He told the committee the final portion of the work—the gatehouse and site work—accounts for roughly $5.5 million of the estimate, and that much of that cost is tied to hauling and disposing of soils regulated in the Philadelphia area.

Board member Margaret pressed the committee to consider upgrading the stadium scoreboard, which she said was not included in the current budget materials. "There's 1 piece that's not reflected on here that I would be remiss if I didn't reflect it. And it's the scoreboard," she said. District staff said a new scoreboard would be a relatively small portion of the overall project cost but offered only a preliminary estimate; one staff speaker characterized likely cost as “probably under 30” (thousand) and Margaret offered a higher ballpark thought nearer to $60,000.

Board discussion repeatedly returned to scope control and ancillary items. Board member Daniel Schultz urged caution on adding work now, citing potential tariff impacts and fiscal uncertainty: "I would caution us to avoid scope creep at this stage and instead would charge our administration and our athletics director to tell us what you need." Other members recommended that staff prepare a list of ancillary items and associated costs so the board can consider them later without delaying the core bid process.

Swigard said the last bid package will be opened at a public bid opening meeting on March 13 and that the district hopes to secure approvals before the board’s head affairs committee meeting on March 18. Staff outlined a target construction start of June 1 and a finish in August—an aggressive window the presenter described as consistent with work done in other districts, but one that depends on permitting and awarding the contract.

District staff described site logistics: the project work will stay inside the existing stadium fence and use the road adjacent to the field for heavy truck access. Swigard said roughly 700 truckloads of soil movement are expected during the site phase and noted that partial roof replacement work at the high school will occur simultaneously in a different corner of the campus.

On field maintenance and long-term turf strategy, staff said the district is in the second year of a weed-and-feed, fertilization and seeding program using Total Turf and that the site lacks irrigation, which limits results and raises costs for any major soil or irrigation improvements.

No formal vote on the stadium contract or budget increase occurred at this Facilities Committee meeting; the presentation was an informational update and staff said further approvals will be sought at upcoming committee and board meetings.

The committee accepted the minutes from its February meeting at the start of the session and adjourned after the presentation.