Architect recommends additions for East Coffee and Hickerson; estimates $18M additions, $35–40M replacement for Hickerson

A design team presented a site-by-site feasibility study to the Coffee County School Board on Jan. 14, 2025, evaluating additions and renovation versus replacement for East Coffee and Hickerson elementary schools.

The architect (Wald team, presentation led by Von Derks and introduced by board member Mr. Shores) said the RFP asked the firm to evaluate an addition based on the prototype used at North Coffee New Union, plus renovation of cafeteria/gym circulation and traffic/parking improvements. The team reported that, structurally, both buildings are generally in good physical condition and that needed maintenance identified across site, envelope, accessibility, mechanical and electrical systems totals just under $3,000,000 for the two buildings combined as an estimated starting point.

Key findings and recommendations

- Additions: The team estimated a base-scope addition (including site work) at roughly $18,000,000 per building, with an optional expanded scope above that. For Hickerson, the team recommended an addition rather than a full replacement because an addition would approach but not exceed the 60 percent rule of new‑construction cost that often favors replacement; the architect believed the addition would make Hickerson “operate just like a new building.”

- Replacement: A new on-site Hickerson building estimated at about 48,500 square feet would cost roughly $35–40 million, per the firm’s estimate.

- Capacity and future growth: Both schools are currently 2‑section models; the firm master‑planned for future expansion to a 3‑section model if the district wants that option. The architects said they can price a 3‑section design as an alternate if the board wants it now.

- Site logistics: East Coffee has more usable front and back area but is tight on the sides; additions would likely go to the rear to preserve service access. Hickerson has limited frontage and a grade drop that makes southern expansion less practical; adding to the rear was favored. Proposed traffic changes include separate bus loops (5–6 buses) and expanding parking from 42 to 56 spaces at each site.

- Life‑safety and code: The firm noted neither building currently has a sprinkler system. Under current code, adding an addition could require separation between old and new structures unless sprinklers are installed; the team recommended considering a sprinkler system to preserve design flexibility.

- Other constraints: Board members and administrators raised concerns about sewer/perk conditions at both sites; the architects recommended geotechnical investigation and septic/percolation tests before committing to a path forward. The team said some areas of the sites do not perk well and that water and sewer access are limited in parts of the county.

Timeline and next steps

The architect estimated roughly seven months of design and an eight- to nine‑month build phase for an addition, with substantial summer renovation work required while students are out. The team asked the board to confirm whether it wants to plan to 2‑section or 3‑section capacity, and recommended a community planning phase and enrollment projections from a third-party demographer to inform the final decision.

Board reaction and process

Board members asked for additional enrollment projection work, traffic/parking detail and a formal phasing plan. The board agreed to schedule a focused work session in late February to review the study with building administrators on hand. The architects offered to attend the work session and to provide more detailed cost options — including a priced 3‑section alternate if the board requests it.

No formal vote on construction direction or funding was taken on Jan. 14; the presentation was informational and the board directed staff to gather projections and schedule a work session for more detailed discussion.