Methacton board hears updated high school design options; modular classroom cost reduced

At the Aug. 26 Methacton School District Board of Directors meeting, district leaders and the project design team presented updated cost estimates and site configurations for the proposed Methacton High School renovation and addition.

The design team said it reduced the assumed modular classroom scope from 20 units to 10, bringing the modular-structure cost from $7 million to $3.5 million; an additional $2 million remains budgeted for temporary roadways, staging and utility phasing, leaving a combined phasing allowance of about $5.5 million instead of the previously discussed $9 million. The presentation also reclassified some technology and furniture costs as baseline soft costs rather than optional items.

Those revisions matter because they alter the hard-cost comparisons among the board’s four conceptual options and the site-development work that must accompany any new construction. With more new construction in the “option 2” scenarios, the design team said, some modular-classroom costs could be avoided by building swing space first and using it during renovation.

The design team described three site-cost items board members asked about: a site-improvement line that includes utilities, demolition and abatement (listed at about $4.66 million for options 1A/1B); a separate optional Lot 8 parking layout at $2.8 million; and a broader west-side parking and access scheme (site option 2X) priced at about $12 million with an optional Mill Road extension of about $2.8 million. The Mill Road extension would, the team said, allow separate circulation paths for buses, parents and students.

Board members asked for clarity about which items are baseline and which are optional. The design team said the site-improvement figure combines several elements — utility relocations, building-pad preparation and abatement — and therefore those costs may not appear as separate line items on the condensed budget slide.

Board members also discussed where the district’s central administration would be housed if the district demolishes the current administration building. The design team and superintendent said administration could be located on-site in a new building addition or housed off-site under a lease; the district estimated administrative needs at roughly 10,000–12,000 square feet. The presenters said putting administration on-site would generally require constructing that space during early phases of the project so staff have a place to move during construction.

The team reminded the board that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements are included in the baseline scope: the plan calls for upgrading toilet rooms and classroom entry doors, reconfiguring locker rooms and other targeted accessibility work even in renovation scenarios.

The schedule presented would put a board vote in October to move into schematic design; if approved, schematic design would run through late 2025, design development through 2026, construction documents and bidding in 2026–27 and potential construction starting in early 2027 and continuing through 2029, the team said.

On public engagement, the administration and design team said they have social media and e-mail notices planned and would add targeted outreach — mailers and distribution at back-to-school nights were suggested by board members — to publicize upcoming forums in September and October.

The presentation did not include a final board decision on a project option; the design team said it will return with further detail as the board narrows choices.

Sources at the meeting: Superintendent Dr. Zerbe; representatives from the district’s design team (CHA and Schroeder); multiple board members who questioned scope, phasing and public outreach.