Spring-Ford architects present four facility scenarios; costs range from $30 million to $58 million

GKO Architects presented four districtwide facility scenarios to the Spring‑Ford Area School District board on Aug. 20 that lay out options to relieve building space shortages, add capacity for full‑day kindergarten and move fifth and/or eighth grades as part of a longer capital plan.

The presentation, led by Kevin Godshall, principal of GKO Architects, mapped districtwide enrollment projections from the Sundance study, building condition surveys and multiple construction schemes. "Very simply, we wanna address the space shortages and buildings that currently exist," Godshall told the board, describing a mix of renovations, small additions and larger additions as the primary approaches.

Why it matters: the options affect how many students each elementary school will serve, whether the district moves from half‑day to full‑day kindergarten, and whether the ninth‑grade and eighth‑grade facilities are repurposed. The board will use the scenarios and budget estimates to guide further discussion at finance and property committee meetings in September and to set priorities before any capital vote.

Key findings and assumptions

GKO said the study separates building condition (infrastructure) and program/space use (how rooms are used). The firm assumed current full‑time special‑education programs (autistic support, intensive learning support) would remain at their present locations and that each kindergarten classroom in a full‑day model would have a dedicated toilet room. Enrollment projections come from the 2024 Sundance study.

GKO recommended aiming for about 80–85% utilization at elementary schools to allow flexible class configurations; Brook Elementary currently operates at roughly 86% utilization. The firm identified the eighth‑grade center as having the largest infrastructure needs, dating to the 1930s and with HVAC, piping, window and humidity concerns.

Scenarios and costs

GKO presented four headline scenarios (and variants):

- Scenario 1: Maintain current K–4 configuration and half‑day kindergarten, address capacity mostly by rebalancing enrollment and limited renovations. No large grade reconfiguration; cost driven by required work at the eighth‑grade center if it is retained.

- Scenario 2: Keep K–4 but move to full‑day kindergarten; mainly renovation work to provide toilet rooms tied to kindergarten classrooms in some schools. Districtwide utilization rises versus Scenario 1.

- Scenario 3: Keep half‑day kindergarten but move fifth grade into elementary schools and shift the eighth grade into the Flex Building; this scenario requires renovations at most elementary schools and an expansion at Oaks (GKO cited an option increasing Oaks’ capacity to about 839 students).

- Scenario 4 (and 4b): Full‑day kindergarten with a K–5 configuration that requires larger additions at Oaks and Brook; GKO gave an example cost of about $57,900,000 for one full Scenario 4 buildout and offered a lower‑cost variant (labeled 4b) at about $47,300,000.

GKO also estimated the cost to comprehensively address the eighth‑grade center infrastructure at about $30,400,000, primarily for HVAC replacement, sanitary piping, window upgrades and related work. The firm said the eighth‑grade building’s structural shell appeared sound but that major mechanical and moisture issues need attention.

Funding, timeline and uncertainties

GKO included soft costs, financing and inflation in its estimates and described contingencies built into the budget line items. The firm suggested a design and approval timeline that could allow projects to be completed by roughly September 2028 under an aggressive schedule; presenters cautioned the timeline relies on funding availability and land‑development approvals and called it "tight".

Board members and staff noted funding assumptions already under discussion in budget deliberations (one board member recalled a borrowing assumption of about $40 million in the district’s tax/budget conversation) and emphasized the decision sequence: the board will need to confirm priorities (transitions vs. full‑day kindergarten) in September before a final capital plan and any vote.

Public comment and special‑education considerations

Several public commenters and district staff raised special‑education and program‑use concerns. Cassie Carter (Limerick) asked whether hosting intermediate unit (IU) programs and special‑education space needs were included in the analysis and urged consideration of full‑day kindergarten’s impact on enrollment. "I would really like to look at full day kindergarten," Carter said.

Jen Porter, a special‑education teacher (not district staff), said her child’s fifth‑grade class did not use a science lab during the year and urged the district to check how spaces are actually used before making final decisions. Porter also supported keeping fifth grade in elementary schools where feasible for students who need more transition support.

Board direction and next steps

Presenters and several board members emphasized this is a feasibility study and that additional, more detailed design work will be required if the board chooses a scenario. The board signaled it will continue discussion in September at finance and property committee meetings, with the superintendent/staff asked to clarify priorities and funding options before any formal vote on a capital plan.

Ending: The firm left scenario appendices and building‑specific scheme diagrams for the board and public to review; board members encouraged parents and staff to review the appendices and said more detailed presentations and budget scenarios will follow in committee meetings.