Methacton narrows high school renovation priorities; traffic, 8‑lane pool and wellness center top list

At its April 29 meeting, the Methacton School District Board of Directors heard design firm Schrader Group outline a baseline scope for renovating Methacton High School and completed a two‑round prioritization exercise to guide future design and budgeting.

Designers told the board that the baseline scope would address core infrastructure — roof and building‑envelope repairs, HVAC and controls replacement, updated electrical distribution and lighting, plumbing and domestic hot water, expanded fire protection, data/Wi‑Fi upgrades, security systems and ADA improvements. The firm said those items are needed to extend the facility’s useful life and support any subsequent room‑by‑room renovation or repurposing.

The board then reviewed a list of optional and discretionary projects and, using a two‑round voting process facilitated by Schrader Group, indicated which items should be prioritized for schematic design and cost estimating. The prioritization is advisory: the consultants said selected priorities will guide what the team produces next and will later be translated into cost estimates that the board will review.

Round 1 results (items that met the board’s threshold) focused on site circulation, building circulation and student support spaces: improved traffic flow to eliminate congestion and car traffic; addressing internal building traffic and hallway congestion; replacement or construction of an eight‑lane pool with ADA improvements; creation of a fitness/wellness center; creation of a life‑skills apartment/transition space; and creation of a common space to enable a “lunch and learn” program.

A second round produced a second set of items that also received sufficient support: a public sewer connection (to eliminate the existing on‑site treatment plant), increased on‑site parking, creation of a STEAM center, creation of a fab lab (fabrication/technology lab), a new auditorium option and enlarging undersized classrooms to roughly 850 square feet (PDE’s basic guideline is 660 sq. ft.). The consultants said those results will be used to produce alternative schematic plans and budget ranges.

Board members repeatedly asked for cost information; several said it is hard to prioritize without price estimates. Consultants and district staff replied that the prioritization is meant to reduce the menu of options before the design team produces focused cost estimates. The board and consultants agreed that the next steps are schematic concepts and budget estimates for the packages that reflect the board’s selected priorities.

Design and scope clarifications captured during the discussion: - Baseline scope items listed above are considered minimum infrastructure work recommended for a long‑term renovation. - Classroom sizing: consultants noted roughly six to eight typical classrooms in the original portion of the building are undersized; the goal stated was to bring them to about 850 sq. ft. (the Pennsylvania Department of Education guideline cited is 660 sq. ft. for capacity calculations). - Natatorium options: renovate the existing six‑lane pool (with an expected life‑extension on the order of two decades) or build a new eight‑lane pool in a different location; consultants said both options could be costed if the board wants both estimates. - Site items are interdependent: removing the transportation center could reclaim parking but would require off‑site relocation costs; connecting to public sewer would eliminate ongoing permitting and operational costs for the existing on‑site treatment plant but has an upfront capital cost the board must weigh.

District and consultant next steps include producing schematic alternatives and preliminary budgets tied to the board’s priorities, and returning to the board for further direction. The board also asked for the prioritization results to be posted and summarized for the public.

Why it matters: The prioritization will determine what the district asks engineers to design and what the bond/borrowing assumptions must cover. The board repeatedly said cost will drive final decisions; the consultants said the prioritized list will allow them to provide focused cost estimates in the next phase.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this coverage were identified in the meeting record as: Josh Grice (Schrader Group, presenter), Eric Weiss (Schrader Group design team), Dr. Zerbe (Superintendent), and board members including Miss Purdue, Miss Graff, Miss Steele, Miss Olsen, Miss Cleary and Miss Austin.

Ending: The Schrader Group will return with schematic concepts and cost estimates based on the priorities the board selected; the district also flagged a separate finance presentation (long‑term borrowing modeling by PFM) that was postponed to a future meeting and that will inform how much of the prioritized work the district can afford.