Greencastle-Antrim board approves EI Associates to develop plans for high school additions and new field house

Greencastle-Antrim School District board members on June 19 unanimously approved a resolution authorizing EI Associates to proceed with architectural services for high school alterations and additions, a new field house and primary school alterations and additions.

The action followed a detailed presentation by EI Associates that laid out conceptual plans for consolidating science classrooms at the high school, adding a new learning group instruction (LGI) space, and building a field house adjacent to the existing athletic field. The board approved the resolution by roll call; board members voted in favor without recorded opposition.

Why it matters: The projects would reshape instructional space at the high school and add a multipurpose athletic and community facility. EI Associates presented a preliminary total project range and identified funding and grant avenues, meaning the work could affect district budgets, bond strategy and community use of facilities.

EI Associates executive vice president Adam Kerr said the firm prioritized science lab consolidation at the high school, showing a proposed addition that places six lab spaces in a contiguous arrangement with shared prep rooms and an LGI space adjacent to courtyards. Kerr said the design would allow both direct instruction seating and separate lab work areas and would free up space on the high school second floor for departmental consolidation.

Kerr described the proposed field house as sited close to the existing field with a new drop-off lane, expanded parking, concessions serving indoor and outdoor events, locker rooms, trainer and officials' rooms, indoor batting cages and an upper-level fitness/weight area and indoor track. The conceptual seating capacity for the new gym was described at roughly 1,100 to 1,200 seats. Kerr said the indoor fitness areas were being considered for limited community access during evenings.

EI Associates presented a construction estimate for the field house shown in the materials of $7,374,000 and a districtwide total project range of roughly $48 million to $55 million, excluding future escalation. The presentation included a 5% per year escalation assumption for later cost projections.

On schedule, EI Associates said permitting and site approvals could be pursued within the next year if agencies provide timely reviews. The firm recommended moving site and building design in parallel, expecting to go to bid next year and to start construction as early as next summer if approvals proceed on an aggressive timetable. The presentation warned that schedule assumptions were contingent on agency permitting turnaround.

Funding and grants discussed included the Public School Facility Improvement Grant (Act 34) and other state competitive grants; EI Associates offered grant‑application support and noted a proposed governor’s budget item that would increase available grant funds. The consultants also discussed other funding options the district could pursue, including bank‑qualified bond issuance (up to $10 million in a calendar year under the bank‑qualified limit), larger bond issues in later years, direct pay tax credits for clean energy measures and private sponsorship or naming-rights strategies to offset operational costs.

Board discussion touched on material choices, sightlines from the field house to the field, storage needs, accessibility (an elevator was shown in the concept), and whether some program spaces should be reconfigured (for example, weight room and wrestling practice room adjacency). One board member asked whether the proposed new gym would meet large graduation attendance needs; presenters noted the new gym would not seat all attendees for a large graduation crowd (the presenter estimated approximately 2,000 people attended graduation) but would provide more capacity than the auditorium and more flexibility than the existing gym.

Following the presentation, a motion to authorize EI Associates to proceed with required services for the listed projects passed on a roll-call vote recorded by the board secretary; all members present voted yes.

The board packet supplied to members included the conceptual drawings, itemized soft costs and contingencies, and the firm’s grant assistance offer. Trustees and administration described the approval as a step to advance design and permitting rather than a final acceptance of bid documents or construction contracts.

What’s next: EI Associates and district staff will coordinate site design, permitting and grant applications; administration indicated they expect to bring bond‑issuance options and further project details to the board during the fall, and that the design phase will precede any final construction‑phase votes.