District consultants outline phased renovation of Garfield campus; abatement makes up majority of phase 1 costs

Consultants for the Greater Johnstown School District presented a phased plan to renovate and reopen the Garfield campus, emphasizing that hazardous‑material abatement and demolition account for the largest share of early costs.

Joe Richards, the presentation lead, told the school board that "ECM number 46, abatement demolition, makes up about 70% of that amendment that you're gonna look at tonight, cost wise." He said the first phase focuses on abatement, demolition to make work areas safe, and preparatory work to allow follow‑on renovation phases.

Why it matters: the district’s strategy is to complete abatement and demolition early so that subsequent renovation work (floors, ceilings, restrooms, MEP rough‑in and ADA) can proceed without repeated contractor mobilizations. Richards and the project team said completing abatement could allow the district to pursue a state hazardous‑materials environmental grant that reimburses recent or in‑progress projects, though the grant requires a local match.

Key details presented

- Abatement/demolition: Consultants said abatement items include vinyl floor tile and mastic, pipe‑fitting insulation in mechanical systems, fume‑hood panels and some lighting/electrical components. The team described the project as able to make the district asbestos‑free for the scope covered in the amendment.

- Masonry: Presenters called out compromised masonry on a stem wing parapet and at roofline locations, and recommended removing and reinstalling compromised brickwork; they warned matching 80– to 100‑year‑old brick may remain visibly different on close inspection.

- Windows and doors: The maintenance‑shop (old boiler plant) contains 26 original wood‑frame single‑pane windows in 16 different assemblies; many are broken and are referenced in the district’s asbestos report. Consultants recommended replacing these windows during abatement to avoid duplicate certified‑contractor work. The plan also includes replacement of about 23 exterior doors, with integrated fob access and electrical work; presenters noted door lead times can be as long as 24 weeks.

- Accessibility and stairs: The main hallway ramp near the auditorium is too steep and roughly half the length required by code; options discussed included extending the ramp and providing additional stairs. The front limestone stairs and handrail are deteriorated and would be replaced and extended about three feet to improve tread/riser geometry without changing primary ADA access (which will remain through the auditorium entrance in a later phase).

- Schedule and partners: The team described the work as multi‑phased through 2026–27 and recommended two MEP design partners and three potential architectural partners. MEP firms discussed included CJL Engineering and HF Lens. Architectural firms presented were Kimball Burgett, EI Associates and UpStreet Architects; each firm was described as having relevant K‑12 renovation experience.

What was not decided

The presentation referenced an amendment on the board agenda that contains the phase‑1 scope and budget estimates; the board heard the scope in detail but the transcript of the presentation does not show a final board vote on that amendment within the provided meeting excerpt.

Next steps

Presenters said contractors are pricing demolition work and that, once contracts are executed, the district will begin abatement and preparatory work. The district plans to pursue available state hazardous‑materials grants that require a local match; design partner selection and detailed phase‑2 design work were described as imminent actions.