Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Field House Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Schuylkill Valley board hears $20 million field house plan, geotech remediation and phased bid options
Summary
Schuylkill Valley School District officials heard a detailed presentation on a proposed field house project that consultants said would include two pre‑engineered buildings: a gym with fitness and team spaces and a separate 50‑yard indoor turf building.
Get email alerts on the Field House Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Schuylkill Valley School District officials heard a detailed presentation on a proposed field house project that consultants said would include two pre‑engineered buildings: a gym with fitness and team spaces and a separate 50‑yard indoor turf building.
Consultants showed site plans and a virtual model of the project, saying the combined building footprint is about 43,000 square feet with a 3,000‑square‑foot mechanical mezzanine. The design as presented places the facility adjacent to the high‑school track and includes team rooms, a trainer space, concessions and storage for field equipment.
The project team recommended a two‑part bidding approach so the board can decide at bid day whether to accept the full scope or omit the turf building. The consultants described the base bid as the gym, team rooms, fitness and concession areas, with the turf building offered as an alternate so the district can select scope on bid day.
Consultants also described site conditions that will affect foundation design. They reported “loose fill” across the building footprint and karst limestone below grade, and recommended grout‑injection remediation. The team said the grout work—drilled holes filled with grout to strengthen foundations—is included in the current estimates and is on the order of "half a million dollars." The consultants noted the cost and schedule implications of that work and said it is typical when building over karst conditions.
Cost estimates shown to the board put the turf building at about $7.5 million and the full construction program near $20 million; including soft costs and escalation the team presented a comprehensive estimate of roughly $23.5 million. The consultants told the board they aimed to issue construction documents and seek bids around the winter holidays, with a potential construction start as early as March 2026 and a one‑year construction duration leading to a possible May 2027 occupancy.
Board members and district staff praised the work completed to date and thanked the consultant and financial staff for their coordination. No formal board decision on the project scope was taken at the meeting; the consultants said the board would have selection choices at bid day and that final contract prices will be set by the public bidding process.

