Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legacy Park Playground topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews phased $1.5 million plan for Legacy Park playground; demolition costs remain unsettled
Summary
Eustace Engineers presented a phased 'step 1' playground design for Legacy Park and feasibility work that keeps construction under a $1.5 million target to avoid lengthy NPDES permitting; board members pressed for clarity on demolition costs and fundraising shortfalls ahead of bids planned for spring.
Get email alerts on the Legacy Park Playground topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eustace Engineers told the Jenkintown School District board on Dec. 15 that a reduced, phased plan for the Legacy Park playground is feasible and could be built within the district’s roughly $1.5 million budget target, pending bid results and continued fundraising.
"The results of that feasibility study and evaluation, conclusively were that, yes, we can get this built," said Darryl Campana of Eustace Engineers, who reviewed underground utility testing, constructability, and a step‑1 design that shrinks the footprint to avoid triggering a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that would add months to the schedule.
Why it matters: The board and community have supported a new playground, but the project’s timing depends on fundraising and procurement. Keeping the initial phase smaller allows the district to avoid an NPDES threshold that can add a minimum nine months to permitting, Campana said, and lets construction move during summer months when students are out of school.
What the plan would do: Consultants described a showpiece play structure, hillside slides, a labyrinth, improved top‑lot seating and an ADA‑accessible path. Cost estimators from Becker and Prandorf produced line items used to trim the master plan into a first phase, Campana said.
On funding and schedule: Board members were told that the Legacy fundraising committee has about $900,000 raised to date and hopes to reach the target before the bid process. The team intends to publish bid documents with alternates and deducts so the district will not go to bid on elements it cannot afford.
"We wanted to reduce the overall size and square footage of how much we would be constructing," Campana said, noting the $1.5 million budget goal and the need to avoid the larger permitting window.
Demolition and budget questions: Several trustees pressed for clarity on demolition costs tied to an existing play structure known as the castle. A board member flagged a demo line of $1,158,000 and asked whether the castle demolition was included; consultants said that quoted demo figures did not include all demolition scenarios and that additional quotes remain outstanding.
Facilities staff said they were already collecting demolition quotes and that a targeted demolition window would be spring break (March 30–April 3) with bids opening April 7. "I've got one quote; I'm waiting for two more," the district representative said when asked about current bids.
Maintenance and materials: Trustees also asked about warranties and maintenance for surfacing options such as cork or rubberized materials. Consultants recommended writing bid alternates and warranty specifications into procurement documents so the district could compare life‑cycle costs before choosing.
Next steps: Consultants recommended the board approve the step‑1 design approach, complete bid documents and proceed with alternates so construction can begin in summer if fundraising and bid pricing align. The board will see additional documentation and cost estimates during the January work session and in advance of the April bid opening.
Board action: The presentation and an accompanying work order amendment were discussed; follow‑up approvals and bid recommendations will return to the board for formal action as the team finalizes cost estimates and fundraising commitments.

