Draw Collective outlines high‑school renovation plan and $56–61M top‑end cost estimate

Draw Collective presented schematic plans and a facility assessment to the McKeesport Area SD board on May 7, outlining program relocations, student priorities and preliminary cost ranges for a proposed high‑school renovation.

Jackie Cowan of Draw Collective described outreach the team conducted with students during lunch periods and said students most frequently raised restroom renovations, gym and classroom upgrades, brighter corridors and cafeteria acoustics as priorities. "The first, item that they that really rose to the top was, restroom renovations," Cowan said.

The presentation proposed a series of program shifts intended to 'right‑size' instruction and expand CTE (career and technical education) opportunities. Draw Collective showed plans to relocate art into existing docu‑tech space in the East End Academy to keep art central to circulation, to expand CTE offerings — including commercial art and EMT training — and to consolidate the music program to free space for a reconfigured library/media center and a relocated life‑skills suite. The team also proposed a student‑run 'Tiger Cafe' as a vocational training adjacency to the media center.

On athletics and physical education, the firm recommended relocating pool locker rooms to the pool deck and converting the former locker space into a fitness center with cardio and weight equipment and team storage. Cowan said pool‑area finishes and acoustical treatments would also be updated.

A separate presenter from the consultant team outlined four cost 'buckets' and explained the difference between contractor construction bids and total project costs (which include soft costs such as fees, financing and furniture). For the category the presenter described as maintenance, security and envelope work, construction costs were estimated at $43–47 million, producing a total project estimate of $56–61 million when soft costs are included. Priority level 1 academic upgrades were estimated at $13–15 million construction ($17–19 million total); priority level 2 items, including targeted CTE/PE and library changes, were put at $6–7 million construction ($8–8.9 million total); and priority level 3 targeted upgrades were estimated at $1.5–1.7 million construction ($1.9–2.1 million total).

On renovation risks and change orders, a committee member asked whether hidden conditions could drive additional costs. The presenter acknowledged that renovation projects commonly generate change orders but said the team's record is "well under 3% for a project like this" and described measures — including detailed field documentation and diagrammatic drawings — to reduce surprises.

Board members also asked about construction oversight. When asked whether a 'clerk of the works' is typically a salaried position or paid based on project duration, the presenter said compensation varies with duration and scope; the presenter noted that larger projects sometimes use multiple oversight roles but that a single experienced project representative is often sufficient.

Questions about warranties drew the reply that the project will include manufacturer's warranties and shop‑drawing documentation; at closeout, the district will receive physical and digital warranty files for specified products. The presenter reiterated that a third‑party estimator will validate costs during design development.

Draw Collective and the consultant team said they expect to deliver a comprehensive final report in June to give the board and administration time to refine priorities and make phasing decisions. No formal vote or action was taken at the May 7 meeting.

The board will consider the consultant's final documents and cost validation in coming weeks as it sets priorities for potential capital work.