LIBERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

L I B E R T Y E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O LF E A S I B I L I T Y S T U D YPrepared for Frederick County Public SchoolsBy: Proffitt & Associates ArchitectsApril 19, 2019

Liberty Elementary School

Proffitt & Associates Architects122

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Feasibility Study

Liberty Elementary SchoolFeasibility Study

Proffitt & Associates Architects

11820 Liberty RoadFrederick, Maryland 21701

FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLSBOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERSBrad W. Young PresidentJoy Schaefer Vice PresidentLiz Barrett Board MemberMichael Bunitsky Board MemberLois Jarman Board MemberJay Mason Board MemberKaren A. Yoho Board MemberPaige Tolbard Student Board Member

FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVESHolly Nelson FCPS, Facilities Planner

Elizabeth Pasierb FCPS, Supervisor of Facilities Planning

Todd Shaffer Principal of Liberty Elementary School

Brian Staiger FCPS, Senior Project Manager, Construction Management

Adnan Mamoon FCPS, Director of Capital Programs

Steve Raff FCPS, Elementary Instructional Director

Kim Day FCPS, Curriculum & Instruction

Dawn Worrell FCPS, Construction Accountant

Gloria Mikolajczyk MSDE, School Facilities Architect

Patrick Little FCPS, Maintenance Area Supervisor

Matilda Pickett Liberty Elementary School Lead Custodian

1



FEASIBILITY STUDY TEAM

OWNER:Frederick County Public Schools191 S. East Street | Frederick, MD 21701 | Phone: 301.644.5000

ARCHITECT:Proffitt & Associates Architects, PC49 S Carroll Street | Frederick, MD 21701 | Phone: 301.662.8532

CIVIL ENGINEER:ADTEK Engineers, Inc.150 S East St #201 | Frederick, MD 21701 | Phone: 301.662.4408

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:ADTEK Engineers, Inc.150 S East St #201 | Frederick, MD 21701 | Phone: 301.662.4408

MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING ENGINEER:Alban Engineering303 International Circle, Suite 450 | Hunt Valley, MD 21030 | Phone: 410.842.6411

KITCHEN AND FOOD SERVICE CONSULTANT:Nyikos Associates18219-A Flower Hill Way | Gaithersburg, MD 20879 | Phone: 240.683.9530

COST ESTIMATOR:Forella Group5180 Parkstone Drive, Suite 250 | Chantilly, VA 20151 | Phone: 703-560-2200

Feasibility Study

Proffitt & Associates Architects 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5IntroductionMethodologyProject GoalsExisting Conditions OverviewSummary of OptionsEvaluation Criteria MatrixRecommendation

SECTION 2: SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS 25Educational Program RequirementsExisting Building and Educational Specifications Program ComparisonProposed Organization

SECTION 3: EXISTING INVENTORY DATA 31Current Use and EnrollmentPrevious State and Local-Funded ProjectsSite Aerial PhotoExisting Building Construction Dates and Types

SECTION 4: EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 35IntroductionGeneral Site InformationSite AnalysisArchitectural AnalysisBuilding Code AnalysisFood Service AnalysisStructural AnalysisMechanical and Plumbing AnalysisElectrical and Telecommunications Analysis



SECTION 5: PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 75Energy Use and SustainabilityOptions for Relocation of Students During ConstructionDesign and Construction RecommendationsCompliance with Environmental RegulationsLocal Planning InitiativesHistorical Significance of Existing BuildingsProposed Project Schedule

SECTION 6: CONCEPT OPTIONS 81Option 1 | Modernization and AdditionsOption 2 | Modernization and AdditionsOption 3A | Replacement School On-SiteOption 3B | Replacement School On-Site

SECTION 7: COST COMPARISON 99Summary of Estimated CostsLife Cycle Cost Analysis

SECTION 8: APPENDICES 101Appendix A: Consultant RecommendationsAppendix B: Community Engagement

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Feasibility Study

SECTION 1:


Introduction Methodology Project Goals Existing Conditions Overview Summary of Options Evaluation Criteria Matrix Recommendations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


SECTION 1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This feasibility study for Liberty Elementary School was conducted for Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) by the architectural firm of Proffitt &Associates Architects and their consultants in order to determine the viability of expanding or replacing the existing building and performingassociated site improvements in order to accommodate an increase in student capacity. Liberty Elementary School currently serves 264 studentsfrom grades pre-kindergarten through 5. The study explores options which would allow the school capacity to increase to 705 students and providesspecific recommendations to FCPS for implementation.

The intent of the study was to explore options for creation of a facility that meets the educational requirements of its student enrollment, satisfies thestaff and community concerns, and provides a cost effective, energy efficient, and safe facility to meet the future needs of the school. Not only doesthe existing building need to increase in size, it also needs to be fully modernized to conform to current educational facility best practices andapplicable codes and standards. Options explored include both renovations and additions and full replacement. In the renovation and additionoptions, portions of the existing building will be demolished, all existing areas to remain will be fully modernized, and new additions will beconstructed to provide an increase in capacity. In the replacement options, the existing building will be demolished in its entirety and a newindependent facility will be constructed on the same site. All options explored comply with current specifications for educational programming,instructional philosophy, and current energy, accessibility, and life safety codes.

The scope of work includes a survey of the physical plant and evaluation of the existing building, including its structural, mechanical, electrical,plumbing, and telecommunications systems. Analysis of the existing building and site was critical to determining the benefits and limitationsassociated with a renovation/addition project as compared to a replacement project. The design team reviewed the educational specifications anddeveloped four site and building concepts addressing the program criteria. The Feasibility Study Committee reviewed the progression of theseconcepts throughout the entire process. Additionally, public meetings were held and surveys conducted to garner stakeholder feedback in responseto the project and concept options. Comments and suggestions from Committee Members and stakeholders were discussed, evaluated, andincorporated at each step.

The outcome of the study is intended to provide FCPS with information and recommendations that will facilitate the process of making adetermination as to the best approach for increasing capacity and modernizing the Liberty Elementary School. The final concept options, relativeconstruction costs and schedules, and evaluation of the opportunities and challenges for each option are presented in this report.


Feasibility Study



METHODOLOGY

FCPS is committed to use of a collaborative process in order to encourage involvement of educational, administrative, and community stakeholdersin the planning process. Thorough review of the existing facility requires active communication with building users, and development of responsiveand appropriate design options cannot be complete without stakeholder input. An inclusive process which encourages participation and cooperationis imperative to ensure that all perspectives and voices are considered.

The Feasibility Study Committee includes FCPS Central Office instructional and business staff, along with staff from Liberty Elementary and theMaryland State Department of Education. Bi-weekly meetings were held with members of the feasibility study committee to review project progressand gather input based upon the varied expertise of its members. Additionally, three public meetings were held at the school to provide staff, parents,and community members an opportunity to learn about the project and provide feedback on the options. Notes from all bi-weekly meetings andcopies of the meeting presentations are uploaded to the project website to serve as a resource for information. An online survey was also madeavailable to allow stakeholders to provide additional comments or participate in the dialogue even if they were unable to attend meetings in person.The proposed concept options are a result of the participants’ recommendations, suggestions, and guidance during the feasibility study process.

The existing school has been evaluated by the design team of architects and engineers to determine the scope of work required to provide a facilitythat will comply with the Educational Specification requirements dated December 4, 2018. These Educational Specifications were developed byFCPS to provide guidance to the design team regarding the school’s needs and facility requirements. They include not only basic space needs interms of quantities and square footages for individual rooms, but also include discussion regarding designing for optimum learning environments,overall building organization, and systems and equipment requirements. An overview of the Educational Specifications can be found in Section 2 ofthis document.

The study is based on the following: Feedback received via design review meetings held with the Feasibility Study Committee and members of the public Analysis of the existing physical plant performed via site visits by the design team and FCPS staff Review of the building and site existing conditions documents provided by FCPS Review of the Educational Specifications provided by FCPS Research conducted by the design team

The concept options were refined and revised throughout the process and the final versions are included in this report. It should be noted that theconcept options represent viable solutions for addressing the project requirements, but are not intended to be final designs. The actual design of theschool may vary significantly from the feasibility study concepts and will be determined during the design phase of the project.



PROJECT GOALS

Throughout the process, the Feasibility Study Committee established a set of goals and objectives (delineated below) which the concept optionsaddress.

The goals for Liberty Elementary School are:

Develop a range of options that explore both renovation/addition and provision of a replacement school for 705 students

Acknowledge phased development of the site with respect to demolition, new construction, access, and use of existing facilities until project iscomplete

Address connections to the surrounding community in a way that is open and welcoming yet safe and secure for students

Involve the school community in the process through presentations and other means to gain relevant feedback

Meet Public School Construction Program (PSCP) Feasibility Study requirements and support any previous initiatives or long term planningestablished by FCPS and the Liberty Elementary school community

Continue to provide a nurturing and intimate community school

Look for opportunities to support 21st Century Learning

Acknowledge and celebrate the history of Liberty Elementary

Integrate displays for historical plaques and photos

Preserve or relocate the on-site student memorials

Improve accessibility in the building and on the site

Provide upgraded technology

Design an environmentally sensitive school that is comfortable, naturally lit, and energy efficient


Feasibility Study



EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERVIEW

Liberty Elementary School is located on a 10.97 acre property at 11820 Liberty Road, Frederick, MD 21701. The original Liberty School building wasconstructed in 1927 to serve students in grades 1 through 12. It received additions and renovations in 1950, 1967, and 1982. Over the years, uppergrades were relocated to new facilities and by 1962 the school was dedicated only to elementary use. The original 1927 building was demolishedwhen the last addition was constructed in 1982 .

Liberty Elementary School serves students in grades pre-kindergarten through 5 and has a state-rated capacity of 364 students. One of theclassrooms is currently used as a Headstart classroom in partnership with the YMCA of Frederick County. The elementary school’s enrollment as ofDecember 2018 was 264 students.

It is a multi-story building consisting of approximately 42,720 gross square feet. The main floor level contains approximately 28,675 gross square feet,while the lower level contains 10,235 gross square feet and the upper level contains 3,810 gross square feet. The main floor contains the main office,classrooms, the media center, computer labs, the gymnasium, and support spaces. The lower level contains the cafeteria, kitchen, two classrooms,mechanical room, and electrical room. The upper floor level contains only two classrooms, one of which is currently used for art, as well as aworkroom and a support space.

The structure is a mix of masonry bearing and steel frame with an exterior masonry façade. The majority of the exterior is red face brick, but there arealso some accents of limestone. Due to its age, the building is not energy efficient and is not fully accessible. There are multiple transitions in floorelevation that occur via ramps on the main floor level. The main entrance is not well defined and does not have a secured vestibule.

The property is bounded to the south by Route 26 (Liberty Road), to the southwest by single family homes, to the west by a future community parkand planned single-family homes, to the north by Daysville Road, and to the east by a vacant lot. Although the school address is Liberty Road, themain vehicular access is actually via Daysville Road, which causes confusion for visitors and deliveries. A cemetery is situated across Route 26 fromthe property to the south and future single-family homes are planned to be constructed across Daysville Road to the north. The school building isalmost centered on the site from east to west, but is closer to Route 26 from north to south. The western portion of the site is relatively level andcontains athletic fields and playfields. The northern, eastern, and southern portions of the site contain some steep slopes down to Route 26, DaysvilleRoad, and the adjacent property to the east.

There are currently three portable classrooms on site, all located on an existing parking area that sits to the west of the existing structure accessedfrom the north side of the drop-off loop. One is used for instrumental music one day per week and the other two are used for storage.

.




EXISTING SITE PLAN

EXISTING SCHOOL

EXIST PAVED PLAY

EXIST PAVED PLAY EXIST

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

EXIST SOFTBALL

EXIST SOFTBALL

MAIN ENTRY

EXIST PICK-UP LOOPEXIST RELOCATABLES


Feasibility Study



EXISTING FLOOR PLANS

GYMNASIUM

MAIN ENTRY

KINDER-GARTEN

ADMINISTRATIVE SUITE

CLASS-ROOM

KINDER-GARTEN

CLASS-ROOM

CLASS-ROOM

CLASS-ROOM

CLASS-ROOM

CLASS-ROOM

CLASS-ROOM CLASS-

ROOM

CLASS-ROOM

CLASS-ROOM

ART

SPEC

IAL

EDU

.

MU

SIC

YMC

A

MEDIA

PLATFORM

CAFETERIA

GUIDANCE





OPTION 1 | MODERNIZATION AND ADDITIONS | ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $33,664,649

OPTION 1Option 1 includes renovationsand additions with partialdemolition of the existingbuilding. This option includesa complete renovation of theexisting facility to remain,demolition of over half of theexisting building, andconstruction of additionalspace to meet the projectrequirements. Car rider dropoff loop and main parkingwould be accessed fromRoute 26, with a secondconnection over to DaysvilleRoad along the westernproperty line. The bus loop,additional parking, and theloading/building services areawould be accessed fromDaysville Road.

EXISTING SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

MAIN ENTRY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

ADDITIONADDITION

Feasibility Study

DEMOLITION

MAIN LEVEL = 14,955 SF

UPPER LEVEL = 0 SF

LOWER LEVEL = 10,235 SF



OPTION 1:

AREA OF EXISTING BUILDING = 42,720 GSF

AREA OF DEMOLITION = - (25,190) GSF

AREA OF ADDITIONS = 74,760 GSF

TOTAL BUILDING WITH ADDITIONS = 92,290 GSF

OPT

ION

1: R

ENO

VATI

ON

S &

NEW

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

OPT

ION

1: D

EMO

LITI

ON

RENOVATIONS


UPPER LEVEL = 3,810 SF

ADDITIONS






OPTION 2 | MODERNIZATION AND ADDITIONS | ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $32,940,273

EXISTING SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

SOFT SURFACE PLAY

OPTION 2Option 2 includes renovationsand additions with limiteddemolition of the existingbuilding. This option includesa complete renovation of theexisting facility to remain,demolition of a limited portionof the existing building, andconstruction of additionalspace to meet the projectrequirements. Car rider dropoff loop and main parkingwould be accessed fromRoute 26, with a secondconnection over to DaysvilleRoad along the westernproperty line. The bus loop,additional parking and theloading/building services areawould be accessed fromDaysville Road.

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

ADDITION

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

Feasibility Study

DEMOLITION



LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF



OPTION 2:



AREA OF ADDITIONS = 58,200 GSF

TOTAL BUILDING WITH ADDITIONS = 93,000 GSF

OPT

ION

2: R

ENO

VATI

ON

S &

NEW

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

OPT

ION

2: D

EMO

LITI

ON

RENOVATIONS



ADDITIONS






OPTION 3A | REPLACEMENT SCHOOL ON-SITE | ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $32,999,453

NEW SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

PAVED PLAY

OPTION 3AOption 3A includes totalreplacement of the existingbuilding with a new two-storyconstruction. This optionincludes construction of anentirely new facility on theexisting site to meet theproject requirements and thendemolition of the existingbuilding. The existing buildingwill continue to be operationalduring the new buildingconstruction process. Carrider drop off loop and themain parking area would beaccessed from Route 26. Thedriveway entrance is relocatedcloser to the crest of the hillalong Route 26. The bus loop,additional parking, and loadingarea would beaccessedfrom DaysvilleRoad.

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

Feasibility Study

DEMOLITION






OPTION 3A:



AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION = 88,798 GSF

TOTAL NEW CONST. BUILDING = 88,798 GSF

OPT

ION

3A:

NEW

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

OPT

ION

3A:

DEM

OLI

TIO

N

RENOVATIONS

MAIN LEVEL = 0 SF

UPPER LEVEL = 0 SF

LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF

NEW CONSTRUCTION



LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF




NEW SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

MAIN ENTRY

BUS LOOP

LOADING / SERVICE

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPTION 3B | REPLACEMENT SCHOOL ON-SITE | ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $34,527,932

OPTION 3BOption 3B includes totalreplacement of the existingbuilding with new two-storyconstruction. This optionincludes demolition of theentire existing building prior toconstruction of an entirely newfacility on the existing site tomeet the project requirements.Students will be relocated totemporary facilities during thebuilding demolition and newconstruction process. The carrider drop off loop, mainparking, and bus loop wouldbe accessed from DaysvilleRoad. Loading would beaccessed from Route 26.Paved and soft play areas andopen green space are locatednear the newgymnasium,cafeteria, andclassroom wings.

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

PAVED PLAY

Feasibility Study

DEMOLITION






OPTION 3B :



AREA OF NEW CONSTRUCTION = 88,798 GSF

TOTAL NEW CONST. BUILDING = 88,798 GSF

OPT

ION

3B

: NEW

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

OPT

ION

3B

: DEM

OLI

TIO

N

RENOVATIONS

MAIN LEVEL = 0 SF

UPPER LEVEL = 0 SF

LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF

NEW CONSTRUCTION



LOWER LEVEL = 0 SF




SUMMARY OF OPTIONS | CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES COMPARISON CHART

OPTION 1

OPPORTUNITIES Classroom layouts cluster well for

grade level grouping. Simplified floor elevations

compared to Option 2 Good separation of buses, cars,

and building services/loading.

CHALLENGES Keeping existing 1960s two-story

addition and tying the new two-story structures into it may create a hardship in terms of ceiling height. Ramping will be required along the second-floor corridor.

Green space is far from the school and is awkward to have to access via narrow space between bus loop and drop-off loop.

The Media Center and many support spaces do not have access to views to the exterior.

OPTION 2

OPPORTUNITIES Retains more of existing building,

including the Route 26 façade and recently replaced roof.

Good separation of buses, cars, and loading.

More open green space and paved and soft surface play area compared to Option 1.

CHALLENGES Main entrance on lower level is

not desirable. Possible conflicts for construction

of east classroom addition if the existing foundations from the 1920s building were not fully demolished.

Lots of changes in elevation on main level, three different floor elevations will require several ramps in the corridors.

OPTION 3A

OPPORTUNITIES New school can be constructed

without demolition of the existing building. Students stay on site and together.

Daylight provided to all learning spaces.

Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading.

Parking and bus drop off are both close to the main entry.

Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions.

CHALLENGES Least amount of open green

space remains. Not possible to bring second

entrance/exit from Daysville Road due to position of building.

Car queuing will block parking.

OPTION 3B

OPPORTUNITIES Demolition of existing building

prior to starting construction of the new building allows optimization of placement of building on site.

Daylight provided to all learning spaces with optimum orientation.

Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading.

Lots of car queuing space. Two entrances from Daysville

Road – moves main traffic away from Route 26.

Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions

CHALLENGES Students will either have to be

relocated to another facility off-site or portables will need to be brought on-site to house students during the demolition and new construction process.

Feasibility Study


SUMMARY TABLE AND COST COMPARISON OF OPTIONS

Square Footage:Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B

Existing 42,720 42,720 42,720 42,720

New Construction 74,760 58,200 88,798 88,798

Renovation 17,530 34,800 0 0

Demolition 25,190 7,920 42,720 42,720

Existing to Remain 17,530 34,800 0 0

Total Gross Square Feet 92,290 93,000 88,798 88,798

Duration of Construction 20 to 24 months 20 to 24 months 15 to 18 months 15 to 18 months

Total Construction Cost $33,664,649 $ 32,940,273 $32,999,453 $34,527,932

The cost estimate in this feasibility study is based on current construction market conditions for both building and site. The estimates will be revisedto reflect market conditions and prevailing construction costs when the project is included in the Capital Improvements Program Request forarchitectural and construction funding.



SECTION 1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX


Criteria Renovation /Addition New Construction / ReplacementOption1 Option2 Option3A Option3B

BUILDING FUNCTIONALITY

Security: Building layout allows for clear site lines and avoids creating areas that are difficult to supervise

Yes. Yes.Long, narrow areas between classroom wings are somewhat more difficult to supervise from a distance.

Long, narrow areas between classroom wings are somewhat more difficult to supervise from a distance.

Site Circulation ‐ Option minimizes traffic on to and off of Route 26

Two access routes for parents to minimizeRoute 26 traffic. Route 26 access relocatedto top of hill for better sight distance.

Two access routes for parents to minimize Route 26 traffic. Cannot relocate Route 26 access to improve sight distance due to building layout.

Car parking/parent drop‐off access fromRoute 26 only, concerned w/ visibility and left turns from the school. Possibly add connection to Daysville, but need to be shared with buses.

Yes. Bus and car access routes from Daysville Road minimizes Route 26 traffic.

Site Circulation ‐ Option provides adequate access points and separation of bus, car, and delivery traffic

Yes. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading.




Daylighting & Views ‐ Option maximizes access to daylight and views in instructional spaces

The Media Center and many supportspaces do not have access to views to the exterior, daylight could be provided by clerestory.

Daylight provided to nearly all instructional areas. Courtyard required to provide daylight to some rooms.

Daylight and views provided to all instructional areas ‐ non‐optimal east‐west orientation for classrooms.

Daylight and views provided to all instructional areas ‐ optimal north‐south orientation for classrooms.

Building Interior Accessibility ‐ Option allows for adequate access throughout the building

Simplified floor elevations compared to Option 2. Only one level at first floor, two levels for second floor.

Lots of changes in elevation on main level,three different floor elevations will requireseveral ramps in the corridors.

Yes. Yes.

Building Exterior Accessibility ‐ Optionallows for adequate access by maintenance and supports building and site circulation

Courtyard is a challenge to maintain. Courtyard is a challenge to maintain. Yes. Yes.

Longevity of Building Systems ‐ Buildingwill minimize the need for major buildingsystems upgrades within the next 20 years

Renovated areas will receive full MEP replacement, however existing structural components and roofing would remain and may require upgrades.

Renovated areas will receive full MEP replacement, however existing structural components and roofing would remain and may require upgrades.

Yes. Yes.

Life Cycle Cost ‐ Option minimizes the long‐ term costs of operating and maintain the building

$ 50,533,117 $ 49,990,197 $ 46,658,221 $ 48,421,333

Maintenance ‐ Option allows for design and installation of systems with proper access for service and maintenance

Existing building will offer someconstraints in terms of clearances above ceilings due to existing floor‐to‐floor heights.

Existing building will offer someconstraints in terms of clearances above ceilings due to existing floor‐to‐floor heights.

Yes. Yes.

Energy Efficiency ‐ Option minimizes energyusage

Retention of a portion of the existing building envelope will compromise performance slightly.

Retention of a large part of the existing building envelope will compromise performance .

Yes. Yes.

Feasibility Study

SECTION 1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEVALUATION CRITERIA MATRIX


Criteria Renovation /Addition New Construction / ReplacementOption1 Option2 Option3A Option3B

EDUCATIONALGOALS

Capacity: Option provides the required educational specification capacity (705) Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Educational Adequacy: Option allows for the correct number, size, and adjacency of rooms to meet the required educational program

Existing classrooms to remain are slightly undersized. Option is arranged with correct adjacencies and good classroom groupings.

Existing classrooms to remain are slightly undersized. Administration and kindergarten are on different level than core spaces.

Yes. Current prototype building can be arranged efficiently with correct adjacencies.

Yes. Current prototype building can be arranged efficiently with correct adjacencies.

Operational Effectiveness: Option effectively serves the administrative and support functions of the school

Yes. Option arranged to facilitate ease of educational operation.

Admin. suite and new main entrance onlower level. Kindergarten and Pre‐K are on a different level than gymnasium, cafeteria, and specials.

Yes. Current prototype building configuration and layout can be arranged to facilitate ease of educational operation.

Yes. Current prototype building configuration and layout can be arranged to facilitate ease of educational operation.

Flexibility: Option layout provides flexibility for future changes in educational programming

Classroom addition allows for flexibility of classroom clusters. Existing Building will have limited flexibility.

Classroom addition allows for flexibility of classroom clusters. Existing Building will have limited flexibility.

Yes. Current prototype building can be designed to incorporate flexible learning spaces.

Yes. Current prototype building can be designed to incorporate flexible learning spaces.

Site Amenities ‐ Option provides adequate open green space with good adjacency to building and gymnasium

Moderate amount of green space, but it is far from the school and other play areas and awkward to access via narrow space between bus loop and drop‐off loop.

Moderate amount of green space, far from the school but adjacent to other play areas.

Least amount of open green space remains. Space is awkwardly proportioned, but is adjacent to building and other play areas.

Greatest amount of open green space provided adjacent to building and Gymnasium.

Site Amenities ‐ Option provides adequate play areas and good access to play areas from Cafeteria, Gymnasium, and classrooms

Least amount of play area provided in thisoption ‐ similar in size to current paved play area. Adjacency to Gym and Cafeteria are good, somewhat remote from classrooms.

Play areas sizes are adequate, are near Gymnasium but a little far from Cafeteria and classrooms.

Play areas sizes are adequate, are fairly close to Gymnasium and Cafeteria but removed from classrooms.

Play areas sizes are adequate and could be arranged in several configurations to provide good adjacencies to Cafeteria, Gymnasium, and classrooms.

CONSTRUCTION & COST

Construction Length: Option length of construction including phasing

20‐24 months (plus an additional 6‐12 months to complete sitework)

20‐24 months (plus an additional 6‐12 months to complete sitework)

15‐18 months (plus an additional 6‐12months to complete sitework) Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions.

15‐18 months (plus an additional 6‐12months to complete sitework ‐ note thatthis could be compressed if students aremoved off‐site)

Initial Construction Costs:

Initial Total Construction & Project Costs:

$ 33,664,649

$ 44,244,165

$ 32,940,273

$ 43,675,341

$ 32,999,453

$ 40,829,366

$ 32,527,932

$ 42,602,402

Minimize Disruption to Students: Projectschedule minimizes the number of moves for students and staff and minimizes student exposure to construction dust and noise

Occupied phased renovations and additions. Students can remain in portions of building. Minimal temporary facilities required.

Occupied phased renovations and additions. Students can remain in portions of building. Minimal temporary facilities required.

New school can be constructed without demolition of the existing building.Students stay on site and together.

Students will either have to be relocated to another facility off‐site or portables will need to be brought on‐site during construction.




RECOMMENDATION

After study and discussion of the challenges and opportunities presented by each option, the feasibility study team is recommending Option 3, areplacement facility on the same site, as the best solution to meet the project’s educational and functional goals.

The renovation/addition options have extended construction durations when compared to the replacement facility options, which means more impactto students and staff through the construction process. They also require more overall square footage due to existing building constraints in terms ofcirculation efficiency and structural systems that dictate some of the design features and room areas. A replacement school meets the educationalspecifications without compromise, is on par with the cost of renovation and addition options, and minimizes the need for future maintenance ofbuilding systems. The replacement options allow flexibility to configure the building and site for optimum adjacencies and efficiency. Replacementalso affords the ability to create an energy-efficient building envelope, which will provide long term operating cost savings.

A final determination will be made during the project’s design phase about whether to retain the existing building for use while the replacement facilityis being constructed or whether the existing building will be demolished first and temporary facilities utilized for the duration of construction.

Feasibility Study

SECTION 2:


Educational Program Requirements

Existing Building and Educational Specifications Program Comparison

Proposed Organization

SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS


EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

The Liberty Elementary Feasibility Study considered the Board of Education’s approved maximum elementary school capacity of approximately 700students in order to understand the options for the largest possible building that might be located on this site. The final enrollment capacity of theschool will be determined when FCPS begins the design process for the modernized building.

The educational program for the new Liberty Elementary building aligns with the requirements set forth by the Frederick County Public Schools’educational specifications and Standards for the Design of New and Renovated Buildings Design Guide for Pre-K – 5 Elementary Schools. Theeducational specifications call for a construction project of approximately 89,000 gross square feet that will provide a new elementary school of 31teaching stations (25 grade 1-5, five kindergarten, and one pre-kindergarten classroom) as well as supporting spaces to accommodate a state ratedcapacity of 705 elementary school students. In addition, this project will be designed to meet the requirements for at least a Silver LEED Certificationfrom the U.S. Green Building Council.

General spaces to be provided as part of the new school include:

(1) Pre-K Classroom (5) Kindergarten Classrooms (5) General Classrooms for Grade 1 (5) General Classrooms for Grade 2 (5) General Classrooms for Grade 3 (5) General Classrooms for Grade 4 (5) General Classrooms for Grade 5 Administration spaces Health Suite spaces Media Center spaces

(2) Art Classrooms & storage spaces (1) Vocal Music Room & storage space (1) Instrumental Music Room STEM Lab Support Service Area spaces Food Service spaces Cafeteria spaces Physical Education spaces Custodial Operations spaces Maintenance spaces

SECTION 2 | SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS


A spreadsheet comparing the spaces currently provided within the existing Liberty building with the program space requirements for a 705 studentschool is on the following pages. The educational specifications require 89,900 gross square feet of building area. The current Liberty buildingcontains approximately 42,720 gross square feet of space, which means that at least an additional 47,180 gross square feet of space is required tomeet the program needs. The existing building contains only 14 classrooms, while a total of 31 classrooms are required. The school does not haveany rooms that meet current space requirements for kindergarten or specials classrooms, however the existing typical classrooms average 784square feet apiece, which is only slightly smaller than the 800 square feet currently required. These classrooms can be re-used in renovation/additionscenarios and once modernized, will provide a functional learning environment. The core spaces are all undersized and in general support spacesare lacking in terms of quantity, size, and location.

Feasibility Study



EXISTING BUILDING AND EDUCATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS PROGRAM COMPARISONEXISTING LIBERTY BUILDING 705 STUDENT EDUCATIONAL

SPECIFICATIONS

SPACE QUANTITYNET SQUARE

FEET PER ROOM

NET SQUAREFEET PER FUNCTION

QUANTITYNET SQUARE

FEET PER ROOM


DIFFERENCE (NSF)

AdministrationSecretarial/Reception Waiting Area 1 423 423 1 450 450 -27Workroom 1 140 140 1 200 200 -60Principal's Office 1 250 250 1 180 180 70Asst Principal's Office 0 0 0 1 150 150 -150Conference Room 1 360 360 1 200 200 160Administration Bathroom 2 23 46 1 50 50 -4Student Bathroom 0 0 0 1 300 300 -300Teacher's Lounge with Bathroom 1 388 388 1 400 400 -12Staff bathrooms to be distributed throughout school 0 0 0 4 50 200 -200

Total Administration 1,607 2,130 -523

Health SuiteNurse's Office 0 0 0 1 100 100 -100Health Room w/ small shower and toilet 1 200 200 1 500 500 -300

Total Health Suite 200 600 -400

Media CenterMedia Office and Equipment Storage/workroom 1 200 200 1 400 400 -200Open Resource Area ( w/ informal reading area) 1 1,603 1,603 1 2,000 2,000 -397Small Group Instruction Area 0 0 0 1 450 450 -450Media Broadcast Room 1 136 136 1 180 180 -44STEM Lab 2 450 900 1 800 800 100Computer, TV, Communications Main Distribution Frame 0 0 0 1 300 300 -300Remote Telecommunications Equipment Closets 0 0 0 2 100 200 -200

Total Media Center 2,839 4,330 -1491

ArtArt Studio A 1 865 865 1 1,000 1,000 -135Storage for Studio A 0 0 0 1 150 150 -150Art Studio B 0 0 0 1 1,000 1,000 -1000Storage for Studio B 0 0 0 1 150 150 -150

Total Art 865 2,300 -1435

MusicVocal Music Room 1 857 857 1 1,100 1,100 -243Music Storage Room 0 0 0 2 75 150 -150Instrumental Music Room (currently in portable) 0 0 0 1 800 800 -800

Total Music 857 2,050 -1193




EXISTING LIBERTY BUILDING 705 STUDENT EDUCATIONALSPECIFICATIONS


FEET PER ROOM


QUANTITYNET SQUARE

FEET PER ROOM


DIFFERENCE (NSF)

Physical EducationGymnasium, full basketball court size 1 3,166 3,166 1 6,272 6,272 -3106Indoor/Outdoor equipment storage 2 101 202 1 400 400 -198Bathrooms Area - Boys and Girls 0 0 0 1 240 240 -240Teacher office/bathroom/shower/dressing 1 143 143 1 250 250 -107

Total Gymnasium 3,511 7,162 -3651

Pre-KindergartenPre-Kindergarten classrooms 1 867 867 1 1,100 1,100 -233Pre-Kindergarten bathrooms 2 12 24 1 50 50 -26Pre-Kindergarten Storage Room 0 0 0 1 100 100 -100

Total Pre-Kindergarten 891 1,250 -359

KindergartenKindergarten Classrooms 2 777 1,554 5 1,100 5,500 -3946Kindergarten Bathrooms 0 0 0 5 50 250 -250Indoor/Outdoor Storage Rooms 0 0 0 2 200 400 -400

Total Kindergarten 1,554 6,150 -4596

Learning Area, Grades 1-5General Classrooms 10 784 7,836 25 800 20,000 -12164General Classroom Group Bathrooms 2 240 480 3 240 720 -240Planning Rooms 0 0 0 2 300 600 -600

Total Learning area, Grades 1-5 8,316 21,320 -13004

Supporting Services AreaOffices with desks for math and reading Interventionists andspecialists, special education 1 875 875 2 800 1,600 -725

Intervention/Collaboration Rooms (to be used for reading, math, EL,pull-out special education) 2 203 405 10 200 2,000 -1595

Small Conference (testing/quiet space/outside therapy) 0 0 0 1 150 150 -150Calming Room 0 0 0 2 200 400 -400Guidance 1 793 793 2 200 400 393Itinerant Staff (Psychologist/Social Worker/Behavior Specialist etc) 0 0 0 1 200 200 -200Speech/Language and Itinerant Services, OT/PT 0 0 0 1 360 360 -360EL Level 1 classrooms 0 0 0 1 800 800 -800Community Liaison Office/Storage 0 0 0 1 200 200 -200Parent Work Room 0 0 0 1 200 200 -200Reading Specialist/Book Rooms 1 168 168 1 400 400 -232

Total Supporting Services 2,241 6,710 -4469

Feasibility Study



EXISTING LIBERTY BUILDING 705 STUDENT EDUCATIONALSPECIFICATIONS


FEET PER ROOM


QUANTITYNET SQUARE

FEET PER ROOM


DIFFERENCE (NSF)

Food ServiceKitchen - Serving/Food prep/Transport 1 403 403 1 1,200 1,200 -797Dry Food Storage 2 50 100 1 300 300 -200Non-food storage 1 45 45 1 60 60 -15Refrigerated storage – walk-in 1 53 53 1 130 130 -77Frozen Food storage – walk-in 1 89 89 1 120 120 -31Office 1 53 53 1 80 80 -27Locker/restroom/washer & dryer area 1 55 55 1 120 120 -65Dishwashing area 1 254 254 1 220 220 34Inside receiving area 0 0 0 1 60 60 -60Covered outside unloading area 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total Food Service 1,052 2,290 -1238

CafetoriumDining area 1 2,570 2,570 1 4,000 4,000 -1430Stage 1 845 845 1 850 850 -5Chair Storage 1 105 105 1 300 300 -195Table Storage 0 200 0 1 200 200 -200Custodial Room 0 60 0 1 60 60 -60

Total Cafetorium 3,520 5,410 -1890

Custodial OperationsCustodial Office 1 160 160 1 175 175 -15Locker room/shower/bathroom, women 0 0 0 1 90 90 -90Locker room/shower/bathroom, men 0 0 0 1 90 90 -90Central Indoor Storage 1 74 74 1 300 300 -226Indoor Satellite Storage @ 50 sq. ft. 5 110 550 4 50 200 350Outdoor storage 1 170 170 1 350 350 -180

Total Custodial Operations 954 1,205 -251

MaintenanceMaintenance Office 0 0 0 1 120 120 -120Maintenance storage area 0 0 0 1 400 400 -400

Total Maintenance 0 520 -520

TOTAL NET SQUARE FEET 28,407 63,427 -35020TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET @ 1.4 net to gross ratio 39,770 88,798 -49028




PROPOSED ORGANIZATION

The proposed new school building, whether it be a replacement option or renovation/addition option, should generally be organized to provide twodistinct areas: public and private zones. Design options typically provide two distinct entrances, one main entrance that is used by students, staff, andvisitors and can be secured as the only means of access to the building during the school day, and a secondary entrance that is intended for publicafter-hours use, but can also be used by staff and students as required during the school day. Public areas of the school such as the gymnasium andcafeteria should be located and configured so that public and community members would have access with nearby parking and the ability to securethose areas independently from the remainder of the building. More private spaces, such as the media center, classrooms, and student-centeredspace programs should be located so a distinct separation could be provided which would allow for a separate and safe environment for the students.The options provided follow these general principles, although the renovation/addition schemes sometimes have to compromise in terms of optimaladjacencies due to existing building constraints.

Some of the organizational concepts preferred include:

A school environment that allows students to work together in small and large group activities.

Access to technology.

Administrative services organized to facilitate the teaching and learning process.

Centrally located media center convenient to instructional areas.

Physical education spaces that can support a variety of student needs and community uses.

A cafeteria space that can be maximized in use for a variety of functions such as assemblies and special programs.

Interior circulation that promotes a smooth and safe flow of students.

Abundance of natural light in classrooms and occupied spaces; orientation of exterior windows to capture the most appropriate natural light.

A school as a community center fixture so that the building may be used by the public.

A sustainably-designed school that takes advantage of the site to provide outdoor learning areas and gathering areas around the building.

Outdoor areas may also be used by the community.

Security and safety should be provided throughout, balanced with the ability to allow accessibility to the building and outdoor spaces in a welcoming environment.

Making the building “future ready” – to allow flexibility in future modernization of the school.

Feasibility Study

SECTION 3:


Current Use and Enrollment

Previous State and Local-Funded Projects

Site Aerial Photo

Existing Building Construction Dates and Types

EXISTING INVENTORY DATA


SECTION 3 – EXISTING INVENTORY DATA

CURRENT USE AND ENROLLMENT

Liberty Elementary School serves students in grades kindergartenthrough 5 and has a state-rated capacity of 364 students. One of theclassrooms is currently used as a Headstart classroom in partnershipwith the YMCA of Frederick County. The elementary school’s enrollmentas of December 2018 was 264 students.

It is a multi-story building consisting of approximately 42,720 grosssquare feet. The main floor level contains approximately 28,675 grosssquare feet, while the lower level contains 10,235 gross square feet andthe upper level contains 3,810 gross square feet.

There are currently three portable classrooms on site, all located on anexisting parking area that sits to the west of the existing structureaccessed from the north side of the drop-off loop. One is used forinstrumental music one day per week and the other two are used forstorage.

PREVIOUS STATE AND LOCAL-FUNDED PROJECTS


View of main entrance from bus loop

View of south side of 1950 addition from Route 26

Project Year State Local

Renovation/Addition 1983 X

Air Conditioning 1992 X

Building Remodel 1993 X

TIMS (wiring) 1998 X X

Roof 2009 X X

Energy Management Retrofit 2010 X

Roof 2014 X X

Feasibility Study



Liberty Elementary School – Aerial Photo




The original Liberty Elementary School building was constructed in 1927 and received additions and renovations in 1950, 1967, and 1982. Thediagram below indicates when each portion of the building was constructed.

STEEL FRAMESTEEL JOISTS W/ METAL DECK

MASONRY BEARINGSTEEL JOISTSW/ TECTUM DECK

MASONRY BEARINGW/ SOME STEEL FRAMESTEEL JOISTS W/ GYPSUM PLANK DECK

ORIGINAL 1927 BUILDING, DEMOLISHED IN 1982

Feasibility Study


Introduction

General Site Information

Site Analysis

Architectural Analysis

Building Code Analysis

Food Service Analysis

Structural Analysis

Mechanical and Plumbing Analysis

Electrical and Telecommunications Analysis

SECTION 4:EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT


SECTION 4 | EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

Liberty Elementary School was originally constructed in 1927. When the school first opened in 1927, it served students in grades 1 through 12. In1945, it graduated its final senior class but continued to serve students in grades 1 through 9. A two-story addition which contained a cafeteria,gymnasium, classrooms, and support spaces was constructed in 1950. In 1962, the middle school grades were removed and the school began tooperate exclusively as an elementary school. Another two-story addition containing four classrooms and support space was constructed in 1967. In1982, the most recent addition was constructed and the original section of the building from 1927 was demolished.

The school currently has a state-rated capacity of 364 students. It is a multi-story building consisting of approximately 42,720 gross square feet. Anexisting conditions walk-through was conducted with the feasibility study team and members of FCPS staff to review and discuss the visible existingbuilding features and systems.


Liberty ES – Aerial Photo (Courtesy of Frederick County GIS)

GENERAL SITE INFORMATION

Liberty Elementary School is situated on a 10.97-acreproperty comprised of a single parcel and is located at11820 Liberty Road, Frederick, Maryland. The schoolproperty is located in an Ie (Euclidean Institutional) Zone.Uses within the Ie District are subject to the followingdimensional standards: 30’ maximum height; 40’ frontyard setback; 50’ rear yard setback; and 50’ side yardsetback. A school is allowed by right within the Ie District.The property is bounded to the south by a cemetery, tothe southwest by single family homes, to the west by afuture community park, to the north by future single-family homes, and to the east by a vacant lot.

Feasibility Study



SITE ANALYSIS

ADJOINING STREETS

Liberty ES is accessed via Liberty Road (MD-26) and Daysville Road; both are two-lane public open section roads. The site driveways connect toboth streets.

SITE PARKING AND CIRCULATION

On-Site Pedestrian and Vehicular Access

Vehicles access the site from both Daysville and Liberty Road. The driveway on Daysville Road has adequate sight distance. Once thedevelopment to the north is completed there is a proposed street that will align with the driveway on Daysville Road. The driveway on Liberty Roadappears to have inadequate stopping distance due to a crown in the road approximately 200’ east of the driveway.

Currently, there are no sidewalks along either street; however, we understand that the development to the north will create a sidewalk alongDaysville Road and ultimately connect to the sidewalks on the school campus. Presently, there are no walkers to this school.

View to the west along Route 26 from the existing site accessView to the east along Route 26 from the existing site access




SITE ANALYSIS (continued)

SITE PARKING AND CIRCULATION (continued)

Bus LoopThe bus loop consists of a one-way, 30-foot drive aisle which is integrated into the existingparking lot on the north side of the site and allows for access to the building’s mainentrance. With approximately 260-feet of queuing space and the ability of buses to pull upparallel to the curb, it appears that the size of the bus loop is able to support at least 6buses without requiring stacking into the parking area drive aisles. This configurationallows buses to pass one another provided that there are no cars parked in the driveway.There are currently 9 buses that que in the loop during dismissal. The sidewalk along thebus-drop-off area should be evaluated for compliance with the current ADA regulations. Itis recommended that a designated passenger loading area be added to be inconformance with current ADA regulations.

Car Rider Drop-off / Pick-up LoopDuring morning drop-off car riders are dropped off in the parking lot on the north side ofthe building. These students walk across the bus drive to enter the building. Weunderstand that this is due to lack of staff on-site to supervise drop-off at the southern sideof the building. Per conversations with the users there is limited traffic congestion with theintermingling of cars and buses; however, when the population increases this couldbecome a problem.

In the afternoon, curbside car rider pick-up occurs at the southern parking lot. This loopallows for stacking of approximately 16 cars (325’ long). If more cars are in the que, theywill back-up onto Liberty Road and create an unsafe condition for west bound traffic dueto limited stopping distance over the crest of the hill to the east. For this reason, theschool currently requires some parents to park in the northern lot and walk into the schoolto sign out students for pick-up rather than allowing them to pick-up in the southern loop.

Bus drop-off loop

Southern Parking area/ student pickup area

Feasibility Study



SITE ANALYSIS (continued)


On-site Parking

Currently, on-site parking is provided in three (3) parking areas that occupy the north, southeast, and southwest portions of the site.

The north parking area provides 47 spaces, of which three (3) are designated ADA accessible spaces. The drive aisle for this parking area servesas the bus loop. The southwest parking area provides 12 spaces, of which none are designated ADA accessible spaces. The southeast parkingarea and loading/dumpster area provides an additional area of undefined parking.

The current number of accessible spaces appears to meet the minimum number per current ADA regulations; but current ADA requirements arebased on each lot and not the site as a whole. In addition, the signage of these spaces do not meet current ADA regulations. During the designphase accessible spaces should be added to every parking area per ADA regulations. Overall, the drive aisles and parking areas appear to be infair condition. Other paved areas of the site are utilized for parking, but these areas do not appear to be defined parking spaces. The currentnumber of spaces appear to be adequate to support the current day-to-day needs of the school. The northern most athletic field is used for overflowparking during special events.

On-site Loading

The loading area is located along the eastern side of the building and accessed via the driveway from Liberty Road. There appears to be adequatespace for large trucks to utilize this area provided that these areas are not blocked by cars parked in non-marked spaces.

Sidewalks

The site has no sidewalks connecting to a right-of-way as required by ADA. The existing on-site sidewalks appear to be in fair condition but areshowing signs of age. Access to the athletic fields should be provided to accommodate accessibility required by ADA.




SITE ANALYSIS (Continued)


Fire Access

The existing site layout does appear to meet current requirements for fire access. In addition, 60% of all new doors for the building addition arerequired to provide an accessible egress to the public way.

TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION

Site Topography

The site is very steep on the east side of the site and terraces have been created on the other portions of the site to make efficient use of thetopography. The site generally appears to be the local high point and appears to drain to the east and southwest. There appears to be no off-sitedrainage area that enters the site from the adjacent residences and roadways all around the site.

Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management

Any new construction that occurs will be required to meet the requirements established by the Stormwater Act of 2007. These guidelines establisha process by which new construction needs to utilize sustainable or environmental site design (ESD) to the maximum extent possible to satisfywater quality requirements. ESD’s include but are not limited to micro-bioretention, dry and/or wet swales, rain gardens, etc. Attempts should bemade to provide for impervious disconnects and to allow for adequate open space to construct multiple smaller facilities throughout the site tosatisfy these requirements. Based on our preliminary review of the soils information it appears that infiltration of stormwater should be achievableon site.

There are several existing stormwater management facilities on the north and east side of the site that appear to be infiltration facilities that providetreatment for overland water that flows from the existing north parking lot. The below grade condition of these facilities is unknown.

Feasibility Study




UTILITIES

Utilities

Generally, utilities (electric and telecommunications) are providedfrom Liberty Road. The site is currently serviced by two existingwells that provide water. The future development plans toconstruct a new water tower that will in effect allow for publicwater service from the off-site tank. There is a public sanitarysewer connection at the west side of the building that connects tosewer located in Liberty Road.

Site Soils

Per the Soil Survey of Frederick County Maryland, the soils onthe site are in the Catoctin-Spoolsville complex (CeB), Glenvillesilt loam (GoB), and Mt. Airy channery loam (MeC). However,most of the soils are Catoctin-Spoolsville, which according to theUSDA, the depth to bedrock is usually between 30” to 40”. Interms of hydrology, the on-site soil groups are of hydrologic soilgroup ‘B’. Hydrologic soil group ‘B’ has a moderate infiltrationrate; therefore future site expansions must take these factors intoaccount for the location of BMP facilities.

Soils Map





Hydric Soils:

Per the Frederick County Soil Map a portion of the site (areas in pink) contains hydric soils and as such construction of a building within this zone isNOT permitted. Further analysis will be required during the design phase to determine the exact extent of these soils.

Floodplains, Stream Valley Buffers and Non-Tidal Wetlands

Initial investigations reveal the northern portion of the site is located within a regulated floodway per FEMA. However, a majority of the site is locatedoutside of mapped floodplain in Zone “X” as shown per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 24021C0310D. Furthermore, according to theMaryland Department of Natural Resources there are no nationally recognized wetlands located on or around the site.

Feasibility Study




PLAY AREAS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS

The main outdoor play area is located to the west of the drop-off loop. It contains a rectangular asphalt play area that is approximately 60 feet by115 feet in size. Directly adjacent to the paved play area to the south and west is a soft surface mulched play area containing playgroundequipment. There is another small paved play area with some basketball hoops located to the east of the building, just north of the loading/parkingarea. The site contains two softball fields along its western boundary. Both fields have skinned infields. The one located directly north of the playareas is used by the school for physical education on a regular basis. The one located farther to the north near Daysville Road is used primarily bya community group, who performs most of the maintenance on the field. They have also placed two outbuildings on site near the field.

ADDITIONAL SITE FEATURES

There are two plaza areas that have been developed by the school. One is located to the northeast of thebus loop drive and the other just south of the bus loop, between the front sidewalk and main buildingentrance. There is also a memorial stone located to the east of the Liberty Road entrance.

Memorial Stone at Liberty Rd

Paver Plaza at Main Entry

View of east parking and paved play looking northView of west paved play looking south




3

3

K

K

2 2

1

1

55

4

4

YMC

A

MU

SIC

SPEC

.ED

.

ART

GYM

STAGE

The diagram below indicates the current use of each space within the school.

Liberty Elementary School – Existing Floor Plans

MEDIA

CO

MP

Feasibility Study


ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

GENERAL SPATIAL ANALYSIS

Liberty Elementary School is a multi-story building consisting of approximately 42,720 gross square feet. The main entrance to the school is locatedat the north side of the 1982 addition, which we will refer to as the first floor. This area is at the same elevation as and faces the bus loop off ofDaysville Road. The main entrance to the building is recessed back away from the bus loop curb and is not easily identifiable as an entry point fromthe road. The main office and administration area are not located along the exterior wall facing the bus loop. They are located just across the corridorfrom the main entrance doors and therefore do not have visual connection to the exterior or a vestibule for security or energy efficiency. Theadministration area includes a reception area, the health room, the Principal’s office, conference room, workroom, book storage, and staff restrooms.Multi-user boys and girls restrooms occupy the lower corner of the administration area and are accessed from the main corridor. Across the maincorridor to the east of the administration area, at the same floor elevation, there are six classrooms. These classrooms are organized into pairs, witheach pair having an operable wall between them.

Beyond those spaces, a ramped corridor provides access to the media center, media support areas, a second computer lab, and two additionalclassrooms on the first floor middle level. This pair of classrooms also has an operable wall separating them. From the middle level, the rampedcorridor continues upward, providing access to the upper level of the 1950 addition. This area is what we refer to as the upper level of the first floorand contains the gymnasium, stage, storage space, and three classrooms. One of these classrooms is currently being used as the Guidance office.

To the west of the main entrance are the computer lab and the 1967 addition. On the lower level of the 1967 addition, which aligns with the elevationof the main office, there is a music classroom, a second classroom which is currently used as a Headstart classroom by the YMCA, and the stafflounge. A staircase provides access to the second floor of the 1967 addition, which contains the art classroom, a second classroom currently used asa Special Education office and resource room, a speech room, a volunteer workroom, a storage room, and single-user restrooms. All four of theclassroom spaces at this area have single-user restrooms within the classrooms, however they are not accessible. A partial set of steps within thespeech classroom provides access to an exterior door leading to the roof.

The lower level of the 1950 addition, which is accessible only via stairway from the upper level, houses the cafeteria/kitchen, central plant, multi-usergirls and boys restrooms, the building services office, storage space, and two classrooms. There is an exit adjacent to the cafeteria that providesegress to the drop-off loop accessed via Route 26. The food service and building services loading areas are accessed via a driveway that branchesoff of the car rider pick-up loop and extends to the west of the building.




ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS (Continued)

BUILDING ENVELOPE

The existing building is mostly non-combustible construction. Thestructure is a mix of masonry bearing and steel frame with anexterior masonry façade. At the 1950 and 1967 portions, exteriorwalls are predominantly masonry construction using concretemasonry unit (CMU) back-up with brick veneer, but per therecord drawings from that construction, it appears that no airspace or cavity insulation is provided. Exterior walls of the 1982addition are mainly 6” metal studs with batt insulation and 4” facemasonry veneer. The majority of the veneer is red face brick. Theface brick at the 1967 addition has been painted, but theremainder is unfinished. The 1950 construction has limestonewindow sills and window surrounds. Limestone is also found atthe 1982 portion between groupings of windows and as accentelements at the corners of window assemblies. The masonry is infair condition, except at some areas, which require repair and/orrepointing. See the structural narrative for additional detailsregarding the exterior masonry.

The roof is an existing low-slope 4-ply built-up asphalt roofingsystem with white aggregate surfacing over rigid insulation. Theroof was replaced in 2014 and is in excellent condition. Primarydrainage is via roof drains and at areas with parapet walls,through-wall scuppers are provided for overflow drainage.Transition ladders are provided for travel between the variousroof elevations. Gravel stops, fascia, and trim are prefinishedmetal or stainless steel. The only areas of the roof that are not alow-slope built-up system are an area of prefinished standingseam metal roofing above the stair leading from the 1982addition to the second floor of the 1967 addition and an area ofasphalt shingles over the maintenance outdoor storage space.


View of roof access and roof transition ladder at 1967 addition

View of east side of 1967 and 1982 construction

View of asphalt shingle roof at maintenance outdoor storage

Feasibility Study




BUILDING ENVELOPE (Continued)Roof and floor framing members are steel joists. The 1950 building was constructed with gypsumplank roof decking, the 1967 portion with tectum deck, and the 1982 addition with steel decking. The1950 addition has an overall finished floor to floor height of 12’-0”. The 1967 addition has a finishedfloor to floor height of only 10’-8”. These floor to floor heights are considerably lower than what istypically used in new construction and may present challenges in terms of tying new two-storyadditions in at the same elevations as the existing structure while maintaining space for MEP systemsand providing adequate ceiling heights.

Exterior doors and frames are painted hollow metal, with the exception of one egress door from the1982 portion which has been replaced with an aluminum storefront door and frame. The hollow metaldoor and frame units are beginning to show their age and many of them do not have ADA complianthardware. Exterior windows are primarily clear finished aluminum, with single pane glazing and manyoperable units. Some of the windows have been removed, replaced, or modified since their originalinstallation as part of prior renovation/addition projects. Several areas of the window framing areinfilled with painted metal panels, some of which are beginning to show signs of deterioration. Some ofthese infill panels from the 1967 construction may also contain hazardous materials. The exteriorwindow assemblies are not thermally efficient and are in need of replacement. The exterior windowlintels are in poor condition and many will likely need replacement as part of any renovations to thefacility. This will also require replacement of portions of the exterior masonry above the lintels.Windows have either brick rowlock or limestone sills.

View of built-up roof area

Exterior painted hollow metal doors and framesExterior aluminum windows with painted infill panels

Exterior painted hollow metal doors and frames and aluminum windows




BUILDING INTERIOR

Interior wall construction and finish varies throughout the building. At the main entrance and atselect other areas within both the 1950 and 1967 additions there is exposed brick, someunpainted and some painted. Corridors in the 1950s construction have structural glazed facingtile up to about 7’-2” above finished floor with painted concrete masonry units (CMU) above.Corridors in the 1967 addition have structural glazed facing tile up to 4’-0” above finished floorwith painted CMU above. Corridors walls in the 1982 addition are painted CMU. Classroomwalls in the 1950 addition are predominantly painted CMU or painted gypsum board. Oneclassroom at the lower level of the 1950 addition has structural glazed tile on its exterior wall,unpainted brick on the wall shared with the mechanical room, and painted CMU on the other twowalls. Classroom walls in the 1967 addition are generally constructed of painted concretemasonry units. The classrooms constructed in 1982 have painted concrete masonry units alongthe wall facing the corridor and at walls dividing each pair of classrooms. Exterior walls arepainted gypsum board and operable partitions are used between pairs of rooms.


First floor corridor at 1982 construction

View of main entrance corridor from 1967 construction

Upper level first floor corridor at 1950 construction

First floor corridor at 1967 construction

Feasibility Study




BUILDING INTERIOR (Continued)

The cafeteria and gymnasium walls are both a mix of structural glazed facing tile and painted CMU.The structural glazed tile is exhibiting cracking in both spaces. The administration area and mediacenter have a combination of painted CMU and painted gypsum board walls. Multi-user restrooms andrestrooms at the administrative area have ceramic wall tile, while single-user classroom restroomshave structural glazed facing tile.

Corridors at the 1950 construction have terrazzo flooring with structural glazed facing tile wall base.Corridors at the 1967 area appear to have vinyl asbestos tile flooring with structural glazed facing tilewall base. Corridors at the 1982 area and the cafeteria have vinyl tile flooring with vinyl base. Thedrawings from that time indicate the tile as vinyl asbestos type, however asbestos was starting to bephased out at that time, so it is questionable whether these tiles contain asbestos or not. They appearmore like VCT, but testing should be conducted to verify the type of material used. Restrooms have 1”x 1” or 2” x 2” ceramic tile flooring with either ceramic tile or structural glazed facing tile wall base.

View of gymnasium structural glazed tile walls exhibiting cracking at the door jamb

Single-user classroom restroom with structural glazed walls and ceramic tile floor

Multi-user restroom with 4 1/4“ x 4 1/4“ ceramic wall tile and 2” x 2” ceramic floor tile

View of cafeteria structural glazed tile walls exhibiting cracking at the door jamb




BUILDING INTERIOR

The gymnasium has wood flooring with rubber base. The stage has wood flooring with painted woodbase. The majority of the media center, along with its support spaces, and the administrative suiteare carpeted except for the health room and workrooms, which have vinyl tile. Classrooms arepredominantly carpeted, except for some areas of vinyl tile adjacent to the classroom sinks. Thecomputer labs, art classroom and Headstart room are floored entirely with vinyl composition tile.Some of the storage closets have vinyl asbestos tile flooring. Vinyl wall base is used throughout themedia center, administrative, and classroom spaces.

Ceilings are generally 2’x4’ acoustical tile with recessed 2’x4’ fluorescent lighting fixtures. Someareas, like the 1967 classrooms and upper level corridor, the media center stack area, and selectedstorage closets, have surface mounted linear fluorescent lighting fixtures. The gymnasium and stagehave 12”x12” acoustical tiles glued to a fiberboard substrate supported by wood framing. Thegymnasium has recessed fluorescent lighting while the stage has suspended pendant fixtures. Multi-user restrooms have painted gypsum board ceilings with recessed fluorescent lighting. Mechanicalrooms and some storage closets have exposed structure ceilings.


View of media center computer lab

View of stage

View of media center classroom and stack areaView of cafeteria

Feasibility Study




BUILDING INTERIOR (Continued)

Interior doors are generally wood in painted hollow metal frames. Restroom toilet partitions are eitherbaked enamel or laminate. Steel lockers are built-in to the corridor wall at the upper level of the 1950addition. Most classrooms have casework with laminate clad countertops and a sink. With theexception of the classrooms at the upper level of the 1950 addition, there are wooden cubbies withinthe classrooms. The majority of the casework is in fair condition.

All classroom spaces have windows to the exterior that provide daylight and views. The majority ofother regularly occupied spaces have views and daylight as well, except for a few offices or supportspaces within the media center and administrative area.

Nearly all of the existing fixtures, built-in casework, and finishes are starting to show their age andreplacement of all existing items should be considered when defining the scope of work for anyrenovation options.

View of art classroom

Typical room identification signage on door frame

Typical 1982 classroom teaching wall Upper level 1950 classroom

Lower level 1950 classroom

Typical 1982 classroom




BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS

Building code requirements have changed significantly since the last addition was constructed,however it is anticipated that the building construction would be considered type IIB. Use GroupClassification is Type “E”, Educational. The building is not currently sprinklered, except for a limitedarea system that exists in the water service/outdoor storage room at the lower level of the 1950construction. Without a sprinkler system, buildings of this type are limited to 14,500 GSF per floor.This could be increased by up to 10,875 GSF if 100% frontage access is maintained, which wouldallow for a total area per floor of 25,375 GSF. The existing building appears to exceed this size. It isrecommended that a sprinkler system be installed throughout any portions of the existing building thatare to remain.

It appears given the current codes that the maximum allowable area per floor for this use would beapproximately 50,750 using area increases for a sprinkler system and 75% frontage access. Theactual frontage increase will be dependent upon the final building configuration. Depending upon thesize and location of the proposed additions, they may require a two hour fire wall separation from theexisting structure. Building height regulations for this type of building allow for a three story structureup to 75 feet tall with a sprinkler system. The zoning requirement is more stringent than this, so it willgovern and limit the allowable height to 30 feet.

Existence of existing fire rated assemblies will need to be reviewed and verified if portions of theexisting structure are to remain. For instance, stairtowers are typically required to carry at least a one-hour fire rating per current codes but the existing stairtowers may not comply with current fire ratingrequirements. Stairway widths and door widths and heights will also need to be reviewed. Some of thedoors in the 1967 wing are only 6’-6” tall, which is lower than the current 6’-8” height requirement.Selected non-compliant existing conditions may be permitted to remain per the International ExistingBuildings Code at the discretion of the codes official, provided that they do not constitute a life safetyhazard. Items would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as part of any renovation plans.

There are some existing hazardous materials that were visible during the walk-through. Due to the ageof the facility, it is likely that additional hazardous materials may be present. It should be noted thatthese materials are hazardous only when they are disturbed, therefore they are not required to beabated until there are plans to remove them or to renovate the facility. A hazardous materials surveyshould be undertaken in order to define the full scope of abatement work that will be required. Restrooms are not accessible

Stair may not comply with required fire rating due to large glazing panels

Feasibility Study



BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS (Continued)

SUMMARY OF ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE

Generally, the school needs major renovations to be brought up to current code requirements for ADA compliance. It has been noted by FCPS thatthis school is identified in the system with limited accessibility and students in the feeder with physical challenges are most likely assigned to anothermore compliant learning facility.

There are a number of ADA Compliance issues that should be addressed as part of the scope of work. The Accessibility Survey conducted by Proffitt& Associates Architects in 2014 details the non-compliant elements. A partial list is as follows: There is no elevator or other type of accessible route provided for access between the three floors. Currently, there is no accessible routes

connecting the lower level of the 1950 addition, which includes the cafeteria, and the upper level of the 1967 addition, which includes the Artclassroom.

Handrails at the stairs and at the ramp connecting the lower portion of the 1982 addition with the gymnasium are not compliant. There are protruding objects in circulation paths. Several door widths are not compliant, including existing double doors leading to the gymnasium and cafeteria from the corridor. Door hardware on original building doors is non-compliant (knob-style hardware is used). Restrooms are not ADA compliant. Door thresholds at many restrooms are not compliant. Many restrooms lack turning space and required

clearances. Compliant grab bars are not typically provided. Plumbing fixtures such as classroom sinks and drinking fountains are not accessible.

1982 corridor ramp handrails require upgrades

1950 stairway handrails require upgrades

Nearly all of the existing door hardware is non-ADA compliant

Some interior door widths are too narrow


FOOD SERVICE ANALYSIS

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Liberty Elementary School kitchen contains approximately 1,000 square feet and operatesas a full service prep/production facility equipped to produce and serve meals to thestudents and staff. Much of the equipment, is old, outdated, inefficient, non-compliant withcurrent codes and has reached the end of its useful life.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

FINISHES

FloorsKitchen and serving areas are thick-set quarry tile with coved base. Although old, most tilesappear in sound condition. Due to smooth surface, tiles are very slippery when wet or ladenwith grease.

WallsGlazed tile up to finished ceiling appear in good shape. The yellowish color has an“institutional” feel.



CeilingsScrubbable ceiling tiles are present throughout the kitchen, drystorage, and serving area.

LightingTwin bulb lay-in fluorescent light fixtures are installed. Light levelsthroughout space need to be improved in order to comply withcurrent code standards.

Feasibility Study


FOOD SERVICE ANALYSIS (Continued)

AREAS

ReceivingDouble doors with a mullion lead to the exterior loading area. There is not a loading dock, the doors exit to grade at the existing paving. Due to the mullion and 2’-8” width of each leaf, the doors are not wide enough to accept palletized merchandise for deliveries. The floor slopes down from the doors toward the main kitchen area.

Dry StorageThere are two dry storage rooms. Product is stored on shelving on a single wall in each room. Both rooms have limited storage. Walls are painted block and flooring is vinyl tile. Lighting levels are lower than desired. The spaces are packed full, indicating that additional storage space is required.




AREAS

Walk-in Cooler & Freezer Storage

Units are original to the building, are in poor working condition and are in constant needof repair. They are undersized for the number of students and are filled, indicating theneed for larger units. Flooring and walls are galvanized steel which creates additionalmaintenance problems. According to staff, there are problems with drain lines freezing.



Feasibility Study



AREAS

Reach-In Coolers

There is a single two compartment refrigerator on the serving line that appears to be an oldermodel and is at the end of its life cycle.

Kitchen

Amount of equipment is based on the current number of students in the school. Additionalcooking equipment will be needed to properly prepare current menu items for the number of newstudents that are expected in the future. The space is overcrowded with little food prep area.




AREAS

ServingThe serving area consists of a single straight line “institutional looking” cafeteriacounters with provisions for hot and cold items which are in fairly good workingorder. The serving line is original to the building and is stainless steel. There isa reach-in refrigerator in fair condition and a half size heated cabinet. The areais uninviting and plain, which doesn’t help to enhance the dining experience.

DishwashingThe machine is in a constant state of repair. There is a booster heater and vents to remove condensate.

Janitor ClosetThere is insufficient space to adequately store cleaning supplies.



Feasibility Study



EQUIPMENT

Exhaust Hood

Hood is made of stainless steel with baffle- type filters. It is in fair/goodworking condition.

Fire Protection System

There is an existing system, but it needs to be upgraded to meet currentcodes.

Current Cooking Equipment

1.) (1) 30-Gallon Tilting Skillet2.) (1) Single-Deck Convection Oven3.) (1) Steamer single stack

Serving Counters

Serving counters are original to the building. They have stainless topsand include four hot food wells and a cold food display that is notrefrigerated. The counters are institutional looking. There is not a milkcooler on the line. Tray slides are tubular with plexiglass covering thetubing.




EQUIPMENT

Worktables, Prep Sinks, Pot Sinks, Hand Sinks

Original to building. Pot sink is in good condition. Worktables arerepurposed counters. In order to meet current health codes, inclusion ofa prep sink will be required. The number of hand sinks is sufficient.



Feasibility Study



CONCLUSION

The kitchen is old, out of date, and poorly ventilated, which creates a less than optimal working environment. The majority of the equipment hasreached its useful life and would need to be brought up to current health codes in a renovation. It is recommended that all outdated, inefficientequipment be replaced with new energy saving appliances according to FCPS’ current menu. Student participation could be increased with a moreinviting dining experience. Bright, colorful, attractive finishes should be selected to promote a friendly and inviting atmosphere. Lighting andventilation should be improved throughout the space. The total square footage of the existing foodservice area(s) is under the current Staterecommendations. The current size of the spaces is functional but with the anticipated increase in the number of students in the school from 264 toapproximately 705, the kitchen will need to be increased in size.




STRUCTURAL ANALYSISExisting Building Narrative

The original Liberty school building was built around 1927 with additions to the existing building in 1950 and 1967. The 1950 addition was added to thesouth side of the existing building. The 1967 addition was added to the north side of the existing building. In the 1982 addition, the original section ofthe building from 1927 was demolished except for the end walls which served as the exterior walls for the 1950 and 1967 additions.

The 1950 addition consists of classrooms, kitchen, cafeteria, and multipurpose room used for an auditorium and gymnasium. The structure consists ofexterior masonry bearing walls supported on spread concrete footings. The walls consist of brick veneer and cinder block walls. The wall openingsare framed with steel angles supporting the brick veneer and either steel angles at the roof and concrete beam and the second floor supporting thecinder block. There are steel columns between the closely spaced windows supporting either the continuous concrete lintel at floor or steel lintels atthe roof. The roof is framed with steel joists supported on interior steel girders and at the exterior on a combination of bearing walls and steel columnswith steel framing over the openings. The roof sheathing is 2” gypsum plank. The floor structure is a concrete one-way slab and beam framingsupported on interior concrete columns and exterior on masonry bearing walls.

The 1967 addition consists of classrooms and support areas. The addition was built on the north side of the existing school. The addition used thenorth wall of the existing school as the south wall for the adjacent rooms of the addition. The structure consists interior and exterior masonry bearingwalls with columns and beams at the large window openings in the east and west façade. The roof structure consists of steel bar joists supporting 3”thick insulating panels (tectum). The floor structure consists of steel bar joists supporting a 2-1/2” thick concrete slab on metal form deck. The lintelsover interior and exterior openings are either steel beams or angles depending on the span.

The 1982 addition consists of classrooms, media center, and administration areas. The addition was constructed as a steel framed structure with steeljoists spanning between steel beams supported on steel columns located within the exterior wall. The foundations for the columns and exterior wallsare spread column footings and continuous wall footings. The roof is sheathed with metal roof deck and the structure is sloped to drain. The exteriorwalls are brick veneer with 6” cold formed metal studs back up spanning from the slab on grade to under side of the perimeter steel beams. At largeexterior openings of the classrooms, the brick veneer is hung from the perimeter steel beams over the openings. The interior architectural partitionsare constructed of CMU block. The existing roof structure was designed to support two light roof top units of 600 and 1,800 pounds. There arecurrently roof top units located in these areas.


Feasibility Study


STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (Continued)Existing Building Narrative (continued)

In reviewing the existing school, the following items were found:

1950 ADDITION:

The existing exterior steel angle lintel over the window openings were showing signs of rusting. If the lintels continue to rust the steel will start toexpand and will cause cracking of the brick veneer. All of the exterior lintels in current building are showing signs of rust. These lintels at a minimumshould be cleaned and painted to prevent future corrosion of the steel. ADTEK believes this could be a continuous maintenance issue. If sections ofthe existing building were to be used in the renovation of the school, ADTEK would recommend these lintels will removed and replaced withgalvanized steel angles that can be painted. See Photo 1.


Photo 1: Corroded Steel Lintels over Exterior Wall Openings 1950 Addition





The exterior brick veneer needs to be replaced in several areas where the basketball goals were bolted through the exterior wall. At these locations,some of the exterior brick has spalled off. The brick at these locations needs to be replaced. See Photos 2 and 3.

The gym/auditorium walls have several locations that have cracked. On the east wall, there were some vertical stepped cracks that seem reflectiveof temperature and shrinkage cracks. See Photos 4 and 5.

Photo 2: Exterior East Wall, Damaged Brick Veneer at Basketball

Goals, 1950 Addition

Photo 3: Exterior East Wall, Damaged Brick Veneer at Basketball

Goals, 1950 Addition

Photo 4: Interior East Wall, Vertical Stepped Wall Cracks,

1950 Addition

Photo 5: Interior East Wall, Vertical Stepped Wall

Cracks, 1950 Addition

Feasibility Study



On the west wall, there were some cracks at the side of one of the openings. This cracking is only visible in the 2” glazed block veneer. See Photo 6.

There is no apparent settlement of the lintel over the opening. There also were cracks adjacent to the door opening below into to the cafeteria. SeePhoto 7. These cracks were also only visible in the 2” glazed block and did not show up on the cinder block on the other side of the wall.

Finally, on the around one of the northern entrances on the gym side there were cracks around the door in the 2” glazed block. See Photo 8. Thecracks are not visible on the other side of the wall.


Photo 6: Crack at the Door Opening to Stairs of Auditorium/Gym on West Wall,

1950 Addition

Photo 7: Crack at the Door Opening to Stairs of Cafeteria on

West Wall,1950 Addition

Photo 8: Crack at the Door Opening onNorth Wall,

1950 Addition





1967 ADDITION:

The exterior steel brick lintels and hung plates in this addition were also corroded and warped at the center section of the hung plate leaving a spacebetween the bottom of the block and top of lintel. See Photo 9.

The exterior brick lintel has corroded enough to start cracking the exterior brick veneer. See Photos 10 and 11.

Lintels need to be cleaned and re-painted or replaced and brick re-pointed. Repointing required at the existing 1927 school wall that had a newveneer added to the wall. See Photo 12.

Photo 9: Corroded and warped

Steel Hung Plate Lintel Beam,1967 Addition

Photo 10: Cracked Brick at the Edge of an Opening due to Corrosion of Lintel Steel.

1967 Addition

Photo 11: Cracked Brick at the Edge of an Opening due to Corrosion of Lintel Steel.

1967 Addition

Photo 12: Re-pointing at Existing 1927 Wall with veneer added in 1982

Renovation, 1967 Addition

Feasibility Study



1967 ADDITION:

Interior hung plates over opening have warped causing cracks in CMU over openings. See Photo 13.

Connection of 1967 Addition to existing 1927 wall appears to need more investigation to ensure the wall is adequately connected. In our walk thruonly a couple minor connections were observed connecting the wall. If this wall is to remain, the connection of the wall should be furtherinvestigated and reinforced if required. Also, the form deck at the floor is rusted. This does not appear to be a major issue since it is only form deckand the concrete slab should have the required reinforcing to support the floor loads without the form deck. Typically, form deck in the 1960’s wasnot galvanized and probably rusted during construction. See Photo 14.


Photo 13: Cracked CMU on Warped Hung Plate over Large Class Room Opening. 1967 Addition

Photo 14: Connection of 1967 addition to existing 1927 wall with rusting form deck.

1967 Addition




1982 ADDITION:

This addition also had corroded and warped hung lintels over the large classroom openings typical throughout this addition. See Photos 15,16 and17. ADTEK would recommend these hung angles be cleaned and re-painted at minimum however, this would probably result in a maintenance issueover the life of the building. For a more permanent fix ADTEK would recommend this corroded and warped hung lintel plates be replaced withgalvanized hung plates.

.


Photo 15: Corroded and Warped Steel Hung Lintel over Classroom

Windows. 1982 Addition

Photo 16: Corroded and Warped Steel Hung Lintel over

Classroom Windows. 1982 Addition

Photo 17: Corroded and Warped Steel Hung Lintel over Classroom Windows.

1982 Addition

Feasibility Study




Representation

ADTEK Engineers, Inc. has observed the structure described in this report in accordance with our understanding as to the nature and scope of theassignment. Our examination was made within the time limitations imposed following the generally accepted visual inspection standards; ourexamination did not include the testing of physical conditions that may be referred to in this report.

This report is intended to fairly present ADTEK Engineers, Inc.’s professional opinion of the condition of the area and component parts to whichreference is made in the report, as of the date of the site observation, based on ADTEK’s physical inspection and the informationprovided/available to us as to the age and the material that was apparently used, subject to qualifications expressed in this report. Unless otherwisestated, ADTEK has reported on only those items that we were able to visually inspect. It was not possible, nor was it feasible to remove majorportions of the existing finish construction in order to expose concealed, and thus not apparent conditions for an internal detailed inspection.

.



MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The existing HVAC system is old with most of the equipment beyond its anticipated life expectancy. Interior environmental conditions related to theHVAC system equipment, operation and system type are not satisfactory. Both temperature and humidity are issues associated with the lack ofcomfort within the building. The office administrative area is served by a relatively new rooftop unit and comfort seems to be satisfactory.

The building is served by a 4-pipe central plant consisting of an air cooled chiller used to generate chilled water for cooling and two (2) cast ironboilers used to generate hot water for heating. A chilled water pump and stand by, as manufactured by Taco, transports chilled water through thebuilding via a chilled water piping distribution and similarly an independent heating water pump and standby, as manufactured by Bell and Gossett,transports hot water through the building via a heating water piping distribution system.

Classrooms are heated, cooled and ventilated by classroom unit ventilators which have cooling and heating coils served by the chilled water andheating water piping and distribution systems. Outside air louvres have been partially covered to minimize nuisance freeze stat tripping and toreduce injecting humid outdoor air. Space thermostats signal chilled water coil and/or heating water coil control valves to modulate to maintainspace temperature. There is no humidity control associated with these units. A classroom unit ventilator is essentially a small air handling unitspecifically manufactured for classrooms. The unit ventilator also introduces outside air needed for code required ventilation as well as free cooling.Since these units are constant air volume, the temperature of the air supplied to the space must vary to maintain space thermostat setpoints. Whenoperating at less than full cooling capacity, space relative humidity levels can elevate to the point where water forms on surfaces such as walls,floors and ceilings.

The Media Center is served by a split air handling unit located above the ceiling with the associated air cooled condensing unit located on the roofabove. This equipment is at the end of its useful life.

The Gym is both heated and cooled with self-contained units manufactured by Bard, most commonly used for portable classrooms. Separateheating and ventilating units also serve the space during the heating season.


Feasibility Study



MECHANICAL SYSTEMS (Continued)

EXISTING CONDITIONS (Continued)

All automatic temperature controls are local pneumatic actuation with some EMS overlay for remote monitoring and control. .

The existing air cooled chiller was manufactured by Trane, is approximately 100 tons in cooling capacity and utilizes refrigerant R-22 which is nolonger used in new equipment. The chiller is grossly undersized for the building which can contribute to higher than desired chilled water supplytemperature to the unit vents which in turn supply higher temperature air to the space while reducing the capability of the unit to providedehumidification.

The boilers and hot water plant are in fair condition, propane fired and are beyond their anticipated life expectancy. They seem to have sufficientcapacity however are much less efficient than current condensing type boilers which utilize propane or natural gas as their energy source. Theboilers are located in the back of the mechanical equipment room, behind the potable water storage tank and would have to be deconstructed forremoval.

The unit ventilators are the main source of both temperature and humidity problems within the building compounded by both lack of chiller capacityand failing/failed pneumatic controls, which are continuously being serviced. A valved controlled unit ventilator versus the recommended face andbypass damper controlled unit also contributes to humidity issues. The unit ventilators are beyond their useful life and typically are not used todaydue to the significant negative effects (noise, air distribution, humidity issues, energy usage, etc.) they have when located in a learning environment.

Plumbing

Domestic Water: The building is served by two (2) private water wells. Water is stored in a large tank located in the existing boiler room. Theexisting water distribution system is old and the materials do not comply with current State of Maryland lead free laws. Domestic hot water isgenerated by a propane fired hot water heater, as manufactured by RUUD.

Fire Protection: the building is not protected by a sprinkler system. Only a storage room adjacent to the boiler room has sprinkler heads and isserved by the domestic water system.




MECHANICAL SYSTEMS (Continued)


Plumbing

Propane: An underground propane tank serves the boilers, domestic hot water heater, and kitchen.

Sanitary: The building is connected to a municipal sanitary system. The condition of the existing piping system is unknown.

Storm Water: An interior roof drainage system serves the building. The condition of the existing piping system is unknown.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

Electrical

Service: Electrical service for the building is 208/120V, 3 phase, 4 wire from a 300kVA exterior utility pad-mounted transformer located outside thesoutheast part of the building. Service to the transformer is provided by a power pole on Liberty Rd.

In the main electrical room there is a Square D 208/120V, 3 phase, 4 wire, 1600A rated switchboard feeding 208/120V panels throughout the buildingalong with two single-phase step-up transformers feeding single-phase 120/240V panelboards located around the building feeding lighting andreceptacle loads. There was only one means of egress located adjacent to the switchboard.

Panelboards throughout the building vary by manufacturer between Square D and Cutler Hammer. Panelboards varied from fair to poor condition andseemed to be original to the respective sections of building. The amount of free spaces on panelboards throughout the building also varied.

Emergency Power: A 55kW Onan propane generator located in the main electrical room provides emergency power to the building. A 225A Onantransfer switch and 120/208V emergency panelboard are also located in this area.

Lighting: Lighting in classrooms, offices, and corridors varied throughout the building with a mixture of recessed 2’x4’ troffers, surface mounted 2’x4’s,and 1’x4’s. Square high bay fixtures were used in the gym and industrial strip fixtures were used in mechanical, electrical, and exterior storage areas.Most of the fixtures are in fair condition and appear to contain fluorescent lamps.

Feasibility Study



ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS (Continued)


Electrical

Lighting control throughout the building is manual only with toggle switches being used in classrooms, offices, and corridors. No automatic lightingcontrols were observed.

Building mounted high pressure sodium wall packs are located around the exterior perimeter for area lighting including near doors for egress lightingalong with single and dual-head poles for lighting around driveways.

Telecommunications: The Main Frame Distribution (MDF) room is located in the Media Center area with Category 5, 5e, and Category 6 cablingfrom data outlets throughout the building. Wireless access points mounted in ceilings throughout the building are also routed back to this data rack.The public address (PA) system is a Rauland Telecenter headend and is located in the main office. PA speakers were located throughout thebuilding including classrooms, corridors, and gathering spaces. Projectors, varying between wall mounted short-throw and ceiling mounted aretypical in classrooms with wireless access points also observed in certain classrooms. F connector drops for television were located throughout thebuilding but are not in use.

Security: Exterior security cameras were observed providing partial coverage around the building specifically at certain entrances and on the side ofthe building facing the portables. Motion detectors are located throughout the corridors and in classrooms. Card readers are located on certainexterior doors with an intercom also provided at the main entrance for two-way communication to the main office. An Ademco disarming keypad islocated in the main electrical room and security panels are also located in the MDF room.

Fire Alarm: There is a Fire Watch 411UDAC Fire Alarm Communicator located in the main electrical room and an Edwards EST2 radiocommunicator located in the main lobby area. The system consists of manual pull stations at exits and horns/strobes throughout the building withthe Fire Alarm Annunciator Panel (FAAP) located in the main lobby.

Feasibility Study


Energy Use and Sustainability

Options for Relocation of Students During Construction

Design and Construction Recommendations

Compliance with Environmental Regulations

Local Planning Initiatives

Historical Significance of Existing Buildings

Proposed Project Schedule

SECTION 5:PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS


SECTION 5 | PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS


ENERGY USE AND SUSTAINABILITY

The building will be designed to achieve Silver level certification under the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) for Schools Rating system. Due to the fairly rural nature of this site, it will not qualify for many of the Location and TransportationLEED credits. Other areas of design that will be addressed per LEED are sustainable site development; including stormwater management,reductions to impervious areas, reducing light pollution and heat island effect. Water use reduction and energy efficiency are critical not only from anenvironmental perspective, but also from a long-term maintenance cost perspective. Additional sustainable design features will include selection ofenvironmentally preferable and low-emitting materials, provision of daylight and views, controllability of HVAC and lighting systems, and acousticalperformance. These items are not only good sustainable practices, but also help to enhance occupant comfort and make the learning environmentmore effective for students and staff.

In addition to LEED, the building will also need to comply with the current version of the International Energy Conservation Code. Many of theserequirements overlap with the LEED requirements for energy and water efficiency. Building energy modeling will be required in order to verify andquantify energy savings. Renovation/addition options are approached slightly differently than new construction both from a LEED and Codeperspective, however due to the fact that the entire existing building to remain will be modernized, all new components will be required to comply withcurrent codes.

OPTIONS FOR STUDENT RELOCATION DURING CONSTRUCTION

For Options 1, 2, and 3A, the existing building will remain occupied during construction. The existing relocatable classrooms will need to be relocatedprior to construction of the building for Options 3A and 3B. In Options 1 and 2, the existing relocatable classrooms will need to be relocated prior tobeginning the sitework at the west side of the building. Options 1 and 2 are phased construction and assume that the portions of the additionshousing the gymnasium, cafeteria, and several classrooms can be completed first. This allows students to be moved out of the existing gymnasiumand cafeteria areas and out of some classrooms to either demolish those areas (Option 1) or renovate those areas (Option 2). Ideally, enough newclassrooms would be available that students can move into new spaces to allow the remainder of the existing classrooms to be renovated, howeverthat approach will depend on the capacity of the school at the time that the project starts. To be conservative, we are budgeting to have up to 3relocatable classrooms added to the site which could be used for temporary classroom space.

In Option 3A, the entire new building would be constructed while the entire existing building remains operational. In Option 3B, the existing buildingmust be demolished prior to constructing the new building. Either temporary facilities would be required to be located on-site to house the entirestudent population, or students would need to be moved to a temporary location off-site for the duration of construction. Generally, for all optionssitework will be scheduled to occur over the summer when possible to minimize disruption to operations. Phases would be timed to start and endover the summer so that there is time to relocate staff and students during summer break.

Feasibility Study


DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

All options contain the following common elements (these elements are assumptions for the concept estimates but the ultimate design may vary):

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITIONS/NEW FACILITIES

All additions will be reinforced slab on grade construction. The foundation system is anticipated to consist of continuous strip footings at theexterior walls with spread footings and concrete piers as required at column locations. The structures will be steel frame construction. SecondFloor levels will be composite concrete on steel deck and steel beams.

The new construction will receive steel joist roofing systems sloped at 1/4” minimum per foot, topped with metal deck, rigid insulation, and built-up asphalt roofing. Exterior walls will be masonry cavity type constructed of 8” CMU backup, 4” air space with 2 1/2” rigid insulation, and 4”face masonry veneer.

Exterior veneer materials will complement the existing materials, including use of two colors of face brick with some decorative accents. Caststone sills will likely be used for windows in lieu of special shaped soldier course brick as at the existing structure due to long term maintenanceconcerns.

Thermally broken aluminum windows with 1” insulated glazing will be used to provide an abundance of natural daylight, and most units will beoperable to allow for natural ventilation. Exterior doors and frames will be thermally broken aluminum at all public and student-use areas andpainted insulated hollow metal at storage and service areas.

New interior walls will primarily consist of 8” concrete masonry units, painted with low-VOC coatings. Some walls in administrative areas orlow-abuse areas may be constructed of light gauge metal studs with impact-resistant drywall. New restrooms will receive ceramic tile on thewet walls.

New flooring will consist of vinyl composition tile at corridors. Entry vestibules will receive walk-off mats. Corridors and vestibules will receive a4” to 6” high tile wall base. The classrooms will receive vinyl composition tile flooring and rubber wall base. New restrooms will have ceramictile flooring and base.

Ceilings throughout will primarily be 2’x4’ standard acoustical tile in prefinished steel grid, with some painted gypsum board bulkheads.

New interior doors will be prefinished solid flush wood in painted hollow metal frames. All classroom doors shall have narrow vision lightssidelights to allow for increased supervision and visibility between the corridors and classrooms.

All newly constructed and renovated areas of the facility will be ADA accessible.




DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

SITE DESIGN The entire site area will be reworked to improve site circulation, although the existing entrance along Daysville Road stays in the same location

in all options due to a requirement from State Highway to maintain alignment with the new access road that will be constructed for the single-family homes across the street.

Parking will be expanded to accommodate at least 150 cars.

Separate entrances are provided for the bus loop and the parent drop-off loop.

Reforestation will be required, and will most likely be handled by paying a fee-in-lieu.

Stormwater management will be required to meet Environmental Site Design regulations, which will include strategies such as bioretention andinfiltration.

Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be required at all new and existing site access points.

COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

The proposed improvements do not appear to be located within a designated wetland, navigable waterway and are outside the 100-year floodplainboundary area (as defined by FEMA). Compliance with The Maryland Department of the Environment’s Wetlands and Waterways Program is notrequired. Site disturbance greater than 40,000 square feet is subject to the Maryland Forest Conservation Act and will require a Forest StandDelineation and a Forest Conservation Plan. Submission requirements are referenced in The State of Maryland State Forest Conservation TechnicalManual (Third Edition, 1997). An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan designed in accordance with the Code of Maryland Regulations, the 2011Maryland Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, and the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 must be submitted tothe Frederick County, approved and implemented in advance of any site disturbance. Prior to any demolition work, the existing buildings should beassessed and abated of all ACM and lead paint hazards. Abatement requirements and approval are handled through the Maryland Department of theEnvironment (MDE).


Feasibility Study


LOCAL PLANNING INITIATIVES

The school site is not identified as a resource site in the June 2017 Frederick County Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan(https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/296485/Frederick-Co-LPPRP_Map_June-2017?bidId=). Additionally, per the April 2010Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County Maryland (https://frederickcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/260739/CompPlan_34x44?bidId=), thesite is not located within an Agricultural and Rural Community or Green Infrastructure boundary area.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS

A review of the Maryland Historical Trust, National Register of Historic Places and the Frederick County Register of Historic Places databasesindicates that the site is not located within any historic districts or preservation easements and the buildings are not individually listed on the nationalregister.

PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE

This project is currently in the out-years of the FCPS Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and FCPS will request local planning approval by theInteragency Committee on School Construction in the future. Per the current CIP, design of this project will begin during the summer of 2022 uponaward of the design contract and continue through summer 2024.

Depending upon the option selected, construction duration could range from 18 to 36 months. The building construction itself should not take longerthan 24 months, but then there will be sitework to finish which could take another 6 to 12 months. Assuming that funding is available in Fiscal Years2024 and 2025, we anticipate construction to begin in summer 2024 with a fall 2026 building opening date. All sitework would be completed no laterthan fall 2027.


Feasibility Study


Option 1 | Modernization and Additions

Option 2 | Modernization and Additions

Option 3A | Replacement School On-Site

Option 3B | Replacement School On-Site

SECTION 6:CONCEPT OPTIONS


SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS

OPTION 1 | MODERNIZATION AND ADDITIONS | DESCRIPTIONOption 1 includes a complete renovation of the existing facility to remain, demolition of over half of the existing building, and construction of additionalspace to meet the Ed. Spec. requirements. The goal in developing this layout was to add onto an existing circulation path and retain daylight to allclassrooms.

In this option the main entry is relocated closer to Route 26 and portions of the 1967 and 1982 building are retained and renovated to includeclassroom and support spaces. The entire 1950s addition, including the existing gymnasium, cafeteria, classrooms, and mechanical room areproposed to be demolished. In addition, a portion of the 1982 construction including the media center and two classrooms directly across from themedia center that are at the higher floor elevation will also be demolished. This will simplify the number of different floor levels in the renovated andexpanded building. An addition to the south of the remaining spaces includes the new entry, media center, kindergarten classrooms, art classroomsand support spaces. An addition to the north includes a public entrance, Gymnasium, Cafeteria, Food services, building services, music classroomsand a classroom cluster. An enclosed courtyard is included to retain daylight to the classrooms kept within the existing building. A second floorserving third, fourth, and fifth grades would be included over the back/eastern side of both additions and would connect to the existing building’supper level classrooms. The car rider drop off loop and main parking would be accessed from Route 26, with a second connection over to DaysvilleRoad along the western property line. The bus loop, additional parking and loading/building services would be accessed from Daysville Road. Thedriveway entrance on Route 26 is relocated to the crest of the hill for better visibility.

In this option, construction phasing is proposed as follows: Phase 1 - Existing building and driveways would remain in use. Construction of new bus loop from Daysville Road. Phase 2 - New bus loop from Daysville Road completed and in use. Existing building and Route 26 driveway would remain in use Demolish

portion of existing Daysville driveway and existing bus loop/parking. Construction of north addition, soft and paved play areas, and buildingservices driveway.

Phase 3 - North addition, play areas, and building services driveway are completed and ready to use. Existing Route 26 driveway would remain inuse. All of existing 1960s building and north portion of existing 1980s building retained and in use. Demolish south portion of 1980s building(Media Center plus two classrooms) and entirety of 1950s building.

Phase 4 - Demolish Route 26 driveway. Construction of south addition, pre-k play area, and car/parking loop from Route 26. Renovation of 1960sbuilding and 1980s portion.

Final - South addition, pre-k play and car/parking loop from Route 26 are all complete and ready for use.

Estimated construction costs: $33,664,649 (costs do not include construction management fees or construction contingency)

Estimated construction duration: 20-24 months (plus an additional 6-12 months to complete sitework)


Feasibility Study

SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 1 SITE PLAN


150 Parking Spaces8 Buses Stacked

EXISTING SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

MAIN ENTRY

LOADING/SERVICE

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY


SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 1 FLOOR PLAN


M A I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N

U P P E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N

CAFETERIAGYMNASIUM

KITCHEN

BUILDING SERVICES

CLASSROOM

ART

COURTYARD

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOMCLASS

ROOMCLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

MUSIC

ADMIN. SUITE

MEDIA CENTER

SUPPORTSUPPORT

SUPP

OR

T

SUPP

OR

T

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPP

OR

T

SUPP

OR

T

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

MAIN ENTRY

CLASSROOM

BUILDING SERVICES

Feasibility Study



OPTION 1 | MODERNIZATION AND ADDITIONS | ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES Saving portion of existing building. Classroom layouts cluster well for grade level grouping. Simplified floor elevations compared to Option 2 – only one level at first floor, two levels for second floor. Additions envelop the existing building – will allow for a new unified façade design, visible from both roads. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading. Increased car queuing space. Two access routes for parents

DISADVANTAGES Two access routes could be used as a pass thru for non-school vehicles and gates may be required. Car queuing may block staff parking. Keeping existing 1960s two-story addition and tying the new two-story structures into it may create a hardship in terms of ceiling height. Ramping

will be required along the second-floor corridor in order to provide greater floor-to-floor height at the addition than in the existing building. Green space is far from the school and is awkward to have to access via narrow space between bus loop and drop-off loop. The Media Center and many support spaces do not have access to views to the exterior. Daylight could still be incorporated via clerestory

windows however. Courtyard is a challenge to maintain. Least amount of play area and green space in this option. The paved play space is similar in size to current paved play area. Not ideal with a

larger population. Fencing need at soft and paved play areas to separate from loading/service driveway.



OPTION 2 | MODERNIZATION AND ADDITIONS | DESCRIPTIONOption 2 includes a complete renovation of the existing facility to remain, demolition of a limited portion of the existing building, and construction ofadditional space to meet the Ed. Spec. requirements. The goal in developing this layout was to add onto an existing circulation path and retain the1950s portion of the existing building, including the existing cafeteria and gymnasium.

In this option the main entry is relocated closer to Route 26 in the lower level of the existing 1950s cafeteria. The remainder of the lower level 1950sportion is renovated to include an administration suite relocated to the existing cafeteria, classrooms and support spaces. The upper level of the1950s portion is renovated to relocate the media center into the existing gym and include classroom and support spaces. The 1980s portion buildingare retained and renovated to include classroom and support spaces. The existing media center is renovated for new art classroom spaces. Theentire two-story 1960s classroom addition is proposed to be demolished. A proposed addition to the east of the remaining spaces (close to where theoriginal 1920s building was located) includes new kindergarten classrooms and support spaces on the lower level and new classrooms and supportspaces on the upper level. An addition to the north includes a public entrance, Gymnasium, Cafeteria, Food services, building services, and music.An enclosed courtyard is included to retain daylight to most of the classrooms kept within the existing building. Car rider drop off loop and mainparking would be accessed from Route 26, with a second connection over to Daysville Road along the western property line. Bus loop, additionalparking and loading/building services would be accessed from Daysville Road.

In this option, construction phasing is proposed as follows: Phase 1 - Existing 1950s and 1980s portion of building and driveways would remain in use. Construction of new bus loop from Daysville Road.

Demolish existing 1960s portion in its entirety. Minor modification to the existing Daysville driveway/bus loop will be required in order to completethis phase.

Phase 2 - New bus loop from Daysville Road complete. Portion of existing building and Route 26 driveway would remain in use. DemolishDaysville driveway/bus loop. Construction of east addition, soft and paved play areas, and building services driveway.

Phase 3 - East addition, play areas and building services driveway complete and ready to use. Renovation of existing gymnasium and cafeteria.Existing Route 26 driveway would be demolished. Construction of drop-off/parking loop from Route 26.

Phase 4 - Drop-off/parking loop from Route 26 is complete and ready to use. Existing gymnasium has been renovated and is ready to occupy asa new media center. The existing cafeteria has been converted to a new administration suite and is ready to occupy. Renovation of existingadministration and media center spaces to be completed from September to December.

Final - Renovations of the existing administration suite to serve as new classrooms and support spaces and existing media center to be new artclassrooms are completed and ready to occupy.




Feasibility Study

SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 2 SITE PLAN



EXISTING SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

SOFT SURFACE PLAY

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY


SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 2 FLOOR PLAN


L O W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N


CAFETERIAGYMNASIUM KITCHEN

BUILDING SERVICES

ART COURTYARD

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

ADMIN. SUITE

MEDIA CENTER

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

MAIN ENTRY

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORTSUPPORT

MUSIC

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPP

OR

T

Feasibility Study



OPTION 2 | MODERNIZATION AND ADDITIONS | ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES Retains more of existing building, including the Route 26 façade and recently replaced roof. Good separation of buses, cars, and loading. Increased car queuing space. More open green space and paved and soft surface play area compared to Option 1. Two access routes for parents

DISADVANTAGES Two access routes could be used as a pass thru for non-school vehicles and gates may be required. Car queuing may block parking. Cannot relocate Route 26 access. No central/visible entrance. Administration suite and new main entrance on lower level are not desirable because of separation from other spaces and low ceiling heights. Possible conflicts for construction of east classroom addition if the existing foundations from the 1920s building were not fully demolished. Multiple changes in elevation on main level, three different floor elevations will require several ramps in the corridors. More of the existing building façade to remain and require upgrades. Kindergarten and Pre-K are on a different floor level than gymnasium, cafeteria, and specials. Courtyard is a challenge to maintain.



OPTION 3A | REPLACEMENT SCHOOL ON-SITE | DESCRIPTIONOption 3A includes new construction and replacement of the existing building. This option includes construction of an entirely new facility on theexisting site to meet the Ed. Spec. requirements and then demolition of the entire existing building.

In this option the proposed school matches the footprint of the future elementary school prototype (east county area elementary school). The newfacility is sited so that it can be constructed while the existing building remains operational, then once it opens, the existing building can bedemolished. The main entry faces Route 26. The two two-story classroom wings are located to the south west. The public spaces including, art,music, cafeteria and gymnasium are located to the north east near the main entry. Car rider drop off loop, main parking, would be accessed fromRoute 26. The driveway entrance is relocated to the crest of the hill along Route 26 for better visibility. Bus loop, additional parking, andloading/building services would be accessed from Daysville Road. Play areas are located near the gymnasium and classroom wings.

In this option, construction phasing is proposed as follows: Phase 1 - Construct new building, play areas and bus loop. Phase 2 - Demolish existing building. Phase 3 - Construct new car loop/parking.




Feasibility Study

SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 3A SITE PLAN



NEW SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

PAVED PLAY

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY


SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 3A FLOOR PLAN




CAFETERIA

GYMNASIUM

KITCHEN

ART

ADMIN. SUITE

MEDIA CENTER

MAIN ENTRY

MUSIC

CLASSROOM

ADMIN.

SUITE

HEALTH

MEDIA CENTER

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

BUILDING SERVICES

Feasibility Study



OPTION 3A | REPLACEMENT SCHOOL ON-SITE | ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES New school can be constructed without demolition of the existing building. Students stay on site and together. Daylight provided to all classrooms. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading. Parking and bus drop off are both close to the main entry. Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions. Good separation of vehicles and play areas.

DISADVANTAGES Least amount of open green space remains. Not possible to bring second entrance/exit from Daysville Road due to position of building. Car access from Route 26 only, concerned with visibility and left turns from the school. Car queuing may block parking. Paved and soft surface play areas are close to Daysville Road. Fencing required at road. New facility loses existing building character and facade.



OPTION 3B | REPLACEMENT SCHOOL ON-SITE | DESCRIPTIONOption 3B includes new construction and replacement of the existing building. This option includes demolition of the entire existing building prior toconstruction of an entirely new facility on the existing site to meet the Ed. Spec. requirements. Students will be relocated to temporary facilities for theduration of the construction process.

In this option the proposed school matches the footprint of the future elementary school prototype (east county area elementary school). The newfacility is sited so that the existing building will be demolished and then the new school is constructed. The main entry wing with administration and artclassrooms is located to the north and faces Daysville Road. The two-story classroom wings are located to the east. The public spaces including,music, cafeteria and gymnasium are located to the west. Car rider drop off loop, main parking, bus loop, and additional parking would be accessedfrom Daysville. Building services would be accessed from Route 26. Paved and soft play areas and open green space are located near thegymnasium, cafeteria, and classroom wings.

In this option, construction phasing is proposed as follows: Phase 1 - Demolish existing building and construct new building and site improvements.




Feasibility Study

SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 3B SITE PLAN



NEW SCHOOL

PAVED PLAY

OPEN GREEN SPACE

MAIN ENTRY

BUS LOOP

LOADING / SERVICE

SOFT SURFACE

PLAY

PAVED PLAY


SECTION 6 | CONCEPT OPTIONS OPTION 3B FLOOR PLAN




CAFETERIA

GYMNASIUM

KITCHEN

ART

ADMIN. SUITE

MEDIA CENTER

MAIN ENTRY

MUSIC

CLASSROOM

ADMIN.

SUITE

HEALTH

MEDIA CENTER

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM

SUPPORT

BUILDING SERVICES

Feasibility Study



OPTION 3B | REPLACEMENT SCHOOL ON-SITE | ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES Demolition of existing building prior to starting construction of the new building allows optimization of placement of building on site. Daylight provided to all classrooms. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading. Increased car queuing space. Two entrances from Daysville Road – moves main traffic away from Route 26. Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions

DISADVANTAGES Students will either have to be relocated to another facility off-site or portables will need to be brought on-site to house students during the

demolition and new construction process. Car queuing may block parking. Paved play and soft surface play areas separated is not ideal for supervision of afterschool events. Open green space seems close to Route 26. Fencing required at road. High costs for temporary facilities or relocating students.

Feasibility Study


Summary of Estimated Costs

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

SECTION 7:COST COMPARISON


SECTION 7 | SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS & LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS


Construction and Project CostsOption1 Option2 Option3A Option3B

GSF $/SF or % Total GSF $/SF or % Total GSF $/SF or % Total GSF $/SF or % TotalConstructionCostsTotal Proposed Building Area 92,290 93,000 88,798 88,798Hazardous Materials Abatement 42,720 6.65 284,088 42,720 6.65 284,088 42,720 6.65 284,088 42,720 6.65 284,088Selective Building Demolition 17,530 14 245,420 34,800 14 487,200 0 14 ‐ 0 14 ‐Whole Building Demolition 25,190 8 201,520 7,920 8 63,360 42,720 8 341,760 42,720 8 341,760NewConstruction 74,760 282 21,082,320 58,200 282 16,412,400 88,798 281 24,952,238 88,798 281 24,952,238Renovation 17,530 222 3,891,660 34,800 222 7,725,600 0 222 ‐ 0 222 ‐

Subtotal Building Costs 25,705,008 24,972,648 25,578,086 25,578,086Site Demolition 136,618 6,392 223,734 223,734Site Construction 17% 4,369,851 18% 4,495,077 15.25% 3,900,658 16% 4,092,494

Subtotal Building and Site Costs 327 30,211,477 317 29,474,117 334 29,702,478 337 29,894,314Phasing & Temporary Facilities Costs 1.3% 392,749 1.6% 471,586 1% 297,025 5% 1,494,716

Subtotal Building, Site, & Phasing Costs 332 30,604,227 322 29,945,703 338 29,999,503 353 31,389,029Design Contingency 10% 3,060,423 10% 2,994,570 10% 2,999,950 10% 3,138,903

Subtotal Construction Costs 365 33,664,649 354 32,940,273 372 32,999,453 389 34,527,932Construction Management 9% 3,029,818 9% 2,964,625 6% 1,979,967 6% 2,071,676Construction Contingency 8% 2,693,172 9% 2,964,625 5% 1,649,973 5% 1,726,397

Total Construction Costs (current dollars) 427 39,387,640 418 38,869,522 413 36,629,393 432 38,326,005Additional Project CostsFurniture and Equipment 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000Testing & Inspections, Permitting Fees 500,000 500,000 550,000 550,000Project Planning Costs 7% 2,356,525 7% 2,305,819 5% 1,649,973 5% 1,726,397

Subtotal Project Costs 4,856,525 4,805,819 4,199,973 4,276,397

Total Construction and Project Costs 44,244,165 43,675,341 40,829,366 42,602,402

Note: Costs for Option 3B assume that students will remain on‐site in temporary facilities. If students can be moved off‐site, the Phasing & Temporary Facilities Costs and Project Planning Costs can be reduced.

40 Year Life Cycle Cost AnalysisOption1 Option2 Option3A Option3B

Mechanical System Installation Cost

Mechanical System Replacement Cost 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,400,000 4,400,000OperatingCostsAnnual Operating Cost ($) 77,567 79,073 74,573 73,996Annual Maintenance Cost ($) 9,000 9,000 8,500 8,500

Total Annual O&M cost 86,567 88,073 83,073 82,496Period (Years) 40 40 40 40Assumed Annual Interest Rate 5% 5% 5% 5%Present Value Cost Factor 17.20 17.20 17.20 17.20

Present Value of O&M Cost (Total, $) 1,488,952 1,514,856 1,428,856 1,418,931

40‐Year Life Cycle Cost ($) 50,533,117 49,990,197 46,658,221 48,421,333

Feasibility Study


Appendix A: Consultant Recommendations

Appendix B: Community Engagement

SECTION 8:APPENDICES


APPENDIX A | CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS


FOOD SERVICE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

All options will receive a new, enlarged kitchen with all new equipment.

The facility will be equipped with all-new commercial-grade appliances meeting current N.S.F. requirements and installed in compliance with localgoverning health codes. All countertops and work surfaces will be of durable stainless steel finishes, and mounted on legs to promote sanitationand ease of cleaning.

The kitchen will be designed to operate as an on-site prep/production facility equipped to produce and serve breakfast and lunch meals to thestudents and staff. Bulk refrigerated items will be stored in reach-in refrigerators & freezers. Onsite cooking will take place in convection oven,combi oven and steamer requiring a non-grease exhaust canopy. A fire protection system with this style of ventilation is not required. Trays andutensils will be washed and sanitized through a high-temperature dish machine. Clean ware will be stored on mobile pot & pan shelving.

Serving of students will take place on modular cafeteria counters equipped with: 5-well steam table for hot food, mechanically-refrigerated frost topfor cold food, ice cream cabinet, solid top counter for cutlery and snack items and a bulk milk cooler for milk and beverages. Meals will be servedon re-useable trays.

Space recommendations for the kitchen areas are as follows:Area S.F. Recommended

Walk-in Cooler/Freezer Storage 250

Dry Storage 200

Non-Food Storage 50

Preparation/Cooking Area 600

Serving – (2) Lines 800

Pot & Pan Washing /Dishmachine 200

Utility Closet/Soap Storage 50

Staff Toilet/Locker 85

Office 100

Total 2,335 S.F.

Feasibility Study



STRUCTURAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Structural Option 1 - Renovation and Addition to Existing Building

In this option the existing 1950 addition is to be demolished along with the south portion of 1982 building (media center and two classrooms). Theexisting 1967 addition and the north portion of the 1982 addition will remain with new additions added to the north and south side. The north additionswill consist of gymnasium, all-purpose room and special rooms. These additions will be CMU bearing walls supporting steel bar joists spaced at 5 feeton center with metal roof deck. Acoustical roof deck will be used in any exposed sections of the gymnasium or cafeteria. The CMU walls for the high-volume spaces would be 12-inch CMU walls. The foundations will most likely be continuous wall footings based on the existing structure.

The south addition will consist of media center, classroom, offices, and specials. The east side of this addition will be two stories with stackedclassrooms. The south addition will be a steel framed structure. The roof framing would consist of 1.5-inch metal roof deck supported by steel joists at5’-0” on center and wide-flange steel girders. The second-floor framing would consist of 5” composite concrete slab and deck on wide-flange beamsspaced 6 to 8 ft. on center and wide-flange girders. The structure would be supported by steel columns on spread column footings. The exterior wallback-up for the architectural finishes would either be 8-inch CMU or 6-inch cold formed metal studs. The second-floor partitions could either be CMUor cold-form metal studs with impact resistant drywall which would provide shallower and lighter steel framing.

The foundation system for both additions is anticipated to be spread column footings and continuous wall footings, consistent with the existingconstruction. However, this will be confirmed by the findings of the geotechnical investigation. The slab on grade for both additions will be a 5-inchconcrete slab on grade reinforced with weld wire reinforcing.

Lateral system of the north bearing wall addition is to be CMU shear walls. At the south addition, the exterior CMU walls along with stair and elevatorwalls will be used as shear walls. If additional lateral resists capacity is required either steel moment or braced frames will be added to the CMUshear walls.

In the remaining sections of the existing school, due to corrosion all the exterior lintels and hung plates will need to be cleaned and painted. In somecases, the lintels or hung plates might need to be replaced. Also, the exterior brick veneer will require some re-pointing adjacent to the exterioropenings due to cracks formed by the corroded steel lintels. Finally, any new roof top units supported on the existing roof joists will probably requirereinforcing.





Structural Option 2 - Renovation and Addition to Existing Building

In this option the existing 1967 addition is to be demolished and the rest of the existing school will receive some renovations. The existing 1950 and1982 additions will remain with new additions added to the north and east side. The north part of the addition will consist of gymnasium, all-purposeroom and special rooms. These additions will be CMU bearing walls supporting steel bar joists spaced at 5 feet on center with metal roof deck.Acoustical roof deck will be used in any exposed sections of the gymnasium or cafeteria. The CMU walls for the high-volume spaces would be 12-inchCMU walls. Underneath the southwest corner of the gymnasium will be lower level support space. This area will be required to be framed with astructural floor consisting of a 5” thick composite concrete slab and deck on steel beams. The interior lower level walls will be concrete foundation walls.The east side of the 1980 addition where it abuts the new lower level might require some underpinning of the easting foundation.

The east section of the new addition will consist of a two-story structure with classrooms and support spaces. This section of the addition will be a steelframed structure. The roof framing would consist of 1.5-inch metal roof deck supported by steel joists at 5’-0” on center and wide-flange steel girders.The second-floor framing would consist of 5” composite concrete slab and deck on wide-flange beams spaced 6 to 8 ft. on center and wide-flangegirders. The structure would be supported by steel columns on spread column footings. The exterior wall back-up for the architectural finishes wouldeither be 8-inch CMU or 6-inch cold formed metal studs. The second-floor partitions could either be CMU or cold-form metal studs with impact resistantdrywall which would provide shallower and lighter steel framing.

The foundation system for the addition is anticipated to be spread column footings and continuous wall footings, consistent with the existingconstruction. However, this will be confirmed by the findings of the geotechnical investigation. The east part of the addition will be constructed wherethe original 1927 part of the school was located. In this area, there may be remaining foundation from the old building buried under the existingplayground and would need to be removed in during construction of this section of the building. The slab on grade for the addition will be a 5-inchconcrete slab on grade reinforced with weld wire reinforcing.

Lateral system of the north bearing wall addition is to be CMU shear walls. At the south addition, the exterior CMU walls along with stair and elevatorwalls will be used as shear walls. If additional lateral resists capacity is required either steel moment or braced frames will be added to the CMU shearwalls.

In the remaining sections of the existing school, all the exterior lintels and hung plates will need to be cleaned and painted due to corrosion. In somecases, the lintels or hung plates might need to be replaced. Also, the exterior brick veneer will require some re-pointing adjacent to the exterior openingsdue to cracks formed by the corroded steel lintels. Any new roof top units supported on the existing roof joists will probably require reinforcing. Finally,the existing cafeteria, kitchen and gymnasium of the 1950 addition will be re-purposed to different functions. As a result, some structure renovation willbe required, such as cutting new openings into exterior walls for doors and windows along with new floor openings for mechanical, electrical andplumbing shafts.

Feasibility Study




Structural Option 3A and 3B - Replacement School

In this option the existing school will be demolished, and a new school will be constructed either adjacent to the existing school (Option 3A) or on thelocation of the existing school (Option 3B).

The new school will have a similar footprint to the future east county area prototype elementary school with two-story area for classrooms and one-story section comprised of administration spaces, gymnasium, all purpose room, and specials. The new structure will primarily be steel framed withsome load bearing masonry for the gymnasium and all-purpose room.

The roof framing would consist of 1.5-inch metal roof deck supported by steel joists at 5’-0” on center and wide-flange steel girders or masonrybearing walls. The roof of the Gym and Cafetorium will be framed with long span open web steel joists to provide a column free interior space.Acoustic deck will be used at the exposed structure areas.

The upper level floor structure would consist of 5” composite concrete slab and deck on wide-flange beams spaced 6 to 8 ft. on center and wide-flange girders. The structure would be supported by steel columns on spread column footings.

Twelve-inch masonry walls will be required for the high roof spaces of the gymnasium and all-purpose room, and eight-inch masonry will berequired for the shorter bearing walls. If masonry fire walls are required to provide separation of structure eight-inch masonry will be used andcoordinated to meet code requirements. Eight-inch masonry or six-inch metal stud walls will be required for the backup wall structure in the exteriorwalls. Masonry partitions on the second floor will produce larger beam sizes. Metal stud partitions with impact resistant drywall will provide shallowerbeams and lighter steel framing.

Ground floors will consist of a 5” concrete slab on grade reinforced with welded wire reinforcing on vapor barrier over granular fill.

The foundation system for the addition is anticipated to be spread column footings and continuous wall footings, consistent with the existingconstruction. However, this will be confirmed by the findings of the geotechnical investigation. The east side of the addition where the classroomsare located will have its foundations designed for a future two-story classroom addition.

Lateral system of the structure would be exterior CMU walls along with stair and elevator walls will be used as shear walls. If additional lateralresistance capacity is required either interior steel moment or braced frames will provide additional load capacity to the CMU shear walls.




MECHANICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Mechanical

With the exception of the Office/Admin system, the remainder of the school’s HVAC system and equipment is beyond its useful life. Based on thearchitectural options, all mechanical and plumbing systems are recommended to be replaced in their entirety.

One option is a 4-pipe Fan Coil Unit system utilizing Dedicated Outdoor Air System (100% outside air DOAS units). Conditioned outside air forventilation would be introduced into each space via an air distribution system from the dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) air handling unit. An aircooled chiller and propane or oil fired boilers are recommended for the central cooling and heating plant. Each space would then be heated andcooled by a 4-pipe recirculating fan coil unit served by the central heating and cooling plant. Fan coil units can be the vertical type where they wouldbe located within a mechanical closet (approximately 5’ x 6’) within each classroom or be located above the ceiling.

Another option includes a deviation of the water based fan coil unit system which is to use ductless refrigeration based fan coil units known as avariable refrigerant volume (VRV) system. Multiple indoor ceiling type cassette units would be piped to a common refrigeration piping system to anoutdoor air cooled heat pump unit. The DOAS unit will also be direct expansion (DX) based via packaged rooftop units or split rooftop units. Sincenatural gas is not available, the proposed heating system would utilize an indirect propane furnace. An all air distribution system such as a variableair volume (VAV) system is not feasible for the renovation/addition options based on the above ceiling infrastructure space requirements.

For assembly spaces (cafeteria, gymnasium), single zone variable flow air handling units are recommended. These units in both fan coil type systemoptions are recommended to be direct expansion type with propane furnaces such that the spaces are independent from the building system and canbe used at night and / or on weekends.

Similarly, in both fan coil unit options, it is recommended that the office / admin suite be an independent VRV with DOAS system.

Feasibility Study




Mechanical

Since natural gas is not available the heating source is recommended to be propane or fuel oil. For a 4-pipe boiler/chiller plant fuel oil isrecommended based on lower energy cost per BTU of oil compared to propane. A 4-pipe system utilizing fuel oil will be less efficient and cost moreto operate compared to a VRF system used in conjunction with a DOAS ventilation system. A VRV system provides heating and cooling usingelectric and the use of heat recovery devices in DOAS units will minimize the amount of fossil fuel heating need. The use of propane for heat willprimarily be utilized by the gym and cafeteria air handling units. Therefore, the recommended system based on the site not having natural gas is aVRV heating and cooling system used in conjunction with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) for ventilation air. This system will also require theleast amount of infrastructure space and is easier phased for the renovation / addition options. It is also the selected system for the prototypeelementary school.

As an alternative to be considered during the design development phase, is use of geothermal for all the DOAS units and the gym and cafeteria airhandling units. This would eliminate the need for propane since the DOAS and AHU’s will be heat pumps capable of extracting heat out of the waterloop for heating purposes.





Plumbing

Domestic Water: Public water will not be available, therefore, replacing the existing storage tank and providing an additional fire water storage tankwith fire pump is recommended.

The existing water heater and all domestic water piping is recommended to be replaced in its entirety to meet current State of Maryland lead freelaw and code required hot water tempering requirements.

Propane: It is recommended to maintain and/or upgrade the existing propane system since natural gas is not available to serve comfort heat,domestic water heating and/or kitchen equipment.

Sanitary: It is recommended that the existing underground sanitary lines be videotaped to determine the condition for possible reuse or be replace intheir entirety.

Storm Water: It is recommended that the existing underground storm water lines be videotaped to determine the condition for possible reuse or bereplace in their entirety.

Feasibility Study



ELECTRICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Electrical

Service: Although the original electrical distribution system is still in operation, in general, original distribution equipment has reached its anticipateduseful life and is recommended to be replaced. A new electrical distribution system is recommended and shall be configured to sub-meter by loadtype: HVAC, lighting, plug, and kitchen.

Cascaded surge protection devices are recommended for panelboards serving non-linear computer loads. These panelboards are alsorecommended to be equipped with 200% rated neutrals, served from K-factor rated dry type transformers. A separate neutral conductor isrecommended to be installed for each computer circuit in order to reduce the effects of harmonics caused by non-linear loads.

All single phase panelboards are recommended to be replaced with three phase panels to better balance the building load and not overload onephase.

Emergency Power: An outdoor propane or diesel generator is recommended for emergency loads with an automatic transfer switch andpanelboards to serve egress lighting, fire alarm systems and other life safety related loads. The generator shall also be sized accordingly along withan additional automatic transfer switch and panelboards to serve MDF/IDF data and phone closets along with associated cooling loads, security,kitchen refrigeration equipment and other select loads.

Lighting: The existing lighting systems in the building are recommended to be replaced, largely due to physical condition and energy use. Newlighting is recommended to be provided throughout the school with all lighting fixtures being LED type with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of4000K. All lights will be recessed type in classrooms, corridors and offices, with prismatic lenses with minimum A19 pattern, frosted 0.156”thickness or Volumetric Style. Options for classrooms can be explored further and consist of recessed or pendant LED fixtures. New track lightingwith color filters will be provided at stage. Lighting controls will meet ASHRAE 90.1 2013 or IECC 2015 and include wall mounted low voltageswitches with preset scenes, low voltage vacancy sensors and ceiling mounted daylight sensor for daylight harvesting where applicable and roomcontrollers. Emergency lighting will be connected to life safety panelboards via a generator transfer device so that lights can be turned off undernormal operation and will transfer to generator load and turn on when power is lost. Exit signs would also be LED.

Building mounted exterior lighting is also recommended to be LED fixtures. Emergency lighting at egress doors is recommended, connected toemergency standby source per code and controlled via photocell.




ELECTRICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONSElectrical

Telecommunications: The telecommunications system is recommended to be updated and replaced as required. The systems shall meet currentState of Maryland and Frederick County Public Schools standards. The System shall be star-wired and consist of Category 6, or better, cabling forboth telephone and public address.

The Data Network will be star-wired 1000 Base-T and consist of Category 6 cabling. The System will provide all components for a complete operableLAN. A multi-strand composite fiber optic backbone will be used to link the main MDF with IDF rooms. IDF rooms will be added and strategicallylocated to limit cabling lengths to 250 linear feet.

The public-address system, which appears to be in good working order, may be reused if feasible, with modifications and expansions required toaccommodate new device layouts if the building is renovated. Otherwise, a new public-address system is recommended, including local systems forthe new Gymnasium, tied into the building PA system.

Security: The intrusion detection system may be expanded if the building is renovated, with new wiring and additional devices as required toaccommodate revised space configurations. The access control system and IP video surveillance system may be expanded as necessary. For a newbuilding, all new systems will be provided. The option of including a secure entrance vestibule to prevent safety issues with school visitors can beexplored.

Fire Alarm: The fire alarm system is recommended to be upgraded and modified as required to provide initiation and notification devices compliantwith Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) requirements for any revised space configurations. Voiceevacuation notification will be required for a new building or renovation of the building.

Feasibility Study


APPENDIX B – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

111

Three community meetings were held with the Liberty Elementary School community over the course of the feasibility study project. Engagementand participation from parents, teachers and community members was an imperative part of this process to connect and hear from the stakeholdersthat would eventually be impacted by the future new school development. All meetings were held during the evening, in the school’s gymnasium.

COMMUNITY MEETING #1 – JANUARY 15, 2019, 6:30 PM

The first community meeting started with greeting and introductions, a review of the meeting objectives, the purpose of an EducationalSpecification, the Feasibility process, and the proposed schedule. Next, there was an open discussion asking the attendees “What do you like aboutyour school?”. Summarized responses are listed below.

Discussion Question – What do you like about your school? Small Student population / under capacity Important aspect of the community – quaint and lovely “Beacon on the hill” History – alumni Gym Activities – County Recreation? Student said he likes everything! Building needs help – not accessible/efficient

The next section of the presentation reviewed the existing site and building conditions and the current best practices in educational design thatcould be incorporated into the future renovation/addition or replacement school. After the initial topics for the meeting were presented to theattendees, everyone was encouraged to participate in the Idea Sharing and Community Feedback Activity. Six tables were set up with posters andquestions that attendees could write responses on. The next pages include summarized responses. Please refer to the Community Meeting #1 andProgress Meeting #4 presentations posted on the FCPS website for additional information regarding this meeting and samplings of the responseposters.




What would you like to improve or change about your school? Handicap doors Bigger Media Center Bigger book rooms Accessibility for all students More books

What do you like about your school that you would like to see in a new or renovated school building? Rec/community center History of the land and school itself The “small town” feel of the school A picture of the old school It’s the one thing that keeps the community bonded and together Computer labs Love the school because it keeps all of us together

How do you use your school? PTA events Learning environment Extra-curricular activities (Scouts, school events) Community play space

What are important elements of a renovated or new school? Lockdown areas 2 playgrounds Rec center 2 serving lines in cafeteria Hot meals made here Separate conference room for meetings Parking for after school events

Feasibility Study



113

What are important elements of a renovated or new school? (continued) Safety Internet of things for remote security management by police Bus and car drop-offs not within teachers’ parking spaces Rooms big enough to have a comfortable meeting area More teacher bathrooms Light/windows for natural light Still feels like the heart of the community Teacher planning areas with copiers Cold and hot water in classrooms Teacher storage in each room Lockers vs cubbies Closet Jack and Jill bathrooms between two classrooms or a bathroom per classroom

What are the benefits to students when the community also uses the school? Which areas of the school should be accessible to thecommunity? Community needs access to gym, cafeteria, play areas Community binding together The Parks & Rec Department using the school is good

What are your hopes for the feasibility study process? Listen to the community and take their considerations seriously. Staff needs to have a large input in the design. That it goes smoothly and on schedule. Do what’s best for all stakeholders.




COMMUNITY MEETING #2 – FEBRUARY 13, 2019, 6:30 PM

The second community meeting started with greeting and introductions, a project overview, review of the proposed schedule, and recap of the feedback from the first community meeting. The next section of the presentation reviewed the definitions and terms used for the feasibility study and the four initial concepts in detail. After the initial topics for the meeting were presented to the attendees, everyone was encouraged to participate in the Community Feedback Activity – Review Layouts. Tables were set up with posters of each of the four options showing conceptual building and site plan layouts. Comment cards were provided at each table for attendees to write responses on and design team members fielded questions and recorded comments during this activity. The next page includes summarized responses. Please refer to the Community Meeting #2 and Progress Meeting #6 presentations posted on the FCPS website for additional information regarding this meeting and samplings of the response posters.

Summary of General Discussion Questions and Comments What are the costs for each Option?

Cost information will be available at the meeting next month. Options 1 and 2 will require a large amount of upgrades to the existing building and phased construction, resulting in a longer project duration.

What will happen to students during construction?Students will either stay on site in the existing building, remain on site in temporary modular classrooms, and/or be temporarily relocated to a different site.

What will the final building look like?The feasibility study process is targeted toward examination of the existing conditions and determining the scope of work forvarious options, but does not get into all of the design detail for each potential option. Detailed drawings and renderings of the exterior appearance will be developed in the design phase.

Why do some of the options seem to have odd shapes or angles? Isn’t a simple rectangle more efficient?In Options 1 and 2, the form is somewhat dictated by the need to tie into existing circulation, maintain daylight to existing spaces, site constraints and setbacks, and the desire to create classroom grade-level clusters. Options 3A and 3B are modeled after the new Elementary prototype that is being developed, which utilizes angled wings.

What will happen to existing on site memorials and how can the school’s history be preserved?Memorials can be relocated in keeping with Board of Education policies and the building design can include areas for displaysabout the school’s history.

Will the new building be fully accessible?All options will require modernizing for accessibility and will be fully ADA-compliant.

Feasibility Study



115

Option 1 & 2 Opportunities Saving some existing portions Kids less interrupted Two access routes for parents

Option 1 & 2 Challenges Two access routes could be used as a pass thru for non-school vehicles – gates?

Option 3A Opportunities Quicker construction Students stay on site and together Drawn to newer building – seems easier and quicker than renovations and phasing

Option 3A Challenges Less green space Would a traffic director be needed for the bus entrance/exit on 26?

Option 3B Opportunities Quicker construction Drawn to newer building – seems easier and quicker than renovations and phasing

Option 3B Challenges Less green space Inconvenient for kids and parents to relocate temporarily All kids must be kept together if this option is chosen Would a traffic director be needed for the bus entrance/exit on 26?




COMMUNITY MEETING #3 – MARCH 13, 2019, 6:30 PM

The third community meeting started with greeting and introductions, a project overview, review of the proposed schedule, and recap of thefeedback from the first and second community meetings. The next section of the presentation reviewed the four final concepts, estimatedconstruction cost, duration of construction and an open group discussion of the opportunities and challenges for each option. The next pageincludes summarized responses. Please refer to the Community Meeting #3 presentation posted on the FCPS website for additional informationregarding this meeting.

Summary of General Discussion Questions and Comments Will the building include safe and seclusion rooms?

The educational specifications include calming rooms. Do the plans allow for extra rooms/space?

Yes – The educational specifications includes multiple shared collaboration and support rooms that can be flexible spaces. Are bathrooms included in each classroom?

The educational specifications include individual restrooms in pre-k and kindergarten classrooms. Larger stall restrooms areincluded in the corridors for the upper grades.

Will the well and septic be adequate for the new/renovation building?The current building is connected to public sewer. The initial thought was that the new/renovated facility would connect to the newwater tower in the adjacent development. This option my not be available, and new wells would be included to accommodate theincrease building capacity and fire suppression systems.

Will the classrooms have carpet?FCPS current standards is for tile in classrooms.

Concerned with all options that staff parking is in the car loop queuing space will cause difficulty for staff to leave the site?The primary goal is to keep bus and car traffic separated. The bus loops shown do include approximately 40 parking space thatcould be designated for staff. The proposed site and parking design will be developed at a later stage.

Can the older renovated building be safe?All existing spaces to remain will be renovated and include new mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems as well as structuralupgrades. All new and renovated portions will be code compliant.

Where will the students go when the existing building is renovated?The current student population is half of the designed ed spec building there will be new classrooms available during renovation..

Feasibility Study



117

Option 1 Opportunities Saving portion of existing building. Classroom layouts cluster well for grade level grouping. Simplified floor elevations compared to Option 2 – only one level at first floor, two levels for second floor. Additions envelop the existing building – will allow for a new unified façade design, visible from both roads. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading. Increased car queuing space. Two access routes for parents

Option 1 Challenges Two access routes could be used as a pass thru for non-school vehicles and gates may be required. Car queuing will block staff parking. Keeping existing 1960s two-story addition and tying the new two-story structures into it may create a hardship in terms of ceiling height.

Ramping will be required along the second-floor corridor in order to provide greater floor-to-floor height at the addition than in the existing building.

Green space is far from the school and is awkward to have to access via narrow space between bus loop and drop-off loop. The Media Center and many support spaces do not have access to views to the exterior. Daylight could still be incorporated via clerestory

windows however. Courtyard is a challenge to maintain. Least amount of play area and green space in this option. The paved play space is similar in size to current paved play area. Not ideal with a

larger population. Fencing will be required at soft and paved play areas to separate from loading/service driveway.




Option 2 Opportunities Retains more of existing building, including the Route 26 façade and recently replaced roof. Good separation of buses, cars, and loading. Increased car queuing space. More open green space and paved and soft surface play area compared to Option 1. Two access routes for parents

Option 2 Challenges Two access routes could be used as a pass thru for non-school vehicles and gates may be required. Car queuing will block parking. Cannot relocate Route 26 access. No central/visible entrance. Administration suite and new main entrance on lower level are not desirable because of separation from other spaces and low ceiling heights. Possible conflicts for construction of east classroom addition if the existing foundations from the 1920s building were not fully demolished. Lots of changes in elevation on main level, three different floor elevations will require several ramps in the corridors. More of the existing building façade to remain and require upgrades. Kindergarten and Pre-K are on a different floor level than gymnasium, cafeteria, and specials. Courtyard is a challenge to maintain.

Feasibility Study



119

Option 3A Opportunities New school can be constructed without demolition of the existing building. Students stay on site and together. Daylight provided to all classrooms. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading. Parking and bus drop off are both close to the main entry. Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions. Good separation of vehicles and play areas.

Option 3A Challenges Least amount of open green space remains. Not possible to bring second entrance/exit from Daysville Road due to position of building. Car access from Route 26 only, concerned with visibility and left turns from the school. Car queuing will block parking. Paved and soft surface play areas are close to Daysville Road. Fencing required at road. New facility loses existing building character and facade.




Option 3B Opportunities Demolition of existing building prior to starting construction of the new building allows optimization of placement of building on site. Daylight provided to all classrooms. Good separation of buses, cars, and building services/loading. Increased car queuing space. Two entrances from Daysville Road – moves main traffic away from Route 26. Quicker construction – not phased renovations/additions

Option 3B Challenges Students will either have to be relocated to another facility off-site or portables will need to be brought on-site to house students during the

demolition and new construction process. Car queuing will block parking. Paved play and soft surface play areas separated is not ideal for supervision of afterschool events. Open green space seems close to Route 26. Fencing required at road. High costs for temporary facilities or relocating students.

LIBERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Documents

Transcript of LIBERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEASIBILITY STUDY