Akron Holds Q&A On Building Project
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By David [email protected]
Instead, the majority of the questions were about the flooding on the site and a proposed retention pond.
The first question was from an unidentified man who lives across Ind. 19 from the school. When there’s a good rain, he said the water seeps into his basement. “I was wondering if the retention pond would help that?” he asked.
Victor D. Landfair, Skillman Corp. vice president, responded that he was an architect and not a civil engineer, but he could say that the project wouldn’t do anything to make the man’s problem any worse than it was now.
“I can’t say it will improve your situation, but it won’t make it any worse,” Landfair said.
The Skillman Corp. is the firm hired by Valley to take a look at the school and its issues and come up with some concepts on how to address them.
Another man suggested building a fence around the retention pond, but Landfair said it was a “dry” retention pond, meaning the pond would just hold the water until it funneled itself out into the water table, and was not an actual pond. However, enough money was figured into project costs to allow for a fence if the school board wanted one.
Another Akron resident asked, since the project included redoing about 70 percent of the school, why not build a new school at a new location away from the water problems and traffic concerns. He said there was plenty of property available within Akron to build a new school.
Fairland said such a project could cost over $20 million, and the school corporation also would have to demolish the old building. With both of the conceptual ideas presented by The Skillman Corp., Fairland said it was their intent to address the drainage issues which affect the site but had no impact on the building. Both concepts also address the traffic issues the school has.
Estimated preliminary cost for Concept 1 presented by Skillman is $15,320,100; and Concept 2 was presented at $17,346,524.
Todd Glenn, Tippecanoe Valley School Corp. director of maintenance, said the flooding and drainage issues would be addressed by a civil engineer once the project got underway.
Another concern raised by a woman in the audience was how long the project would take and what they would do with students while it was underway.
Landfair said he expected the project would overlap two school years. If the process goes forward, there are some legal time periods that have to be followed, but the design could take place in the spring with the bidding process possibly in the summer or fall. Construction could then begin next summer and would take about 18 months.
“One of the things that we do ... is we adjust where kids are during that construction,” Landfair said.
Another woman asked how school lunches would be handled. Landfair said not all the details were figured out, but there were options including having lunch in another location like the gym.
Tuesday’s public presentation started with Valley Superintendent Brett Boggs explaining the history of building projects at Valley and how the Akron project came about. He said it was coming to a point where the board will have to make a decision.
Chrissy Mills, Akron principal, then discussed the educational needs at her school. Akron is a kindergarten to fifth grade school, with three sections per grade level. Currently, it has 396 students, but runs between 380 and 400 students.
A big problem for the school is lack of space. It also needs a new cafeteria, more security, new playground and improved traffic flow.
Glenn talked about the structure itself and how parts of the building date back to 1926. A lot of money is spent on leaks and cracks, he said, while systems like heating and air conditioning are obsolete.
Fairland discussed additions to the building from 1926, 1948, 1959, 1965 and 1987. While the gymnasium is the oldest addition and is a sound structure, it has “some significant issues,” he said. One of those issues is that the exterior envelope of the gym needs significant replacement.
He said it would not be prudent to remodel or renovate the 1948, 1959 and 1965 additions. The 1987 addition is sound but needs “refreshing,” he said.
Concept 1 would include keeping the gym, but would cost nearly $1 million to renovate inside and out. The 1948-65 additions would be demolished and the 1987 addition would be renovated. A new addition would cost almost $8 million, with site development estimated at about $1.2 million. The total projected cost of $15.3 million would include 3 percent for inflation and 25 percent for soft costs.
Concept 2 would include demolishing the 1948-65 additions, renovating the 1987 addition, adding a new addition for almost $10 million and site development of almost $2 million. A new gym would be built, and the school board could decide what to do with the 1926 gym, including demolishing it. The approximate $17.4 million cost for Concept 2 also includes a 3 percent inflation rate and 25 percent for soft costs.
One man from the audience stated the old gym was “ridiculous” and should be demolished.
Boggs then explained how school corporations in Indiana have five different funds, including a Capital Projects Fund for construction, remodeling and renovation. However, Valley’s CPF is less than $2 million, with 40 percent of that for technology, 27 percent for emergencies, 13 percent for utility services and the remaining 20 percent for equipment, insurance and building improvement. He said there is not enough money in CPF to do a project of this size, which is why the district would have to do a bond issue and borrow the money.
Jay Ryals, public finance director, Fifth Third Securities, Indianapolis, then discussed how the debt service tax rate would not increase because Valley has debt coming off and interest rates are at a 45-year low.
After the public presentation, tours of the school were offered to anyone interested in seeing it.
The second public presentation is at 7 p.m. Thursday at Mentone Elementary School.[[In-content Ad]]
Instead, the majority of the questions were about the flooding on the site and a proposed retention pond.
The first question was from an unidentified man who lives across Ind. 19 from the school. When there’s a good rain, he said the water seeps into his basement. “I was wondering if the retention pond would help that?” he asked.
Victor D. Landfair, Skillman Corp. vice president, responded that he was an architect and not a civil engineer, but he could say that the project wouldn’t do anything to make the man’s problem any worse than it was now.
“I can’t say it will improve your situation, but it won’t make it any worse,” Landfair said.
The Skillman Corp. is the firm hired by Valley to take a look at the school and its issues and come up with some concepts on how to address them.
Another man suggested building a fence around the retention pond, but Landfair said it was a “dry” retention pond, meaning the pond would just hold the water until it funneled itself out into the water table, and was not an actual pond. However, enough money was figured into project costs to allow for a fence if the school board wanted one.
Another Akron resident asked, since the project included redoing about 70 percent of the school, why not build a new school at a new location away from the water problems and traffic concerns. He said there was plenty of property available within Akron to build a new school.
Fairland said such a project could cost over $20 million, and the school corporation also would have to demolish the old building. With both of the conceptual ideas presented by The Skillman Corp., Fairland said it was their intent to address the drainage issues which affect the site but had no impact on the building. Both concepts also address the traffic issues the school has.
Estimated preliminary cost for Concept 1 presented by Skillman is $15,320,100; and Concept 2 was presented at $17,346,524.
Todd Glenn, Tippecanoe Valley School Corp. director of maintenance, said the flooding and drainage issues would be addressed by a civil engineer once the project got underway.
Another concern raised by a woman in the audience was how long the project would take and what they would do with students while it was underway.
Landfair said he expected the project would overlap two school years. If the process goes forward, there are some legal time periods that have to be followed, but the design could take place in the spring with the bidding process possibly in the summer or fall. Construction could then begin next summer and would take about 18 months.
“One of the things that we do ... is we adjust where kids are during that construction,” Landfair said.
Another woman asked how school lunches would be handled. Landfair said not all the details were figured out, but there were options including having lunch in another location like the gym.
Tuesday’s public presentation started with Valley Superintendent Brett Boggs explaining the history of building projects at Valley and how the Akron project came about. He said it was coming to a point where the board will have to make a decision.
Chrissy Mills, Akron principal, then discussed the educational needs at her school. Akron is a kindergarten to fifth grade school, with three sections per grade level. Currently, it has 396 students, but runs between 380 and 400 students.
A big problem for the school is lack of space. It also needs a new cafeteria, more security, new playground and improved traffic flow.
Glenn talked about the structure itself and how parts of the building date back to 1926. A lot of money is spent on leaks and cracks, he said, while systems like heating and air conditioning are obsolete.
Fairland discussed additions to the building from 1926, 1948, 1959, 1965 and 1987. While the gymnasium is the oldest addition and is a sound structure, it has “some significant issues,” he said. One of those issues is that the exterior envelope of the gym needs significant replacement.
He said it would not be prudent to remodel or renovate the 1948, 1959 and 1965 additions. The 1987 addition is sound but needs “refreshing,” he said.
Concept 1 would include keeping the gym, but would cost nearly $1 million to renovate inside and out. The 1948-65 additions would be demolished and the 1987 addition would be renovated. A new addition would cost almost $8 million, with site development estimated at about $1.2 million. The total projected cost of $15.3 million would include 3 percent for inflation and 25 percent for soft costs.
Concept 2 would include demolishing the 1948-65 additions, renovating the 1987 addition, adding a new addition for almost $10 million and site development of almost $2 million. A new gym would be built, and the school board could decide what to do with the 1926 gym, including demolishing it. The approximate $17.4 million cost for Concept 2 also includes a 3 percent inflation rate and 25 percent for soft costs.
One man from the audience stated the old gym was “ridiculous” and should be demolished.
Boggs then explained how school corporations in Indiana have five different funds, including a Capital Projects Fund for construction, remodeling and renovation. However, Valley’s CPF is less than $2 million, with 40 percent of that for technology, 27 percent for emergencies, 13 percent for utility services and the remaining 20 percent for equipment, insurance and building improvement. He said there is not enough money in CPF to do a project of this size, which is why the district would have to do a bond issue and borrow the money.
Jay Ryals, public finance director, Fifth Third Securities, Indianapolis, then discussed how the debt service tax rate would not increase because Valley has debt coming off and interest rates are at a 45-year low.
After the public presentation, tours of the school were offered to anyone interested in seeing it.
The second public presentation is at 7 p.m. Thursday at Mentone Elementary School.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092