William Larsen

Table T-9

Table T-9 is found on Page 35 of the NACS Feasibility Study. I have highlighted what I think are the important values to look at.

First is the size of the proposed new high school in relationship to the current Carroll high school. The Proposed new high school has 16% fewer students and 15% larger in size.

The optimum enrollment column shows the combined new high school has 85 more students than the proposed renovation at Carroll.

Adjusting the optimum design enrollment number to produce a combined two high school total enrollment of 2,571 reduces the building size from 356,250 sq. ft. to 240,838 sq. ft. Based on $275 per sq. ft. this new high school would cost $66,230,515.

Carroll High School’s design criteria was 181.76 sq. ft. per student. It really makes no difference if you use optimum or design numbers, as long as you use there respective enrollment numbers.

However, there is most likely another major error on this table. Note 2 states they assumed 250 sq. ft per student to cover building and athletic facilities. This means the difference between the design standard of 181.76 sq. ft. per student and 250 sq. ft multiplied by the enrollment number of 1,425 multiplied by $275 per sq. ft. should be the cost attributed to the athletic facilities. If so, this table identifies $26,739,706 as its cost. Is this correct? Or is it that this table actually shows it counting the athletic facilities twice?

For example, note 3 identifies the cost of the new high school at $275 per sq. ft., which includes soft costs of 30%. Note 7 identifies costs for new construction at Carroll of $161 per sq. ft. that does not show soft costs. Is the difference between the $275 and $161 including the athletic facilities as well?

This is a poor table to put into a feasibility report. At a minimum the costs for land, building, parking, athletic facilities and soft costs should be identified separately.

posted by William Larsen @ 6:19 PM