Jim Thorpe Area School District officials presented findings Wednesday from its recent feasibility study, which identified $36 million in deficiencies across district buildings, equating to $90 per square foot on average.

The study, district officials said, analyzed things such as facility conditions, demographic trends, and educational requirements.

Key facility findings

Conducted by EI Associates, the study categorized deficiencies into four ranks, with rank one being the most critical. Notably, $21 million of the total costs were identified as rank one and two deficiencies, focusing primarily on interior evaluations, HVAC systems, and electrical upgrades.

“Your $90 per square foot average for deficiencies are pretty much right on track with what we see elsewhere,” Bruce Christman of EI Associates said. “Some districts have over $200 per square foot in deficiencies. It really depends on how well you keep up your facilities but you’re not in bad shape.”

A closer examination of individual buildings revealed varied needs:

• Penn Kidder Elementary: $126 per square foot in deficiencies.

• L.B. Morris Elementary: $88 per square foot in deficiencies.

• High School/District Office: $74 per square foot in deficiencies.

Enrollment Trends and Projections

The district’s enrollment trends were also reviewed, revealing a peak of 2,197 students in 2012-13 compared to the current 1,686 students.

Current buildings, according to Christman, have a building capacity of a little over 2,000 students.

Future 10-year projections, Christman said, vary depending on the method used.

Pennsylvania Department of Education predicts a decline of 156 students, while alternative models suggest an increase of 116 students.

Housing developments and environmental factors could influence these numbers, but officials emphasized caution in overreacting to short-term changes.

“It’s never a one-to-one dynamic,” Christman said. “If 300 new housing units were built, we don’t say there will be 300 new students. We take a percentage of that and work that into the calculations.”

Three options

The study proposed three main options for the district to address its facilities:

Status quo: Continue maintaining current buildings while addressing rank one and two deficiencies. This option is estimated to cost $39.6 million as it adds 6,000 square feet to the district’s building footprint.

Grade realignment: Maintain all three schools but realign grades. Penn Kidder would house grades K-3, L.B. Morris would serve grades 4-8, and the high school would remain for grades 9-12. This option primarily addresses current deficiencies. The estimated cost is $36.5 million.

New construction: Close Penn Kidder, build a new K-3 school, and reconfigure L.B. Morris for grades 4-8. Estimated cost: $65.6 million, including $18.6 million in remaining deficiency costs.

Each option was evaluated based on potential savings in operational costs, the impact on educational quality, and the district’s capacity to address enrollment changes.

“The ideal situation,” Christman said, “is to be able to address your educational and demographic needs while also addressing building deficiencies.”

Presley emphasized that the goal is to “balance facility upgrades with financial responsibility, minimizing tax increases while maximizing value for students and taxpayers.”

Realignment concerns

Board members raised concerns about the proposed grade realignment and the potential closure of Penn Kidder Elementary.

“You’re definitely going to have push back with realignment,” director Mary Figura said. “Parents who are out on the mountain do not want to have their kids come into town and the same thing for parents who have young children, they don’t want to send them to Penn Kidder.”

Christman acknowledged the “emotional attachment” to existing buildings and the current configuration of which schools students attend.

“We are just going through the process right now,” he said. “We can always look at other options.”

Next steps

Christman and district officials said next steps include refining cost estimates and presenting a more detailed analysis of the proposed options at an upcoming meeting. In the meantime, Christman emphasized the importance of conducting due diligence.

“We have the responsibility to the taxpayers to say, ‘Does this make sense, or does something else make sense?’” he said.