Construction/Renovation Projects

Construction Header


Other view
Architectural rendering of Sloan Elementary design as of 12/17

The Franklin Regional School Board recognized that the original structures of the school district buildings were 50-90 years old. The Board concluded that the school district should have a facility plan that identified actions needed to position the school district to maintain our educational facilities for the next 15-20 years.

The school board members noted that most organizations have such long-term facility plans. In addition, the Board noted that the school district was experiencing substantial unexpected costs due to mechanical failures and structural issues with the seven existing facilities. These issues included significant failures including HVAC systems, sewage lines, roofs, piping systems, and structures. Some of these failures threatened to cause short and longer-term interruptions of the Franklin Regional educational programs.

On the building tours, board members also observed that the buildings were not only in poor mechanical, structural, and aesthetic condition but also that, in many instances, the design of the existing facilities limit the ability of the district to meet the district's plans for achieving academic, artistic, and athletic program improvements.

The Board of Directors wanted to have accurate data and information for its future decisions regarding Franklin Regional School District facilities and the development of world-class academic, arts, and athletic programming. They recognized that this situation called for a high quality, engineering-driven facilities conditions analysis/feasibility study to provide the school board with the facts to make informed decisions regarding the true condition of the mechanical, electrical, and HVAC systems of the buildings as well as the structural conditions (roofing, walls, floors, sanitary/storm sewer piping, etc.).

The Board defined the evaluation principles to be cost-effectiveness, supportive of the FR educational vision, transparency, public input throughout the evaluation process, and community usage/benefit. 2. How did the Board of Directors