There is not too much more information to share on the actual proposals outside of their updated costs. To see the entire slide show from the forum, click here. To see the video from the forum, please click here. The architect and project manager went over many of the same points that were presented in July with regards to the benefits and drawbacks of some of the plans. I won't rehash all that information here. Please take the time to review the slides from the forum above.
For a review of the July forum and my comments on it, please see this blog post.
Below are the alternatives and their related costs as presented on Wednesday night. Note that the July numbers were just construction numbers and did not include soft costs. The December numbers include all costs.
Alternative 1- $79.8 million in July/$103.2 million in December (29.3% increase). This option entails a complete repair of the existing building.
Alternative 1A- $97.3 million in July/$123.9 million in December (26.6% increase). This option is a complete repair of the existing building with a significant reinvention of building C.
Alternative 2-$118.7 million in July/$138.8 million in December (16.9% increase). This option would make a completely new front to the part of the building that faces the football stadium.
Alternative 2A-$156.3 million in December. This option was not evaluated in July. It would build a new wing to the high school that would attach to the Little Theatre.
Alternative 3- $131.7 million in July/$157.9 million in December (19.9% increase). This option would build a brand new high school on the upper parking lot.
There was not much talk about the proposal that I presented at Monday's school board meeting during the presentation. That was not surprising because of the timing of everything. There were at least a few comments from residents that referred to the plan.
Regarding the forum itself, I still feel like I need more information. I have serious concerns about "open" classrooms as discussed by the architects. This experiment has failed in the past to the point that some schools ended up simply putting up walls in practically brand new schools that were built with this "open classroom" approach in mind. The idea had a bit of a foothold and movement in the early 1970's but was largely removed from the educational vocabulary by the time the mid 1980's rolled around. Perhaps there are newer design variables in place today that did not exist five years ago that make this idea more workable. The resistance I have to this idea does not filter over to a Project-based approach to learning which I am in agreement with as long as it is written into our curriculum.
There was a great question asked by a resident about the District maintaining the B Building along Cochran Road. This resident noted the cost to keep that building appeared to be $25 million. I am looking through the information the Board received from the CM and Architect to verify this. Under many of the approaches, this building would be used as Administrative Office and Community office space. However, the details on the future uses of this building are lacking at the moment. If this building was to be used for something other than educational space then we have to wonder what sense it makes for the District to maintain/repair the building. This District is in the business of educating children, not renting office space.
As for what I think is going to happen next, I think there are three pretty clear paths. First, we can go do a renovation of the high school for $100 million and not go to referendum to do it. But does that do anything for us? We do have structural issues, not with the buildings themselves, but with how the classrooms are configured. Support columns make it difficult or even impossible to reconfigure classroom space in certain parts of the buildings. Second, we can go to referendum to try to do something more along the lines of alternative 3. The cost benefits just don't appear to be there to justify the expense of the alternatives that include BOTH renovation and new construction. Thirdly, we can come up with some solution that stops short of $110 million to avoid a referendum. This option would be something that has not yet been discussed or designed.
I still feel the same as I did in December when I posted the following:
There is a certain irony in this that I think is important to point out. There are many that have emailed the Board and said that the most important thing to keep in mind is that we need to hold our taxes in check so that we remain competitive with neighboring communities. There are also many that have emailed the Board and said the most important thing to keep in mind is that we need a new LEED certified school to maintain our reputation as a community that values education and that a tax increase to accomplish this is well worth the investment.
The reality of the situation is that the current economic environment seems to put these two groups of people on the same side.
The point is, there is a path that gets us to a new high school, I am simply very much of the opinion that that path does not include a referendum. Not only is the economy in a place where people are unwilling to take on more debt, but I believe that people do not want to be paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year in additional school real estate tax. While I have many times made the case that this district cannot afford a new school, I would not stand in the way of the Board asking to put the new school option to a vote via referendum. If the community votes for a new school, then build it. Those that do not think the additional tax is worth what a new school will bring will most likely leave if they are able. Those that look at a community and think the high school building itself is a reason to choose one community over another will most likely choose to live here.
That's all for now. I look forward to getting feedback next week at the next round community forums.
Thanks for reading.
